[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 14, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S186-S218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE; ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT; AND INTERIOR
AND ENVIRONMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026
Venezuela
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, we expect a vote on a resolution to
direct the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities in or against
Venezuela, even though--even though--the United States is not currently
engaged in hostilities in or against Venezuela. That is right. We have
no troops on the ground in Venezuela. We are not currently conducting
military operations there. But Democrats are taking up this bill
because their anti-Trump hysteria knows no bounds.
Here are the facts. Nicolas Maduro is a narcoterrorist who helped
lead the so-called Cartel of the Suns. He advanced large-scale drug
trafficking, armed an illegitimate militia, solicited arms for a
terrorist organization, presided over unfree and unfair elections,
targeted political opponents, and oversaw the killing of thousands, as
a U.N. report outlined, to name just a few--just some of--his crimes.
The United States did not recognize him as the legitimate leader of
Venezuela. Neither did the European Union. And he was a fugitive of the
U.S. justice system.
Back during the first Trump administration, Democrats were calling
for the ouster of Maduro and for U.S. assistance in Venezuela and were
criticizing the President for not going far enough in opposing the
Maduro regime. President Biden raised the reward for information
leading to the arrest or conviction of Maduro to $25 million. But then
President Trump directs an isolated Special Forces raid in support of a
valid warrant to capture Maduro so that he can be tried for drug
crimes, and Democrats are falling all over themselves to criticize the
seizure and arrest of this international criminal. Talk about Trump
derangement syndrome.
It is funny; I don't remember Democrats trying to tie the President's
hands when Democrat Presidents took far more extensive military action
that involved thousands of troops or airstrikes over weeks and months
in Libya, Bosnia, Serbia, and Haiti. Most recently, in 2024, they
locked arms and voted to turn a blind eye toward a monthslong
deployment of troops for President Biden's disastrous floating aid pier
to Gaza, even while Biden's own Defense Department called it an active
war zone and the pier was fired upon twice.
They said those troops were not engaged in hostilities and therefore
not subject to the War Powers Resolution, and yet today they are
claiming the opposite for a couple hundred troops who were in Venezuela
for a matter of mere hours and who have already returned to their bases
in the United States or on U.S. Navy ships in international waters. But
with President Trump, Democrats are incapable of deciding on the
merits. They reflexively oppose anything he does or says, even when it
contradicts or is in tension with their own prior opinions.
Whatever the outcome of this process, I trust that the Trump
administration will continue to work to combat the terrible scourge of
illegal drugs and to keep our Nation and our communities safe.
Senate Accomplishments
Mr. President, 2025 was a year of hard legislative work in the U.S.
Senate. We passed once-in-a-generation legislation, the Working
Families Tax Cut bill, which is currently putting more money in hard-
working Americans' pockets. But we didn't just make the headlines
legislatively. In addition to a packed legislative schedule, we
considered and confirmed 417 civilian Presidential nominations--more
than were confirmed in the first year of President Trump's first term
or President Biden's. And while 417 would be an impressive number all
on its own, it is particularly remarkable given the historic level of
obstruction the President's nominees faced. I said ``historic,'' and I
mean historic.
When you look at this term, President Trump remains the only
President on record--the only President on record--in American history
not to have had a single nominee confirmed by unanimous consent or
voice vote. Compare that to Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton, who each had 98 percent of their civilian nominees confirmed
by unanimous consent or voice vote in the first term of their
Presidencies--98 percent. George W. Bush and Barack Obama each had 90
percent. And while Democrats substantially eroded this tradition of
bipartisanship during President Trump's first term, both President
Trump in his first term and President Biden each had more than half of
their nominees confirmed by voice vote. So the Presiding Officer can
see what I mean by historic obstruction.
Democrats, of course, attempted to justify themselves by claiming, in
the words of the Democratic leader, that ``historically bad nominees
deserve a historic level of scrutiny.'' The only problem with that
argument, of course, is that a lot of these supposedly historically bad
nominees received Democrat votes. So either Democrats were supporting
historically bad nominees or this wasn't about historically bad
nominees at all, which, of course, it wasn't. The real reason Democrats
were dragging out nominations for Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Solid Waste and Director of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement was nothing more than petty politics--
because as we see with Venezuela and as we have seen with Presidential
nominations, Democrats are incapable of fairness or nuance when it
comes to President Trump. They can't deal with the fact that he was
elected President, and so they reflexively oppose anything he does or
says, even when it is something they might otherwise support.
The virulent partisanship Democrats have injected into our politics
is deeply regrettable, but Republicans, of course, have not let it stop
us from achieving things for the American people, whether that is
passing the Working Families Tax Cut bill or confirming 417
Presidential nominees in the face of historic Democrat obstruction. And
we are right back at it this year, confirming four nominees the first
week of 2026.
The American people elected President Trump, and Republicans remain
committed to ensuring that he has his team in place so that he can do
the work the American people elected him to do.
[[Page S187]]
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Federal Reserve Investigation
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, launching a criminal investigation to
coerce the Federal Reserve is a dangerous crossing of the Rubicon--even
for Donald Trump, who has crossed many Rubicons already, to his
detriment and to the country's detriment.
America's economic stability depends on impartial, stable monetary
policy. Our central bank must always operate free of coercion, free of
intimidation, and free from short-term political calculation. But what
Donald Trump is doing is the MAGA-fication of monetary policy--one of
the last places we should have any kind of MAGA influence.
Anyone with two eyes and half a brain can see what this probe is--a
brazen attempt to cannibalize the Fed's influence. It is monetary mob-
boss thuggery.
If you are an American worried about costs--housing costs, car loan
costs, any interest rate costs--what Donald Trump is doing should alarm
you. If you are worried about bringing your mortgage rate down if you
have a variable-rate mortgage, if you want to keep the mortgage down,
if you are a new home buyer and want a lower mortgage, Donald Trump's
assault on the Fed should alarm you because when there is chaos in the
Fed, interest rates go up.
The banks and financial institutions, when they say ``chaos,'' they
grab on tightly and say ``We better not lower anything. We better keep
things high because we are not exactly sure what is going to happen''
because when there is chaos in the Fed, there is chaos across the
economy, and rates go up.
That is what financial institutions do in times of uncertainty. They
rachet rates up to avoid a pitfall of some kind of downward decline
that chaos often brings. It becomes more expensive for people to
borrow. It makes it harder to own a home. It makes it harder to build
more homes. It raises car payments and credit card payments. It raises
the price of almost anything.
So if Donald Trump is serious about bringing costs down, about
fighting inflation, about showing the American people he cares about
them, the last thing he needs to be doing is launching criminal
investigations against members of the Federal Reserve Board. Congress
should not--cannot--be silent in the face of such naked political
attacks.
Now Republicans are whispering in the hallways to one another that
they are troubled about what the DOJ is doing against the Federal
Reserve, but actions speak louder than words. It is not enough for
Republicans to whisper their worry; Senate Republicans should act like
they are in the majority and use their oversight powers to bring the
DOJ to heel.
We must bring Department of Justice officials here to the Senate to
testify in committee under oath and answer for their reckless conduct.
We must hold the line against any Federal Reserve nominee from Donald
Trump so long as this dark cloud hangs over the Fed.
If Senate Republicans are truly worried about the Fed's independence,
if they are worried about what chaos at the Fed means for rising
housing costs, rising borrowing costs, rising inflation, then they
ought to conduct some oversight. Otherwise, their concerns are little
more than hot air.
Populism
Mr. President, now on Donald Trump's fake populism, yesterday, in
Michigan, Donald Trump once again tried to gaslight the American people
about the affordability crisis in another rambling speech meant to
prove he cares about the struggles of ordinary Americans. He mocked the
word ``affordability'' once again. He called it a fake.
Maybe to Donald Trump, affordability is a fake because he is a
billionaire. He doesn't have to go out and buy the groceries, by a car,
sign up for a healthcare proposal that doesn't meet your family's
needs. Donald Trump doesn't need to do those things; he doesn't have to
worry. But tell that to a teacher, to a truckdriver, to a bartender, to
a nurse, that affordability is fake. Tell it to anyone who actually has
to work for a living. Affordability isn't fake; it is a very real
nightmare. I am sure that last night, probably tens of millions of
families gathered to decide which bills they could afford to pay and
which bills they couldn't for necessities they need.
Like many Presidents before him, Donald Trump is falling into a
classic trap. When times are tough, he ignores reality and tries to
convince people that everything is actually going great. This has never
worked, and it is not going to work now.
A year ago, Donald Trump stormed into office on the promise to lower
costs, to fight for ordinary Americans, to unrig a rigged system. He
ran, in other words, as a populist who promised to drain the swamp and
end inflation.
But Donald Trump is not a populist; he is a posturer. He throws out
these populist ideas to try to persuade people he is on their side, but
he never does anything to get them done. He never lifts a finger or a
phone. And the American people see that he talks a good game but never
does anything to accomplish what he wants to do when it comes to
lowering their costs. And the situation of the American people only
gets worse.
To Donald Trump: Your posturing, your throwing out these ideas that
people like and then doing nothing to actually make them happen, ain't
gonna work, Donald Trump. Your posturing ain't gonna work when it comes
to costs, when it comes to populism. You have to solve the problem.
What is Donald Trump doing now? He is throwing spaghetti at the wall.
He throws a slew of half-baked proposals that are thin on substance--
throws those out--in a desperate attempt to show Americans he cares
about rising costs.
In the last week, he has talked about housing, credit cards, the
price of beef, trade, and done nothing on any of them, and costs keep
rising. The American people don't want a bunch of words that have
nothing of substance behind them. They don't want pandering. They don't
want posturing. They want Donald Trump to take action.
This is exactly Donald Trump's Achilles heel when it comes to costs
and so much else. He talks about a lot of things that may sound nice,
but he never follows through or delivers on any of his promises.
Whether it is costs or Epstein or ending forever wars, the pattern is
the same. Donald Trump talks about credit cards one day, food prices
the next, housing the day after, but never actually follows through on
getting his Republican colleagues to act.
So here is the reality for you, Donald Trump: It is not enough for
you, Donald Trump, to just talk about a bunch of ideas to lower costs.
You need to get your Republican colleagues to actually pass
legislation, much of which we Democrats have stood for, for a long
time.
Otherwise, what Trump is doing is not populism; it is simply
posturing.
Actions speak louder than words. If Donald Trump is serious about
costs, he needs to put in the work to get Republicans to pass
legislation that actually will lower costs for America.
Healthcare
Mr. President, finally, on ACA legislation, when it comes to lowering
costs, Americans don't want nice-sounding statements; they want action.
Today, the Senate has a chance to take action to lower the cost of
healthcare. In a few hours, I will come to the floor to seek unanimous
passage of legislation passed by the House last week to extend ACA
premium tax credits for 3 years.
Senate Democrats unanimously supported extending these credits last
year. Some Republicans even joined us. But Leader Thune led the way to
block this legislation, and it ensured that people's premiums are now
skyrocketing.
Well, we have another chance to deliver relief for the American
people, Republicans, by passing the same bill the House approved last
week with bipartisan support. Time is of the essence.
[[Page S188]]
The New York Times reported that nearly 1.5 million Americans already
have lost coverage. Americans are in the middle of a healthcare
emergency, all because the tax credits are not being extended.
The best, quickest, simplest thing Congress can do to lower premiums
is to pass a clean restoration of the credits that expired last year.
So to my Republican colleagues: Do not block this legislation. Do not
get in the way. The American people demand relief, and today, you have
a chance to deliver it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
The Economy
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, you know, Republicans have a simple
message for the American people, and that is, what we are doing here as
Republicans is putting more money in your pockets, creating more
opportunities for the American people, for American families, and
families all across America are feeling it today.
Americans are no longer seeing these sky-high increases in prices
like we experienced over the 4 years of the Biden administration--not
at all.
Five years ago, inflation began to soar because of the Democrats'
reckless tax-and-spending plan. As a result, we saw inflation hit 40-
year highs, and people suffered all across this country as a result.
Well, over the last year, Republicans--now with President Trump and a
Republican House and Republican Senate--have eliminated billions of
dollars of wasteful Washington spending, and we are seeing that the
pressure on prices is easing.
Families in more than 40 States are paying less than $3 a gallon for
gasoline. In the Presiding Officer's State of Oklahoma and in my home
State of Wyoming, it is at $2 for gasoline right now.
Lower gas prices, as the Presiding Officer knows, impact everything
that a family does. It impacts everything in the country: the cost of
groceries, the cost of commuting to work, or keeping going a ranch or
family business. Energy prices affect all of it.
And lower prices are happening because Republicans are successfully
changing the direction of the country. We promised to cut burdensome
Biden regulations--regulations that have been punishing, penalizing--
and we are getting it done. We promised to unleash American energy and
we have done it. We have delivered on our promises.
You know, under the Trump administration, permits to explore for
energy right here in America have gone way up. It has been successful.
The United States has never produced more energy than we are producing
today. Energy dominance is fueling our opportunity economy. It is
making a difference in families and in their lives.
America is standing by our manufacturers and helping them. And, look,
our Working Families Tax Cuts law and the incentives in that are making
a real difference for our economy. It is helping businesses build
things, building them right here at home in America.
It allows for full expensing for factory improvements, new machinery,
and farm equipment. We are seeing that in farms and ranches across
Wyoming.
I heard it at the Farm Bureau. I heard it from our stock growers. It
is encouraging businesses to innovate.
We have restored full and immediate expensing for research, for
development, done right here in America. And we have made those savings
permanent.
For businesses, that means it is more affordable to build at home in
America, not 5 years from now but today, not overseas but in places
like Wyoming.
And people are responding. These pro-growth policies are already
driving a surge of business investment. More investment means more
manufacturing at home and more American jobs--jobs that have been
shipped overseas by the Democrats in the past. More manufacturing leads
to high-paying jobs at home.
Construction sites are booming. You are seeing it there in the
construction sites. You are also seeing it in the assembly line. More
innovation, more production means prices go down.
And small businesses are the engine of Americans' prosperity. The
Working Families Tax Cuts law helps small businesses all across
America.
The law makes permanent the 20 percent small business tax deduction.
Every Democrat voted against that. Republicans are focused on helping
small businesses grow.
So American workers are the clear winners in what we have done with
the Working Families Tax Cuts law.
You know, what we put in that law--no tax on overtime--that means a
lot for the miners and the linemen in Wyoming. They are going to be
able to keep $1,400 more this year in their paychecks.
Now, the Democrat leader, Senator Schumer, was just on the floor, and
he talked about firefighters. Well, firefighters work a lot of
overtime. They need to stay on the job. They do that. No tax on
overtime now--that means more money in their pockets to take home.
Firefighters, the nurses in Wyoming--they are happy with what we have
done.
Chuck Schumer, who was just talking about it, voted against it. The
Democrats wanted to raise taxes by $4 trillion. How is that going to
help our country? It is not.
And then I heard Senator Schumer talk about bartenders. Well, we say
no tax on tips. Bartenders get tips as part of their pay, so do
waiters, waitresses. Lots of people work with tips. No tax on tips--
every Democrat voted against that. That was taking money--they would
rather just take that money for themselves. They like the tips. They
want it to go to the tax so they can spend more. We said: no tax on
tips.
Look, this is money that our workers in America have earned. They
ought to be able to benefit from it. It is not going to be wasted away
anymore by these unaccountable, unelected, heavyhanded bureaucrats who
think they know better than the American people. And it is certainly
not going to continue to be stolen like it has been by these fraudsters
in Minnesota, while the Democrats look the other way.
In all, American workers are going to see higher take-home pay, more
money in their pockets, thanks to what we passed with the Working
Families Tax Cuts law.
Republicans are creating an economy that works for working Americans.
We are creating a prosperous America, an America where citizens are
free to use their money. If they want to save it, if they want to spend
it, if they want to invest it, they get to decide.
They want to use it to build a small business, good. They want it to
control their family's future, perfect.
It is no wonder that the University of Michigan found that consumer
sentiment continues to go up. That confidence rose the most among blue-
collar workers--the workers who were hit the hardest by the Democrats'
unaffordable economy.
Republicans were successful in stopping the Democrats' $4 trillion
tax increase. We eliminated burdensome regulations. We unleashed
American energy. We are getting America back on track. So that is why,
today, Americans are seeing more money in their pockets. They are going
to see bigger tax refunds. They are going to see more opportunities in
their future.
That is what Americans voted for last November, and that is what
Republicans have delivered. And this economic progress is just the
start of the prosperity to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from Wyoming
mentioned many things about the Republican tax bill, but he failed to
mention the most important part of it: It ended up giving tax breaks to
the wealthiest people in America. It ended up cutting $1 trillion from
the Medicaid Program. Wait until that cut works its way through the
economy to your local hospital and clinic, and watch what happens.
They have already warned us: Unless something is done, there is going
to be a lot of closures and a lot of reductions of services in these
hospitals in rural areas, in small towns, and the inner city. That is a
fact.
If you want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people and you don't
care about the impact on the regular families of America, that is
exactly what happened with the Republican tax bill, and that is the
reason why Democrats
[[Page S189]]
did not support it. We believe that tax cuts should be geared toward
working families who are struggling with affordability.
President Trump gave a speech yesterday in Michigan and choked on the
word ``affordability.'' He hates it. It is a Democratic word. It is a
hoax. It is a fake.
It is reality. It is reality.
I don't know how often the President of the United States--and I am
sure he never has a chance--gets to go shopping at the local grocery
store. I do so almost every weekend I am home. I see what has happened
to prices. My wife reminds me; other families remind me. The cost of
living has gone up, and you give tax breaks here and there and the
other place and primarily to wealthy people. It is not going to provide
the kind of relief that working families desperately need. That is one
of the issues that will be decided by the voters in the next election.
Immigration
Mr. President, the year was 1939, and there was a ship that sailed
from Germany destined for Cuba. It was bringing Jewish refugees from
Europe, which was falling into Nazi control, to a free place to live in
Cuba.
Unfortunately, as that ship, the St. Louis, approached Havana, Cuba,
it was turned away. They wouldn't allow those Jewish passengers to find
freedom in Cuba at the time. They then appealed to the United States,
to President Roosevelt and his administration, and they too turned them
away. The ship got so close, according to press reports, that they
could actually hear the bands playing in the nightclubs in Miami. But
they couldn't land the ship.
And so they took the St. Louis back to Europe with a thousand Jewish
refugees. Many of them became victims of the Holocaust. It was a bitter
lesson learned, particularly in time of war and strife, that there is a
need for countries, where there is peaceful situation, to step up and
do their part to try to help refugees, those seeking asylum.
After World War II, the United States decided that the St. Louis was
a valuable lesson. We started leading the nations of the world in
accepting refugees. It was an act of mercy, a humanitarian response to
the reality that these people were facing. And we were proudly leading
that effort for decades, until very recently.
Under this President, the whole situation and policy have changed.
This administration, unfortunately, is highlighting a policy that turns
away refugees. The Trump administration has diverted resources from law
enforcement and national security efforts to focus on arresting
immigrants who pose no threat to public safety. We have seen it in
Chicago. We have seen it in Minneapolis and in other cities. This
administration is targeting legal immigrants who followed every rule
and regulation.
Over the past few months, the Trump administration has issued a
flurry of new policies effectively ending lawful--lawful--immigration
for individuals from 39 countries. It harkens back to the bitter
experience of the St. Louis.
In November last year, President Trump used the tragic shooting of
two National Guard members to justify a freeze on all new visas of
Afghan nationals. Many of these visa applicants fought against the
Taliban, alongside American forces, and now must flee Afghanistan to
avoid punishment or death for the crime of working for us. President
Trump has abandoned them--so much for loyalty.
These men and women in Afghanistan decided they would risk their
lives to stand by our soldiers during that conflict. They survived, and
now they are asking us to protect them from the Taliban's excesses. The
President has decided: No, thanks.
He slammed the door on Afghan nationals who risked their lives to
save the lives of American soldiers, and he didn't stop there. In
addition to suspending these applications for Afghan nationals, the
Trump administration paused all asylum refugee decisions.
The Trump administration has extended broad immigration bans to
anyone from 39 different countries, including individuals from those
countries who are already in the United States. Going through an asylee
claim, a refugee claim, playing by the book, takes months and sometimes
years in refugee camps. People go through extensive background checks
before they are even considered to come to the United States.
In this situation, those who have successfully made that journey are
once again in jeopardy with the new Trump policy.
The administration is reviewing again all legal immigration cases
already approved for individuals from the banned nations. To be clear,
this expansion is not limited to nationals of countries on the list. It
also includes anyone who has been born in any one of those countries,
even if they lived the majority of their life somewhere else.
My office has received reports that Canadians--Canadians--born in
Iran have been impacted by this new Trump ban. There have even been
reports of the ban to stop parents who have completed every step of the
adoption process from bringing their new babies to the United States.
The administration has claimed this is about vetting immigrants to
protect public safety. But tell me: Does it make sense to deny entry
for a baby for vetting reasons?
What the President has done to bring down the hammer on those who are
legally immigrating from what he calls ``s-hole countries''--remember
that phrase, when the President, in his first term, referred to those
from Africa and Haiti in profane and racist terms in the Oval Office?
At the time, the White House denied having said that. But I was there,
physically present, when the President made those statements, not once
but twice. I was in that meeting, and I confirm that he used those
vulgar terms referring to people from other countries.
Two Republican Senators publicly accused me of lying. Well, in a
rally in Pennsylvania, last month, President Trump bragged that he had
indeed used that slur that I referred to earlier.
And at a Cabinet meeting, last month, he publicly called Somali
immigrants ``garbage.'' The President of the United States referred to
people from Somalia as ``garbage.''
Just yesterday, the administration announced the termination of
Somalis' designation for temporary protected status. TPS allows
immigrants from a country that is unsafe to temporarily remain in the
United States.
Does the President really think Somalia is a safe or stable place for
these individuals to return? I think not. He just doesn't care.
These racist comments and policies have confirmed what we have known
all along. The President has deep-seated animus for immigrants who are
not White. Throughout this past year, he has harnessed tragedies to
justify his anti-immigrant crusade, first with the National Guard
shootings and now with many of his fraud allegations we heard here on
the floor of the Senate day after day.
Last Friday, in the midst of Federal immigration agents' assault on
Minneapolis, Department of Homeland Security began arresting recently
arrived refugees in Minnesota. These refugees have already gone through
intense vetting, sometimes for years, before they have been allowed to
come to the United States. They followed our laws, came here in the
``right way.'' Now their lives will be turned upside down again to
serve the President's political agenda.
The fraud in Minnesota is serious and warrants continued
investigation, but punishing thousands of refugees because of crimes
they had nothing to do with is just plain wrong and inhumane.
The Trump administration has tried to politicize this fraud
investigation, but the first prosecutions for this fraud began in 2022
during the previous Biden administration.
The administration says their immigration policies are intended to
protect America. I am calling their bluff. What they have done instead
is to effectively halt legal immigration for a long list of countries,
all of which have majority non-White populations. This was their real
intention all along.
Already, the lives of people in our immigration system, particularly
people of color, have been unfairly upended. Immigrants are seeing
their long-scheduled green card interview canceled. Naturalization
candidates have been pulled from their scheduled citizenship
ceremonies.
I know this to be true because it happened to my constituents who
reached out to our office. They are rightfully upset that the
administration has
[[Page S190]]
stopped them, these individuals, after already approving them for
citizenship. They can't take the oath of allegiance to our country, and
they don't know where this process is going to end.
My mother was a naturalized citizen to the United States. I keep her
certificate framed in my office in the U.S. Capitol. Those who are
willing to take the oath of allegiance to our country become some of
our most loyal citizens. My mom was one of them. We cannot abandon
them.
We must not allow America to turn its back on immigrants who followed
every rule and make America stronger. It would be an affront to the
Constitution and a retreat from our values and heritage as a nation of
immigrants.
This is an awful situation where helpless people are being exploited
for political reasons. It is time for both political parties to step
aside from the campaign for a moment and speak to the values that make
America a better country than most. I am proud to be part of this
country, but we are a nation of immigrants and should never forget it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Michigan.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 6019
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I am once again asking my colleagues to do
the right thing and to unanimously agree to repeal a provision that was
included in the government funding legislation in November.
You will recall that the funding bill included a provision that many
Senators were simply not made aware of. It came in at the last minute.
It set up a special payday of $500,000, paid for by the taxpayers, for
a select--a select--group of eight Senators. That policy is simply
wrong. It goes against everything that we are supposed to be doing as
elected representatives to make life better for the people who live in
our States and in the country.
We have all heard a lot of excuses trying to justify why a handful of
Senators deserves a big financial windfall. Let me remind you why they
are wrong.
This all began when President Trump and his political allies cooked
up a scheme to try to overturn the result of the 2020 Presidential
election, all so he could stay in power. You will remember that he lost
the election, but instead of respecting our Nation's nearly 250-year
history of peaceful transfers of power, President Trump and his allies
launched a pressure campaign to try to install slates of fake electors
to overturn the election results in several key States.
While Senators were here in this Chamber pushing back on those false
efforts, President Trump instigated a riot, urged his supporters to
come here and try to stop Congress from carrying out our sworn
democratic responsibilities.
We just observed the fifth anniversary of that attack last week,
where so many Members came to the floor--I was here--and shared their
memories of the horror and violence of that day.
Those actions, led by President Trump and his allies, were criminal--
simply criminal. Those crimes were exactly what the Department of
Justice was investigating when subpoenas were issued for certain phone
call logs. These logs weren't being targeted for political reasons;
they were part of a legitimate and serious investigation into criminal
activity. The Justice Department followed standard legal practice in
seeking those phone logs. This should be just common sense.
But, unfortunately, there are those who believe a select group of
Senators have the right to profit from being caught up in a legitimate
criminal investigation, and they are OK with American taxpayers footing
the bill.
They have claimed that this provision was never meant to enrich
Senators, but the reality is, there is nothing in the law to prevent
that from actually happening.
They have claimed that the special counsel and the judge overseeing
this matter acted in bad faith, but in reality, there was no
departure--absolutely no departure--from established Department of
Justice and judicial practice.
I am not opposed to debating the merits of this matter and
determining whether there needs to be forward-looking changes. In fact,
I would support some of those forward-looking changes. But that is not
what is happening right here. Instead, without any thoughtful
consideration, this body approved a provision to retroactively rewrite
the law and set up the opportunity for special financial payments to a
select group of Senators.
When our House colleagues learned of this, they were as surprised as
most all of us that were here in this Chamber. Our House colleagues did
the right thing. They quickly and unanimously--that is right, the House
unanimously--that doesn't happen a lot--the House unanimously, 426 to
0, passed a bipartisan bill to repeal this provision because they knew
it was wrong.
We should be here working to lower costs for our constituents and not
using taxpayer dollars irresponsibly. I hope my colleagues will join me
in righting this wrong today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 6019, which was received from the House
and is at the desk. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, as a matter of fact, I
have been here a while. I can't think of a time that I felt the need to
object.
You are entitled to your opinion of me.
How do you get in this group of eight people? Jack Smith went after
my phone records. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We
found out later that this politically motivated hit job against
President Trump by Jack Smith got eight of us, and there are probably
more.
What did I do to deserve this, Senator? I will just tell you. I don't
know where you were at January 6. I was here. I was probably the
leading voice on this side of the aisle to say the election is over;
Biden won; Trump lost. But you keep talking about Trump because--if
there is a case of Trump derangement syndrome, I think it has spread
throughout the building.
I didn't riot. I didn't give cover to the idea that the election was
stolen--quite the opposite. What was my big offense? Being a friend of
Trump's.
What are you trying to do here? Do the right thing? The right thing
is to continue to investigate Jack Smith for turning the law upside
down, for creating a precedent that should scare every Senator in this
body.
The law is pretty clear--there is a statute on point--that the
Senate, even with a nondisclosure order, is supposed to notify the
Members when somebody wants our phone records. We are a separate branch
of the government.
You don't seem to be upset at all because they are coming after Trump
and a friend of Trump's.
Now, when we do something, you know, we are out to destroy Trump. And
anytime we look at what you all did, you know, we are, I guess, a bunch
of crooks.
Now let's talk about me and enrichment. The Democratic majority
leader, Senator Schumer, signed off on this. I want the world to know--
and the world is paying no attention because it is blowing up right
now--that this provision was coordinated between Senators Thune and
Schumer because a lot of people worried that if they can do it to
Republicans, maybe they can do it to Democrats.
So the idea that eight of us cooked something up is ridiculous. We
talked to your Democratic leadership. The fact that they didn't talk to
you is your problem with them.
What happened? We sent to the Ethics Committee what we are doing, and
they didn't send anything back. Now they have.
So the bottom line is, Mr. President, this provision was a result of
``We are not going to take it anymore.'' The law was flagrantly
violated, I believe, but he has already made a decision--Senator Peters
has--that Jack Smith was lawfully in the right here. Have a hearing. He
has already decided that Jack Smith was right--right--to find my phone
records. Based on what? Being a friend of Trump's?
I will take this to the court. If your goal is to intimidate me, boy,
you don't know anything about me. If your goal is to try to cover up a
valid inquiry and stop Jack Smith from being
[[Page S191]]
looked at, it ain't happening. I am more determined than ever to find
out how Arctic Frost got so off the rails.
Within 3 days of Trump's announcing ``I am going to run again,'' the
process started, and within 6 months, he had 91 felony charges in
Manhattan; in Atlanta, GA; in Washington, DC; and in Florida. I had to
spend $1.2 million to go down to Georgia for the Fani Willis debacle.
So this will be looked at.
Was there a coordinated effort between Jack Smith--the special
counsel--and the most liberal jurisdictions in the country to knock
Trump out of the race by throwing everything you could at him, whether
it made sense or not, and his friends? See, I don't know, but we are
going to find this out, Senator Peters. We are moving forward.
You have made up your mind. If it were up to you, we would not be
looking at Jack Smith. You made a mistake there by defending somebody
when you had no idea, actually, what he did.
I think I pretty well know where you are coming from, so I object. I
object because we did it in coordination with the Democrats. I object
because we let the Ethics Committee know.
The House? The House did it quickly. There are provisions in this
bill from the House that his amendment would strip out--the
notification requirement. Every Member should want to be notified if
anybody in the government, in the executive branch, is looking at your
phone records. This provision would strip that out. A private cause of
action would strip it out.
I live in America. We all live in America. If you cannot hold your
government accountable for violating your rights or potentially
violating your rights, you have a very dangerous government. I am no
better than anybody else, but I am certainly--hell--no worse than
anybody else. So I want to know why the government made a subpoena
request that if you tell me about what is going on here, that I am
likely to taint the witnesses and act irresponsibly. What have I ever
done as a Senator to make you think that is me? There was no factual
foundation that I would do anything illegal if you told me. I did
nothing illegal except to be Trump's friend, apparently. I inquired as
to whether or not I should vote to certify the election on January 6,
and I did. I did not know this had happened, but if it can happen to
me, then, to my colleagues over there, it can happen to you.
So this unanimous consent request would strip the notification out,
and it would strip the private cause of action out. I think that is the
wrong signal to send to a government out of control. With the private
cause of action, the $500,000 is to try to deter people from doing this
again. The bottom line is the private cause of action needs to stay if
anybody else in the future gets hurt like this or a private citizen.
There are a bunch of groups out there--all conservative--that have
had their phone records looked at, too, but we are not going to give
up. No matter what Senator Peters says, we are going to look at it.
There is Turning Point USA. There are a lot of shenanigans going on out
there with Jack Smith, and we are going to look at it, whether you want
us to or not. So I hope they can sue.
As to me, I am a Senator. If this provision--the private cause of
action--is seen out of line with what the Senate rules now, I will
gladly fix that. But you are off base if you think I am doing this for
$1 million. I am going to sue for much more than that, not just to try
to make my life whole but to make people pay for trying to--you know,
forget my phone records, for God's sake. That will be in court. I will
have to prove that. I will make sure--and I will have that in just a
minute. There is a provision to change the law so that there is no
doubt that I and the eight others won't get a benefit from the
$500,000. It won't be personal. But we do want to proceed with our
case, and I want other people to proceed with their cases. If we do
this right now, Turning Point USA and a bunch of other groups will not
have a private cause of action. I want to preserve that private cause
of action for a lot of other people who are not Senators.
As to me, I don't know. You are implying that I did something to
benefit me in the dark of night. You know, I will remember that, but
life goes on. So I object. I object to what you are doing. I object to
the fact that you think Jack Smith was legal when you have no idea what
he did.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous
consent request be modified to include the adoption of my substitute
amendment, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
say that I greatly appreciate Senator Graham's proposal that he has put
forward just now. We received this last night, but I think it is
against the most critical issue here, which is the retroactive
rewarding or awarding of $500,000 per violation of damages to a handful
of Senators. I very much appreciate Senator Graham for doing that, but
I don't believe that it gets to the full bipartisan-bicameral solution
that we need.
Senator Graham, I am sympathetic to the arguments you have made here.
I can rebut some of them, but I don't want to get into that debate
right now--back and forth--to do it. But I understand where you are
coming from on a lot of those issues.
I think there are other concerns in this statute that were enacted in
November that need to be addressed, including some potential for abuse
for the target of a criminal investigation provision that is in the
statute that remains retroactive. That could create a lot of problems
for Senators here on the floor, to Senator Graham's point. Certainly,
dealing with the damages provision, as my colleague proposes in this
proposal that he put forward just now, is a significant part of the
solution, but it is not the whole solution.
Senator Graham, I just hope that this can be a very positive starting
point. Thank you for making this offer here today. I would ask if we
could get together and try to find some common ground here to make sure
that some of the concerns that you have are addressed because I think
those are reasonable. As to the part that you are pulling out, which I
think is unreasonable, I appreciate that you now agree that that, too,
is unreasonable. But let's have an honest, frank discussion about the
rest because, certainly, the points you have raised are ones that I
want to have the opportunity to talk about. I understand where you are
coming from, and I think we can find a solution that will work for this
body and for the American people.
With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Senators are reminded to address each other through the Chair.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. OK. Sorry about that.
So, Mr. President, the objection is heard.
Here is what the Ethics Committee said about my proposal, about my
modification: that the amendment cures the Senate 37.4 issue previously
identified in a letter sent to you.
So I asked the Ethics Committee: Will this amendment cure any
concerns that people have about this provision regarding me or any
other Senator? It does.
So, if that is what you want to do, I think we have fixed it.
However, with all due respect to my colleague, I am never going to
agree to drop the notification requirement. I have had a ton of House
Members say: Please, don't do that. All of us here should want to be
notified if someone in the executive branch is looking at our phone
records. That would be terrible.
The private cause of action goes away. I am never going to agree to
drop that. Why? There are a bunch of people caught up in Jack Smith who
are not Senators, who may have a cause of action, and they deserve
their day in court. As to my cause of action under the statute, I am
going to pursue it but in a way that is compliant with Senate rules.
I just want to put everybody on notice: The statute is just one
avenue to finding out what happened. There will be others. I will go to
the phone company. I will sue Jack Smith's and Biden's DOJ--that is
where I am headed--but I will do it in a fashion that is consistent
with the rules of the Senate.
[[Page S192]]
But I am not going to drop the private right of action because there
are a bunch of people out there other than me.
As to the notification requirement, given the environment in which we
are all living, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I think we
need to be notified if the executive branch is maybe doing something it
shouldn't do.
So I look forward to working with you, and I appreciate ending this
thing the way we have ended it. I will be pursuing my legal rights
consistent with the ethics of the Senate, and maybe we could work
something out. But, Senator Peters, we live in pretty dangerous times
now, and I can see it going bad on our side or on your side. We need to
protect these institutions the best we can from things that may come
our way. It is me today, but it could be you all tomorrow. And I love
the institution. People want to change the rules, you know, to make it
like the House. I don't.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, just in response to Senator Graham, I
appreciate the offer.
As for the notification requirement that you bring up, I believe in
that. I think it is absolutely critical that we have that for the
reasons that you cite. There are some problems in the provision in that
we think there are some glaring exceptions to that that would allow
folks to say: No, we are not going to notify you. That is unacceptable.
We should make sure that that notification requirement applies without
the abuse of the administration, regardless of who is there, on what
side, because you are right.
Ultimately, our job is to protect this institution as a coequal
branch of government, and you and I share that sincere belief. I think
these are just some technical aspects we could work out, and I look
forward to that opportunity.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do, too, and we will start it here soon.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 6938
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I have the opportunity to rise here
on the Senate floor and speak in support of the appropriations package
that is currently before the U.S. Senate, which happens to include
funding for Commerce, Justice, Science.
I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science, and I am pleased that this legislation provides significant
and important resources to support our Nation's Federal, State, and
local law enforcement in their shared mission to keep America safe.
The package that we will debate and discuss and vote on this week
makes targeted investments in the Federal Agencies and Departments that
conduct critical scientific research, bolster economic growth, promote
U.S. energy independence, and strengthen our Nation's national
security. These priorities are achieved while also making thoughtful
reductions in spending to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being wisely
spent.
Many rural and local law enforcement agencies continue to face
resource and equipment gaps that limit their ability to respond
effectively and keep their communities safe, and the fiscal year 2026
CJS appropriations bill addresses these needs by investing in crime-
fighting technology and equipment for sheriff's offices and police
departments in Kansas and across the country. The legislation also
equips the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI with resources necessary
to dismantle drug trafficking networks that have gained, unfortunately,
a stronghold and a foothold in the United States and to combat the
fentanyl crisis that continues to claim way too many American lives.
This bill contains funding for the national security and
counterintelligence missions that counter foreign threats and protect
U.S. interests. By investing in the Office of the United States Trade
Representative, this bill strengthens its capacity to enforce trade
agreements and expand markets so that American producers like my
farmers back home in Kansas and manufacturers in my State can compete
and sell their goods around the world.
Finally, this bill invests in our Nation's science Agencies--NASA,
NOAA, and the National Science Foundation--to advance U.S. leadership
in scientific discovery and space exploration. At NASA, it bolsters
American leadership in human spaceflight, space science, and
aeronautics at a very critical moment. This week, in fact, NASA is
rolling out Artemis II, the next consequential step toward sending
astronauts around the Moon for the first time in more than 50 years.
That mission and future missions depend upon a strong U.S. aerospace
industrial base made up of engineers, machinists, suppliers, and
researchers. This bill makes certain that America remains on course to
lead in space and does not cede ground to our competitors.
Through NSF, the bill prioritizes critical research and advanced
manufacturing that bolster private sector innovation, strengthen
university-industry partnerships, and train the next generation of
scientists and engineers right here at home--investments that are
essential to our long-term economic growth, to our national
competitiveness, and to our national security.
At NOAA, this legislation bolsters critical weather monitoring
services, increases resources for lifesaving functions of the National
Weather Service, and makes certain that the National Weather Service
offices are staffed 24/7 to provide reliable forecasts to help keep
America safe.
As a senior appropriator, I have long advocated for Congress to
return to regular order in the appropriations process: debating,
amending, and passing 12 separate appropriations bills that fund the
Federal Government. I continue to be an advocate for that. This package
reflects that work, and I commend Chairwoman Collins, Vice Chairman
Murray, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their
efforts. I also thank my colleagues in the Senate more broadly who have
been so willing to allow us to proceed to get to this point today.
I want to thank the CJS Subcommittee staff for their hard work,
dedication, and long hours. A lot of work has gone on throughout the
year but with especially challenging time constraints within the last
few weeks. This package would not be possible without those staff
members.
I thank my staff: Kevin Wheeler, Brian Daner, and Rachel Taylor. I
also thank as well the minority staff: Jessica Berry, Blaise Sheridan,
Lindsay Erickson, and T.J. Lowdermilk.
This legislation that is Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations
Subcommittee work product strikes a careful balance, funding critical
resources while also protecting limited taxpayer dollars. The spending
that we always worry about being too much is addressed in this
legislation to make sure that we are on a different path than continued
borrowing and spending.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this package to provide
these Agencies with the resources they need to keep our Nation safe,
promote U.S. leadership, and make certain that America remains a leader
in space.
This bill funds the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Justice, and a number of science Agencies, such as NASA and NSF. It is
important to the country that this bill occur. It is also important to
the country that we avoid a shutdown at the end of the month, and the
bills that we pass this week go a long way in making that shutdown much
less likely.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak to you and
my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Afghan Parole Program
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we all remember the tragic murder of SPC
Sarah Beckstrom on the eve of Thanksgiving. She was, as we all will
recall,
[[Page S193]]
one of the National Guard servicemembers working here in the District
of Columbia. We are continuing to pray for the recovery of Staff Sgt.
Andrew Wolfe, who was injured in the shooting. But, of course,
Specialist Beckstrom lost her life.
The news cycle moves very quickly, and it seems like while something
happens today, tomorrow, it is something new. But it is important that
we not allow the mistakes that were made by the Biden administration
when it came to vetting Afghan nationals to be forgotten. We cannot
ignore the reality that Sarah Beckstrom was another victim--an
unnecessary victim--of President Biden's careless immigration policies.
The man who committed this heinous act was an Afghan national whom
President Biden allowed to enter the country after our disastrous
withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it is too late to bring
Sarah's life back, but her death should not be meaningless, relegated
to headlines with no action. It is not too late to look back on the
flawed decisions that allowed her killer to enter the United States in
order to correct these mistakes and to prevent future harm.
Furthermore, this crime at the hands of an Afghan national parolee
was not a one-off occurrence. The following week, another parolee--and
I will define that further, but this is not pursuant to any law
actually passed by Congress, like the Special Immigrant Visa Program.
This was done outside of that program, with even fewer protections and
less vetting.
But the following week after Thanksgiving, another parolee nearly
committed a terrorist attack in Fort Worth, TX. Thanks to the Federal
and local law enforcement, they were able to apprehend him and prevent
him from carrying out that attack.
I am grateful to the Department of Justice, including the FBI, and
our State and local law enforcement officials who prevented this attack
from happening. But the fact that the perpetrator is here in the United
States in the first place underscores yet again the failure to vet the
individuals who came into this country via the Biden administration's
parole.
The repeated incidents--and there are many more--committed or
attempted by Afghan nationals demonstrate that something has gone
terribly wrong with the way government has been vetting or failing to
vet aliens who have entered the country, and I believe that these
questions deserve answers.
For that reason, I am chairing a Judiciary Committee subcommittee
this afternoon, alongside our colleague Senator Hawley from Missouri,
entitled ``Biden's Afghan Parole Program--A Trojan Horse with Flawed
Vetting and Deadly Consequences.''
At this hearing, we will carefully examine the policies implemented
or those failed to be implemented by the Biden administration that led
to these tragic events, particularly the flaws in President Biden's
mass immigration and parole programs that were not just limited to
Afghan nationals. As I have said, ``parole'' is a unique term under
immigration law. But it is worth revisiting exactly how this happened,
because, again, this happened not because of any program passed by the
Congress but unilaterally by President Biden.
Under U.S. immigration law, ``parole'' in laymen's terms is kind of
like an E-ZPass, like speeding through a toll booth. U.S. immigration
service defines ``parole'' as ``the discretionary decision that allows
inadmissible aliens . . . [who] are not admitted to the United States .
. . to be physically present in the United States.'' It is sort of like
a permission slip.
Parole is an authority that allows the Department of Homeland
Security Secretary to waive people into the country who otherwise would
not be allowed in.
Under Operation Allies Welcome, President Biden extended this
immigration E-ZPass to hundreds of thousands of aliens who weren't
eligible to come to the United States. This discretionary authority was
only supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis. It is an authority
that President Biden repeatedly abused not only in this program but at
the southern border as well to admit hundreds of thousands, even
millions of individuals into the country during the Biden years and
their open border policies.
But even though this authority is supposed to be used only on a case-
by-case basis, the Biden administration turned this exception into the
rule. Now we also know that when it came to the Afghan parole program,
Operation Allies Welcome, the Biden administration allowed in many
aliens who had not been fully vetted, including the man who drove
across the country to murder this young National Guardsman and the man
who threatened to carry out the suicide bombing in Fort Worth, TX, who
were not eligible to enter the United States but for this discretionary
E-ZPass issued by the Biden administration without adequate protections
for the American people.
As we will learn at the hearing, in most, if not all, cases, the
Biden administration did not know exactly who these people were. Many
of them could not say when they were born or even their own last name.
I think we sort of fail to recognize that the population we are
dealing with, the individuals in Afghanistan--many of them are
functionally illiterate. And, of course, many of them are coming from
this country that was war-torn and literally run by the Taliban, which
is an international terrorist organization. Consequently, many of these
aliens have likely committed acts of terror or have ties to terror
groups.
In some cases, the U.S. Government was asking the Taliban to verify
information on these individuals. Now, that strikes me as rather
bizarre. The Taliban, a terrorist organization that would kill many of
the Afghans who cooperated with the U.S. military--we are actually
asking them to verify the identity and eligibility of these individuals
to enter the United States. In any event, the Taliban is hardly a
reliable source of information.
The lack of information on these parolees also raises the possibility
of a preliminary background check coming back clean because there
simply wasn't enough information available to determine whether this
person was safe or not.
Essentially, the policy of the Biden administration was--the default
was, come on into the country, in the absence of derogatory
information. But the fact of the matter is, in war-torn Afghanistan,
now run by a terrorist organization, where you have literally
functionally illiterate individuals, the absence of derogatory
information is not any proof that these individuals could safely be
allowed into the United States. So the default was, let them in, even
in the absence of any information whatsoever.
At today's hearing, we will learn more about this and other problems
with the Biden administration's mass parole of Afghan nationals into
the United States.
Once again, let me just reiterate that tens of thousands, hundreds of
thousands, even millions of individuals were admitted into the United
States due to President Biden's open border policies, using this same
claimed discretionary authority, which should be used only on a case-
by-case basis. But the Biden administration opened its arms and allowed
hundreds of thousands of individuals--indeed, more likely, a million or
more individuals--to come in on the parole program.
So the Afghan parole program was simply a subset of the larger policy
of the Biden administration to welcome foreign nationals with open arms
into our country without our knowing enough about them to know whether
they would be a threat to public safety.
We will hear from two panels of experts who will help shine a light
on the missteps of the Biden administration. Our first panel will
include Mr. Craig Adelman, deputy inspector general at the Department
of Homeland Security; Michael Roark, deputy inspector general with the
Department of Defense, and Mr. Arne Baker from the Office of Inspector
General at the Department of State. We have a second panel where we
will hear from researchers and policy experts who will speak to the
nuances of the vetting--or the lack of vetting--that the Afghan
parolees underwent.
While it is important to treat our friends and allies with proper
consideration, assuming that they are not a threat to the American
people, if we want the cooperation of other foreign nationals in the
future in some of our
[[Page S194]]
conflicts, the bottom line is the nonnegotiable demand has to be the
American people being able to sleep safe at night knowing they are safe
from criminal aliens and terrorist sympathizers. That is the
nonnegotiable bottom line.
They deserve to know--we all deserve to know what actions the Biden
administration took or did not take that risked their safety. At this
afternoon's hearing, we will give the American people the answers or at
least begin to give them the answers that they and we deserve.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Horace ``Jim'' Sharp
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I rise to honor the passing of a
101-year-old Kansan, World War II veteran, and American hero, Horace
``Jim'' Sharp.
Mr. Sharp was born in Morris County, KS, and he spent his early years
tending to the family farm--not an unusual thing in Kansas, certainly
not in his generation.
At age 19, Jim surrendered his farm deferment, courageously
volunteering to serve his nation in the U.S. Army during World War II.
Through his service, Jim fought in the Battle of the Bulge as part of
Company B, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. It was during
that battle that Jim earned three Battle Stars and a Bronze Star.
Although injured by shrapnel during battle, Jim never received
treatment, thus never receiving the Purple Heart.
Following Jim's combat service, he served as a guard during the
Nuremberg trials.
Shortly after returning home to Kansas following the war's end, Jim
would marry his wife Marilyn, with whom he would raise their three
children and enjoy 69 years of marriage.
Following the passage of the GI Bill, Jim attended Kansas State
University, where he graduated with a bachelor's degree in business
administration. Jim then applied his degree by building a career in
data processing, eventually retiring as the information systems manager
for the Kansas Farm Bureau while also teaching information systems
classes at Kansas State University and at Fort Riley.
Jim's life of service continued well after his time in the military.
His dedication to his faith and his community showed itself in so many
ways. Jim was an active member at his local Methodist church. His
accolades also include being a founding member and the first president
of the Northeast Kansas Battle of the Bulge Organization where he
raised funds to support the preservation of the Manhattan, KS, Peace
Memorial Auditorium and the K-State World War II Memorial.
Jim's World War II service is also featured at Fort Riley's 1st
Infantry Division Museum, honoring his story and his service in the
Nuremberg exhibit there.
Jim was an active member of the Kiwanis, his local VFW and American
Legion, and many other local organizations focused on improving his
community and aiding those in need.
Living to be 101 is remarkable in and of itself, but Jim used that
long life that he was given to accomplish so much more. His life of
courage, sacrifice, and compassion served as an inspiration to all who
knew him, and he is dearly, dearly missed.
My prayers and concerns and care are with his children Janet, Doug,
and Brian, his many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-
great-grandchildren--the entire Sharp family. It was my honor to see
them as we celebrated Jim's 100 birthday at the American Legion in
Manhattan, KS, now just about a year ago.
Jim was an authentic American hero. Sometimes, I think we look for
heroes, and we can't seem to find them. You do not have to look past
Jim Sharp. He was a hero to his Nation, to his community, to his
family, and to his friends.
May Jim's legacy not be forgotten, his service honored. And we say to
him in these days: Thank you for your service. We respect you, and we
are grateful.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1834
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Americans across the country--they could
be Democrats; they could be Independents; they could be Republicans;
they could live in the north, the south, the east, or the west--agree
on one thing: The cost of healthcare is at crisis levels, and families
are struggling to pay for healthcare, such a necessity for their
families and themselves.
Now, on January 1, as just about everybody knows, the ACA premium tax
credits that lowered premiums for millions of Americans expired because
Republicans chose to let them die. Republicans knew the crisis was
coming; they knew the consequences, and they deliberately blocked
relief from the American people.
Already because of the callous actions of our Republican colleagues,
ACA enrollment has already dropped by nearly a million and a half
people. The average American with an ACA plan has seen their premiums
double, and many have seen them much worse than that. It is outrageous;
it is wrong, and Republicans know it.
There is a demand from one end of the country to the other to undo
the crisis by very simple--there is a very simple way to do it. All
Republicans have to do is join Democrats in voting for legislation that
expands the credits by 3 years. It will be done. It passed the House.
But mark my words, if Republicans don't do it, America will know, and
the political price they pay will be severe.
And so to rectify this injustice, to rectify the fact that families
are deciding whether to even have healthcare or not or to cut back on
something else very important to pay for the increased costs of
healthcare, families are deciding that right now.
Every night, millions of American families are talking about what to
do with these new healthcare bills that have come through, which have
doubled or tripled what they have to pay each month, which will cut
back in so many instances on the kind of healthcare they get--make them
switch hospitals, switch doctors, not afford the prescription drug that
is desperately needed by their child who has cancer.
Every night, Americans are grappling with this horrible problem
because there is nothing more important to a family than the health of
its members; yet Republicans blocked it. But my fellow Americans, the
fight to lower healthcare costs is not over. Today I bring to the floor
a very simple request, that when this Chamber receives the bipartisan
legislation that passed the House last week, providing a simple 3-year
reinstatement of the ACA premium tax credits, that it be immediately
agreed to in the Senate.
The Republican leader of the Senate could put this on the floor, and
it would pass in the blink of an eye. Most Republicans would vote for
it because they know how much the public wants to renew these credits.
So there is no reason under Heaven for us to delay. The House passed
this bill last week by 230 to 196, and 17 Republicans joined Democrats.
That is not a fluke. That is a glaring signal to Republicans that
Americans are demanding relief.
Fifty percent--55 percent of Trump voters want the tax credits
extended, but the Republican Senate is blind, is in a bubble, is not
even understanding the anguish of America about these increased
healthcare costs. And they sit there and come up with one excuse after
the other why they shouldn't do this. The House, fortunately, listened
to the American people and acted, and the Senate should now do the
same.
Leader Thune knows that people back home are suffering. He knows that
he can fix the problem by just putting the bill on the floor because it
will pass. There is a lot to discuss and debate when it comes to fixing
our
[[Page S195]]
healthcare system, but right now, there is an immediate concern.
Premiums are spiking across the country, so the most immediate thing we
can do to lower healthcare costs for the American people is pass a
clean restoration of these credits.
We offered the Republicans the chance during the so-called Big
Beautiful Bill; they rejected it three times unanimously. But they went
home over the summer and the fall and now into the winter and they hear
their constituents clamoring for relief. Open your ears, open your
minds, Republicans, listen to the American people. There is no doubt,
you know it, that the majority of Americans, the overwhelming majority
of Americans, even the majority of Republicans and Trump voters, want
us to do this.
And frankly, to Americans back home, it is not a Democratic or a
Republican issue. The only thing they care about is getting those costs
lower. And they want to know who is going to step up and bring premiums
down. Who is going to lower costs?
Senate Democrats say in one voice to Americans: We hear you. We have
a plan to bring your premiums down. We can pass it through the Senate
today, right now, if only the Republicans get out of the way.
We are going to keep at this. This issue isn't going away. We are
going to fight and fight and fight until we achieve this for the
American people because it is so important. There are other issues
Republicans have out there. Some want to block it because they want to
extend provisions that hurt women on the issue of abortion. Some want
to block it because they want to privatize the system, which would only
make it worse. But it doesn't matter; we can debate all those things
down the road. The opportunity is now, right now, to allow this body to
unanimously pass this much-needed proposal to extend the credits by 3
years.
I urge my Republican colleagues, let this bill pass. Let's give the
American people what they so fiercely and rightfully demand. Most of
all, let's give millions of Americans relief from the sky-high price of
these premiums now that the 3-year extension has expired.
Americans need it. Americans want it. Americans demand it. It is the
only humane and right thing to do. This is another chance for my
colleagues across the aisle to rectify their mistake and help the
American people with an issue that is at the top of the list for them.
And so I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives H.R.
1834 as passed by the House on January 8, 2026, that the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read three
times 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 Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
My colleague's proposal offers nothing new. The Senate has already
rejected a so-called clean 3-year extension of the enhanced COVID
credits in December. None of the reasons we rejected this measure then
have changed. Perpetuating a fraudulent, failed system without reforms
is not a solution. Declining to offer consumers more choice and control
over their healthcare is not a solution. Handing insurers an additional
$80 billion of taxpayer money is not a solution.
Both sides agree that the costs of healthcare are too high. We knew
that years ago when these credits were created and again when they were
extended, but rather than fix that problem, the credits only
exacerbated the underlying issues that are driving up the costs. We
cannot continue to rely on the same broken policies to fix those
systemic problems.
In December, Senator Cassidy and I proposed to begin the process of
true healthcare reform. Directing funds to HSAs controlled by patients
instead of insurers would spur competition, prevent fraud, and reduce
costs. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
rejected this proposal. Each side knows what the other side cannot
accept. A real solution must respect those boundaries and chart a new
path forward.
Unfortunately, today's repetitive proposal fails to do so, and for
those reasons, I object to the request.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Healthcare
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join Leader
Schumer and others in requesting that this body address the healthcare
disaster that is facing millions of American families. It is a
disaster, sadly, that we have seen coming for more than a year. And if
we are serious about protecting both the physical and financial health
of Americans, we must restore the enhanced premium tax credits that
expired on December 31.
Congress has not fulfilled its duty to protect Americans from rising
healthcare costs. And at a time when so many Americans are worried
about the cost of living, inaction is causing health insurance premiums
to skyrocket for millions of Americans. More than 22 million Americans
have already been affected by the expiration of the enhanced premium
tax credits.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported earlier this
week that more than 1.4 million people, including tens of thousands in
New Hampshire, have already lost their healthcare coverage because of
the unaffordable cost increases of healthcare premiums without the
enhanced premium tax credits. And unfortunately, that is just the
beginning. Insurers have told us higher prices and more losses are
coming, as families realize they can't continue to pay their monthly
premiums. The Urban Institute predicted almost 5 million people could
lose their healthcare coverage. Families are being forced to reduce the
quality of their coverage, and they are facing higher out-of-pocket
costs.
Back in October, one of my constituents from New Boston, NH, Darla,
contacted me with serious concerns about whether she and her husband
would be able to afford healthcare coverage without the enhanced
premium tax credits. This is what is so disturbing.
Last month, she reported that her family's monthly premium would go
from $100 a month to $1,200 a month, so more than $15,000 a year. She
and her husband can't afford that kind of an increase. They are in
their fifties; so they can't afford to go without healthcare coverage.
If we fail to act, we have failed Darla's family and millions of
other Americans.
The crisis was avoidable. We knew that this would happen if the
enhanced premium tax credits expired.
One year ago, on January 9, I introduced the Health Care
Affordability Act, which would have made the enhanced premium tax
credits permanent. There are 44 Democratic cosponsors on my bill.
Last week, we saw the House pass an extension with strong bipartisan
support, and I applaud all those Members of the House who supported
that 3-year extension and who worked hard to make it bipartisan.
I know many of our Republican colleagues agree that we need to
restore the enhanced premium tax credits so people like Darla and her
family can afford healthcare coverage. They know that Americans want
Congress to act to bring down costs. And what Leader Schumer asked for
today is straightforward: that the Senate allow an immediate extension
of the enhanced premium tax credits to move forward without delay.
I am not surprised at the objection because we saw what the vote was
back in December on extending the premium tax credits in this body.
I am hopeful that the bipartisan efforts that have been ongoing to
try and find a compromise to address some of the reforms that Senator
Crapo referenced, but also to ensure that we can, both, lower the cost
of healthcare and make sure we don't have millions of families who lose
their health insurance--I am hopeful that bipartisan effort can
continue, that we can reach a compromise, and that we can do what is in
the best interest of the people of this country and the millions of
Americans who are faced with losing their health insurance coverage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Tomorrow is the final day for Americans to sign up for
health
[[Page S196]]
insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. After that, the
doors slam shut, high premiums are locked in, and millions of families
all across the land will be unable to afford essential care.
On this side of the aisle, we have been working for more than a year
to develop bipartisan support to prevent this from happening. We told
our Republican colleagues we wanted to work with them, long before
Donald Trump was sworn in. Democrats spent the summer warning about the
dangers of higher premiums, while Republicans were forcing through the
largest cut in history.
We pressed for action before the signup period began. At every turn,
Donald Trump and congressional Republicans slammed the door in the face
of millions of Americans seeking premium relief.
This morning, it is clear why. Yesterday, the Republican Study
Committee, which constitutes a majority of the House Republican
conference, released yet another new plan to unleash another set of
harmful partisan changes to Americans' healthcare. This is being done
when millions are already reeling from the cuts that we saw to Medicaid
and the Affordable Care Act in the last bill.
The new draft plan contains yet another trillion dollars in cuts to
healthcare which, if passed, would represent a knockout blow to the
American healthcare system. It is, once again, another hacksaw to
Medicaid, targeting blue States and cities in yet another attempt to
weaponize the Federal Government against the Republicans' political
opponents. This new Republican plan would unleash insurance companies
and shady brokers to push more junk plans that I can tell you aren't
worth the paper they are written on.
Americans are fed up with high healthcare costs, and yet Republicans
now want to double down on misery and, once again, allow these Swiss
cheese health plans that don't cover healthcare like chemotherapy or
prescription drugs.
This morning, the mask is off. It is clear Republicans haven't been
serious about holding premiums down from the start. All the hemming and
hawing about healthcare premiums and taking on big insurance has been
for show, and the American people are fed up with excuses.
Today is an opportunity, finally, to do the right thing. Senator
Schumer has made it clear that extending the tax credits for middle-
class healthcare is a key first step--a first step--toward moving
America toward a healthcare system that puts our families first. That
is the priority, not helping giant corporations looking to do another
stock buyback.
Unfortunately, it seems like Republicans, on healthcare, are focused
on doubling down in the wrong direction. That is what this morning's
developments say.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for years, the most pressing concern
about the future of NATO was whether and when European allies would
take the obligations of collective defense more seriously.
But today, the biggest questions about the most successful military
alliance in the history of the world would have to do with us, the
United States: whether America still recognizes our country as an
anchor of transatlantic security, an arsenal of democracy, and a global
leader, not just a regional power.
I need to make a number of points here, and it would be useful to
talk a little bit about its history.
The Second World War claimed tens of millions of lives, displaced
tens of millions more, and left the old world crippled by food
shortages and hyperinflation.
After defeating Hitler's genocidal bid for world domination, American
leaders understood that our interests and those of our European allies
were linked, whether we liked it or not. As George Marshall put it,
back in 1947, ``the United States should do whatever it is able to do
to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without
which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.''
American security and stability depended on European security and
stability, not least because conflict with Nazi Germany was succeeded
immediately by the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union. Millions
in Eastern Europe had gone from living under Nazi tyranny to living
under Soviet tyranny.
The American people understood the stakes. Back in 1947, more than
three-quarters of Americans rejected the idea that the Soviet Union was
merely building its defenses against future attack. Instead, they
thought that Russia was bent on conquest.
In 1948, two-thirds of Americans said America and Western European
friends should join together for a mutual defense pact. By 1949, with
the North Atlantic Treaty in the works, the question actually got more
specific: Would the American people support ``a promise of mutual aid
from all the members of the alliance if any single member nation is
attacked''--``if any single member is attacked''?
That was a higher bar--the commitment that would become article 5--
and yet an even bigger majority of recipients again said yes.
Of course, there was some controversy and opposition. There were
still isolationists ignoring lessons of the decade. But after years of
neglect for the national defense, after the folly of appeasement and
the failure of deterrence, after pouring the equivalent of 37 percent
of America's GDP into the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' and burying 400,000
Americans, the American people still knew the costs of war, and they
knew they would rather preserve the peace.
Of course, they didn't intend to do it alone. Americans told
pollsters that their early skepticism toward post-war alliance
commitments stemmed from a fear that allies would rely too heavily on
American leadership.
This would be a recurring theme. But, importantly, for much of NATO's
history, the U.S. leaders most concerned about burden-sharing were also
fierce defenders of the alliance. They criticized allies because they
wanted NATO to work, not because they wanted to score political points
here at home.
Let's just take, for example, our former colleague Sam Nunn. On
multiple occasions, including the 1974 and 1985 NDAAs, he pushed to
force allies to carry more of the costs of U.S. forward deployment.
And yet, when a majority leader of his own party tried to force a
phaseout of U.S. troops from Europe, our former colleague from Georgia
fought back because he understood the value of American leadership and
the importance of European security to our own.
The strength of the transatlantic alliance is contingent on its
leaders taking collective defense seriously--taking collective defense
seriously. That is why I have always called out laggards and urged
European allies to share more of the burden.
But I have also given credit where it is due, and the simple truth is
that our allies have undertaken a profound--profound--transformation.
This year, Poland will spend 4.8 percent of its GDP on defense. Estonia
and Lithuania will spend 5 percent, and Latvia will hit that goal in
2027.
Alongside Nordic neighbors like Norway and Denmark, which have
deployed to harm's way alongside their American comrades, NATO's newest
members, Sweden and Finland, are each on track to meet the alliance's
new spending target years ahead of schedule.
Germany has dramatically increased defense spending, and the Germans
have even amended their Constitution--amended their Constitution--to
allow for deficit spending on defense. Whether Europe's largest economy
is serious about its defense transformation is really no longer up for
debate. That debate is over.
Not every ally is making such impressive progress, but no one can
claim ignorance of what is at stake. As Poland's Prime Minister put it
bluntly, the choice facing Europe is this: ``money today or blood
tomorrow''--``money today or blood tomorrow.''
Perhaps that is why, in addition to investing heavily in their own
defenses, European allies are continuing to dwarf America's assistance
to Ukraine by a factor of 10 to 1. Let me repeat that. European allies
are continuing to
[[Page S197]]
dwarf--dwarf--America's assistance to Ukraine by a factor of 10 to 1.
Our allies' long holiday from history is over. That is good news, and
it must continue.
Well, what about us--the Americans?
European allies continue to grow their defense budgets, but ours have
stayed flat across successive administrations. We are the ones leaving
capacity unused and political will untapped. We are talking, but we are
not doing--talking but not doing.
The President was right to call for a major increase in defense
spending, but the annual defense budget request from OMB this year
doesn't even keep up with inflation. The fiscal year 2026 top line
won't come close--close--to covering growing costs and requirements,
like the multiyear munitions contracts the Department of Defense
rightly wants to actually sign.
We should keep the cost and value of America's own commitment to the
transatlantic alliance actually in perspective. Take the year 1982--
right in the thick of the Reagan buildup that won the Cold War. In
fiscal 1982, sustaining U.S. military operations in Europe accounted
for less than 6.5 percent of defense outlays.
Now, remember: Winning World War II meant surging defense spending to
37 percent of our GDP. But at the climax of the Cold War, when we were
spending only 6 percent, sustaining a deterrent military presence in
Russia's backyard took up less than 6.5 percent of our annual defense
budget. Now, that sounds a lot less like an entangling alliance than a
smart investment in preventing catastrophic war.
Well, what did the American people say? How did they feel about that?
In 1989, with the Soviets on the ropes, 75 percent said that NATO
ought to be maintained beyond victory--maintained beyond victory.
Thirty years later, in 2019, an even greater majority gave the very
same response, even before Putin's escalation in Ukraine.
What about now? With Russia waging a war of conquest and with China,
Iran, and North Korea pitching in to help them, has NATO outlived its
useful life?
Is the notion of U.S. interests in Europe just a relic from the Cold
War?
Or, to paraphrase some of Moscow's most useful idiots, has NATO's
existence and growth provoked Putin's aggression?
Let's get a few things straight.
For decades, America and our allies bent over backward to welcome
Russian participation at NATO, including through the Partnership for
Peace program, and to integrate Russia into the global economy. America
sent billions of dollars in economic assistance and encouraged massive
investment of private capital in the hopes that Russia would choose to
live in peace with the nations it formerly enslaved and with the West.
In other words, the invitation was open to join us and be a part in
what we were doing. Putin has repeatedly rejected such peaceful
coexistence. Instead, what he has done is he has chosen bloody, neo-
Soviet empire-building instead.
To the extent that NATO has grown, it has been in response to Russian
aggression. If Putin is looking for someone to blame for Sweden's and
Finland's accessions to the alliance, he can simply look in the mirror.
His own brutality has validated the decisions of sovereign nations to
join NATO and align with the West.
As for the utility of the alliance for our interests, America's
adversaries are choosing to work together. Responding by going it alone
would be strategic malpractice.
We are courting Russia and its GDP of $2.5 trillion at the expense of
longstanding bonds with Europe and its GDP of--listen to this--$27
trillion? Europe collectively has a GDP of $27 trillion. Russia's is
only $2.5 trillion. That doesn't even align with U.S. economic
interests, let alone our values.
Last year, Europe invested $3.5 trillion directly in the United
States--here. In recent years, two-thirds of our European allies'
growing investments in foreign military technologies have been in
American-made systems. Together, we make up nearly half of the global
economy. Europe plus America make up about half of the global economy.
If we are serious about global competition with China, these are
relationships worth tending. These are allies we ought to be working
with, not against, which brings me to the matter of Greenland.
The President is right that Arctic security is a central concern in
our strategic competition with major adversaries, and he will find
similar interest in Arctic security among allies like Denmark, which is
investing billions of dollars in its own capabilities in the region.
America's recognition of Denmark's political and economic interests
in Greenland dates all the way back to World War I. The Danes have been
close partners in the Arctic since World War II, and brave Danish
soldiers fought and died in America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is no ambiguity here--no ambiguity. Close ties with our
northernmost allies are what make America's extensive reach in the
Arctic actually possible. And I have yet to hear from this
administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this
sovereign people is not already willing to grant us.
Unless and until the President can demonstrate otherwise, then the
proposition at hand today is very straightforward: incinerating the
hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in
U.S. access to the Arctic.
That is the definition of ``allies''--plural--because this is about
more than Greenland. It is about more than America's relationship with
its highly capable Nordic allies. It is about whether the United States
intends to face a constellation of strategic adversaries with capable
friends or to commit an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm if we
choose to go it alone.
So let's make no mistake. All of the good progress the President has
made in pushing allies to spend more on defense, the increased burden-
sharing, the demand for American-made capabilities--all of it would be
for nothing if his administration's ill-advised threats about Greenland
were to shatter the trust of our allies. Following through on this
provocation would be more disastrous for the President's legacy than
withdrawing from Afghanistan was for his predecessor.
The American people know this. Just 17 percent think trying to take
control of Greenland is a good idea. Seventeen percent think our taking
Greenland is a good idea. Instead, they understand intuitively that
strong alliances make America more secure--more secure.
The Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted late last year, found
that 68 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the transatlantic
alliance--68 percent--and 76 percent support article 5 and a U.S.
military response in the event of an attack on a NATO ally. In just 6
months, that measure grew by 5 percent.
Here is the most interesting finding. Among Americans who initially
said they would support a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, nearly one in five
changed their mind when they learned how our European allies are
stepping up their commitments to collective defense.
I am happy to provide these findings to anyone in Washington who
still bets against the future of the transatlantic alliance, but the
American people, who already understand the stakes, may not be so
patient. They are telling anyone who will listen that when they say
``peace through strength''--when the American people say ``peace
through strength,'' they mean what President Reagan meant: leading with
moral clarity, distinguishing clearly between aggressors and victims,
investing in the arsenal of democracy, equipping friends--friends--who
fight for themselves, preparing to win wars, and upholding the
alliances that deter them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Ukraine
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we live in a dangerous time. There are a
number of flash points all around the globe--in this hemisphere, in
Europe, in the Indo-Pacific--but I want to remind my colleagues today
that, still, the most dangerous thing going on around the world today
is Vladimir Putin's war against freedom and the West in Ukraine.
I would point out that for the past year, Vladimir Putin has mocked
the Ukraine peace process by steadily escalating his attacks on his
neighboring country. He has recently launched the
[[Page S198]]
biggest air attack the conflict has ever seen and shown repeatedly that
he is not interested in peace talks. He gives lipservice to peace
talks, but his acts show that he is not interested.
Now, by contrast, in the last few weeks, the United States, Ukraine,
and our European friends have come together on a common negotiating
position centered on several key principles. Here are the key points:
Ukraine should not be forced to give up the sovereign territory it
deserves and it currently controls. Also, Putin should not achieve
through negotiation what he has not managed to achieve on the
battlefield, and there have been great disappointments to Putin on the
battlefield. In addition, the United States should play a role in
Ukraine's security guarantees on a permanent basis. The Senate should
ratify these guarantees if they are ever agreed to.
In the meantime, the Ukrainian people should be assisted in
continuing to fight for their freedom.
I commend President Trump, President Zelenskyy, and European leaders
for continuing to come together to reach a consensus. As we seek a just
end to this brutal, unprovoked war, I urge everyone in Washington, in
Kyiv, and in the great capitals of Europe to remain united and to
remember who we are dealing with in the form and person of Vladimir
Putin.
Vladimir Putin is unrepentant. He is ever and will always be the KGB
agent. He is a dictator with decades of bloodshed on his hands. He is
the biggest thief in the history of the world, a war criminal who
should be behind bars at this moment. And, of course, Putin is a liar.
When Vladimir Putin smiles to American negotiators, he acts as our
friend and he acts as if we believe he is our friend. We have no reason
to smile back at Vladimir Putin or trust him with anything but caution
and contempt.
After 4 years, Putin knows a Russian victory is not inevitable. More
and more, the American people see and know this. A November poll found
that 70 percent of Americans do not trust Putin to honor any peace
agreement with Ukraine.
He is cut from the same cloth as terrorists all over the world and
terrorists down through history. In Putin's attack on civilians, for
example, we see parallels with the Hamas terrorists who rampaged
through Israeli neighborhoods on October 7. The terrorists are Putin's
friends. And don't forget this, and sometimes it is not publicized as
it ought to be: Putin has abducted 20,000 Ukrainian children and
subjected many to brainwashing schemes. In these horrors, we see the
likes of Xi Jinping and his Uighur reeducation camps. Putin routinely
locks dissidents in jail, just like his kindred spirits in other
censorship regimes.
This tyrant who wants to be treated as a peer in the world's great
halls of democracy should be known by the company he keeps.
When the brutal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was toppled,
thankfully, where did Bashar al-Assad run? He ran for safe haven to
Moscow--that is where he went--to be under the protection of Vladimir
Putin, who seeks to make us believe that he is an honest negotiator.
Nicolas Maduro was wisely counseled to flee Venezuela. If he had run,
where would he have run? He would have run straight to Moscow. For
decades, Russia has been a friend to the murderous Cuban regime. And
now, as the Supreme Leader in Iran considers his options, where might
he go for refuge? The only place he could go is Moscow. So that is the
company Vladimir Putin keeps in current day.
But Putin even echoes the likes of Adolf Hitler. Putin routinely
talks about ``liberating'' the Russian-speaking Ukrainians living in
the Donbas and other areas of Ukraine. This is the same vile, absurd
pretext that Adolf Hitler used when he invaded the German-speaking
regions of neighboring countries in Europe, including Poland. That is
who Vladimir Putin is.
Regrettably, the people of Russia are led brutally by Putin, this
world-historical villain.
Ukrainians will continue fighting against his unprovoked attacks but
not because they hate peace. The Ukrainians will continue to fight
because their alternative is the extinction of their country.
The West needs to stand with them. We need to stand with Ukraine, and
we must keep assisting our friends. We need to send a clear message
that Putin cannot wait us out.
In December, I am grateful to say to my colleagues that Congress
overwhelmingly passed and President Donald Trump enthusiastically
signed the National Defense Authorization Act. That law extends
Ukraine's Security Assistance Initiative and our commitment to sharing
intelligence with Ukraine. Good for the President, and good for our
friends in the House and Senate.
Our allies across the Atlantic are taking the lead now, as my
colleague from Kentucky just pointed out, in financing security
assistance for Ukraine. NATO allies are buying equipment from us in the
United States and giving it to Ukraine. I certainly applaud that, as
all Americans should.
The United States should increase the air defenses and long-range
strike capabilities that we are sending to Kyiv. More than any other
capabilities, these will help show Putin his military aims are not
achievable.
For nearly 4 years, Ukrainians have demonstrated their resolve, as
they will continue to do. The West must continue to stand resolved with
them.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Immigration
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, many times, under both Republicans and
Democrats, I have come to the Senate floor to raise concerns and
warnings about how immigrant children called unaccompanied children are
handled by Republican and Democrat Departments of Health and Human
Services. When immigration people don't have the capabilities or
probably the legal right to determine where unaccompanied children
should be handled, they are turned over to a division in the Department
of Health and Human Services to do it.
In the recent 4 or 5 years, we have had lots of cases where the lives
of these children aren't protected because the Department of Health and
Human Services isn't properly vetting the adults these children are
placed with.
So once again, I am here to give you some updates on my concern about
that and an update today on investigations that I have followed up on.
As we start a new congressional session, I am here to discuss, as I
have just said, an oversight topic of significant importance.
For over a decade, I have investigated the government's mismanagement
of migrant children and related matters. My work covers both Republican
and Democrat administrations.
During the Biden administration, the vetting process to safeguard
these children barely existed, putting them in harm's way. Today, I am
making public records obtained from the Trump Department of Health and
Human Services which illustrate the dire consequences of weak Biden
administration vetting policies. These records show terrible cases of
fraud and exploitation involving vulnerable children, and the public
needs to know that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
I will give you three examples.
One sponsor allegedly applied to take in two migrant children as
their father--and as I will show you today, I have two other examples
of a person pretending to be a father who was not a father.
Later, this first father I am telling you about allegedly assaulted
these brothers on a regular basis. He reportedly didn't allow the
brothers to contact their mother, and he didn't enroll them in school.
Instead, the brothers lived in a trailer without heating or cooling.
The brothers worked 7 days a week until 10 p.m. and lived on one meal a
day. The brothers' sponsor also reportedly withheld the wages that the
brothers earned so that smuggling fees to get into this country could
be paid.
The brothers' sponsor reportedly had a violent criminal history,
which could have been revealed through fingerprinting background
checks, and these background checks are now required by the Trump
administration. They were assumed to be followed by
[[Page S199]]
the Biden administration and obviously were not.
The Trump Health and Human Services told my office that they sent
this evidence to law enforcement for, hopefully, prosecution.
My second case describes the mistreatment of two other migrant
children placed into the care of another sponsor who applied to take
them in as their father. One of the children was reportedly forced to
sell drugs.
The records show this sponsor was later known to have used multiple
aliases as far back as 2015. In addition, records show this sponsor has
past convictions for fraud, which should have been caught by
fingerprinting checks. This sponsor reportedly later kidnapped his wife
for 24 hours and threatened to kill her.
Thankfully, the Health and Human Services Department told my office
the children have been removed, and HHS has transmitted this evidence
to law enforcement.
The final case I am going to bring to you today concerns a 4-year-old
boy who was released to someone who claimed, as you could expect, to be
his father. According to Health and Human Services' records, nearly 6
months later, the boy's sponsor called to say that he had taken another
job and that his mother would take care of the 4-year-old.
Approximately 1 month later, the sponsor's mother allegedly confessed
that her son was not actually the boy's real father. Instead, it was
later revealed that the sponsor allegedly colluded with the boy's
biological mother to obtain a fraudulent birth certificate to get the
boy into the United States.
Health and Human Services told my office they have sent evidence of
this fraud to law enforcement.
As these records indicate, the Trump administration has created new
DNA testing policies to verify sponsor parents. Now any sponsor of a
migrant child claiming to be a biological parent should undergo DNA
testing to confirm they are actually related.
Sadly, these stories were all but inevitable because the Biden HHS
prioritized speed--getting these people out of the immigration system,
getting them out of the authority and the responsibility of HHS. That
speed was all prioritized over the safety of the children. Thankfully,
the Trump administration put new policies in place.
I greatly appreciate the cooperation with my oversight from Health
and Human Services. Specifically, I appreciate the cooperation of
Secretary Kennedy, Assistant Secretary Adams, and Director Salazar of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
As the record states, this administration has made efforts to expand
DNA testing to help ensure sponsors are, in fact, who they claim to be.
In addition, fingerprinting checks should reveal if new sponsors have a
criminal or a violent past.
It is pretty simple: Get the background work done to protect these
kids.
Together, these new policies represent important steps needed to
correct the mistakes of the Biden administration.
More can always be done to safeguard the welfare of vulnerable
children. For these reasons, my oversight will continue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
March for Life
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, as we approach the March for Life, an
annual celebration of life held in cities across America, I want to
share what choosing life means to me and, for the many others who share
my similar story, what it means to them.
When my birth mother became pregnant with me, she faced an incredibly
difficult choice--a choice that I know thousands of women across our
Nation are facing even as I speak today. Her husband had passed away,
and she was already raising two young boys. After starting a new
relationship, she found herself pregnant with me. Money was tight. She
had little support. And she soon found herself being pressured to have
an abortion.
Over the years, I have reflected on just how tough and courageous
that decision must have been for her. I always try to think about what
it would have been like to have been in her shoes and how difficult
that must have been. Fortunately, she chose life and the path of
adoption for me, which was just an amazing blessing.
After a brief stay in foster care, I received the greatest blessing
of my life. I was adopted by my loving parents, Jim and Judy Husted.
I spoke with my mom and dad last night. My dad is amazing, and he is
about to turn 88 years old. He and my mom have always given me the gift
of unconditional love--the greatest gift any parent could give to their
child.
I share my story because I want women to know this: You are not
alone. Others have walked the road that you are on, if you find
yourself pregnant and without the support you need--you think you
need--to make it, and there is a grateful child, one day, who will,
hopefully, tell you that.
You don't have to walk that road by yourself. There is support out
there for you. In Ohio alone, women have access to nearly 200 pregnancy
help centers and maternity homes that serve expectant mothers. I have
visited many of them. They want you to go see them, if you are in need,
if you are scared, if you need someone to talk to. They are there to
help, not to pressure, not to judge but to provide love, care, and
support. Many of the women who staff these pregnancy resource centers
have faced the very same challenges that you are facing right now.
I know that my birth mother somehow found her way to Catholic Social
Services and had that support. I hope, if you are struggling and you
feel that aloneness out there, that you know there are people out there
who want to help and that you won't feel alone. I know being alone in a
tough situation is the worst thing that you could possibly feel, but
there are people out there who want to help you.
So, as we prepare for another March for Life this year, I hope we can
remember a few simple truths.
First, the March for Life reminds the country that this cause is
ever-present; that laws may change but that culture only changes when
people are willing to stand up publicly and peacefully for the cause of
life.
Second, unborn children cannot march. They cannot vote. They cannot
advocate for themselves. They rely on you to do that. So thank you for
continuing to be a voice for them.
And, third, the pro-life movement is not just about opposing
abortion. It is about supporting mothers, families, and children with
real help and real hope. The March for Life shines the national
spotlight on that lifesaving work that people at pregnancy resource
centers and places like that are doing across our country every single
day.
So, as I reflect on my own good fortune and the courageous strength
of my birth mother and the gratitude I have for my mom and dad, who
adopted me and gave me a great life--full of love, full of support--and
as we prepare for the March for Life, I hope that we will remember
those sacrifices, will remember the challenges, and do all we can to
support those expectant mothers and the children of our Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my story, and may God bless
America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Oklahoma.
50th Anniversary of the Hyde Amendment
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this year, 2026, is the 50th anniversary
of the Hyde amendment. Now, that may not mean a lot to a lot of people,
but 50 years ago, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House and the President
of the United States came to a compromise agreement over the issue of
abortion. It was a long, drawn-out process. At the end of that long,
drawn-out debate, they came to a compromise agreement that Americans
would not have to pay for elective abortions. It didn't outlaw abortion
in America, but it said: We have disagreements on abortion as
Americans, but at a minimum, we should agree American tax dollars
should not pay for the taking of human life; that healthcare is about
protecting life, not taking life; that in a controversial issue like
abortion, at least we should all agree we don't use tax dollars to pay
for abortion. That was 50 years ago this year.
It is amazing to think about how many things have changed in American
attitudes in 50 years. But what hasn't changed is we still haven't come
to an
[[Page S200]]
agreement about abortion. We still haven't been able to resolve that
issue.
Now, science has resolved that issue, but we in American values and
culture have not. Science would say that a child's life begins at
conception, that that is the moment the DNA is different than the mom's
DNA. Every single cell in the mom's body has the same DNA except for
those cells. Those cells are different. They have a unique DNA in the
world because that is a different person that is there. The cells are
dividing and growing. There is no difference between a child in the
womb and a child outside the womb other than time. That is a separate
child.
Science has settled that issue, but, culturally, we haven't been able
to settle this issue: Are some children valuable and are some children
disposable? Our culture still believes there are some children that are
disposable. I don't. I think every child is valuable. Whether you are a
child born in a wealthy household or in poverty, that child has
opportunity in America if they are allowed to live.
It is this ongoing dialogue that we have as a country: Do we value
the most vulnerable in our society? It is a conversation that has been
going on now five decades, and next week, there will be tens of
thousands--probably, actually, hundreds of thousands--of students and
adults that will all come to Washington, DC. I am sure, as it always is
on that January day, it will be cold outside. And they will walk down
the Mall and gather for a rally that is simply called the March for
Life. They will talk about the beauty of life. They will talk about the
value of every child. There will be testimonies of people that their
family has personally experienced abortion. There will be testimonies
of folks that they directly have experienced the pain of abortion.
There will be folks who will stand up as physicians and talk about the
medical issues. But, ultimately, there will be conversations about
every single child being valuable and beautiful.
There will be people in the crowd that were born in poverty, people
in the crowd that were born in wealth--just like every other child in
America that is in the womb--except those folks that will be at the
rally will be celebrating the fact that they were born, No. 1, and that
they had an opportunity to be able to speak out for the next generation
of people that so much desires to be born and to have the same
opportunities all of us in this room have: to grow, to learn, to love.
That is all that child wants, and they had the opportunity to be able
to have that.
As I mentioned, 50 years ago, the Hyde amendment was put in place.
Every single part of our healthcare operation with Federal dollars is
all covered by the Hyde amendment. Whether it be Department of Defense
healthcare, whether it be Veterans' Administration, whether it be
Indian healthcare services, whether it be CHIPS services for children,
all of those are covered by Hyde protections with this basic compromise
agreement that we will not fund abortions with American taxpayer
dollars--well, except for one area, and that is actually ObamaCare.
When the Affordable Care Act was passed, there was an attempt to be
able to have the Hyde amendment actually included in that. That was
actually put in in the House of Representatives when they sent it over
to the Senate to say: No, let's include the Hyde amendment in this like
we do every other part of our healthcare agreement.
When it came to this body, though, my Democratic colleagues stripped
that out, and they included in a different section saying: No, we are
actually going to create a workaround around the Hyde amendment so that
we can quietly fund elective abortion, for the first time, with Federal
tax dollars. That workaround still exists today.
The original agreement and the conversation was that every State
would allow some options that would have elective abortions for your
healthcare coverage and some options that you could choose without
that--except now that there are 12, maybe 13 States working that don't
allow any option of the Affordable Care Act, of ObamaCare, to be in
their State that doesn't also require abortion coverage. So even people
that are morally opposed to abortion and the taking of human life don't
have an option to buy coverage in their State for healthcare without
having abortion coverage built into it.
Now, the issue became, well, there will be some kind of set-aside
dollars that will be separate, that you will have a separate premium
that you will have to pay, and that separate premium will pay for the
abortion coverage--except the insurance companies can't actually show
where that separate premium is. In fact, after the law passed that
required a separate payment for abortion coverage there so there would
be a type of Hyde, is what they called it, the Obama administration
immediately came out and said: Actually, the word ``separate'' actually
means ``together''--I am not making this up--and so you now have your
premiums together, but it is defined as being separate.
Only in government can you define ``separate'' as meaning
``together.''
So we still have this one form of healthcare in America that violates
this 50-year-old compromise: We don't use taxpayer dollars and compel
Americans who actually value children to pay for the taking of the life
of a child.
We are still working on that. Ironically enough, there is still an
ongoing debate on the Affordable Care Act--on ObamaCare--still raging
in this body, even this week, and much of it circles around ``Is this
going to be about healthcare or is this going to be about the taking of
human life?''
I have no issue if we are working on a healthcare policy. I have a
big issue if we are working on taking the life of an innocent child.
There is also an ongoing debate that is happening right now over
chemical abortions--``mifepristone'' if you want to use the medical
term, and there are several generics that are out there as well. This
is an abortion drug that is literally now mailed to you without seeing
a physician. Now, that didn't used to be so. It is a prescription drug;
it is not an over-the-counter drug. It is a prescription drug for a
reason--because it has very, very serious side effects.
But this prescription drug--during the COVID time period, the Biden
administration said: You know, there is a COVID crisis. People can't
get in to see their doctor right now, so we will allow them to call in,
and there will be this medicine mailed to them.
So for the first time, suddenly mifepristone, which actually causes
an abortion for a woman--that drug is now being mailed without ever
seeing a doctor.
Now, some folks have alleged ``Oh, that is no big deal. It is used
all the time, so it must be completely safe.'' In fact, my favorite
term that I hear--I hear it even from some folks in this body--is that
mifepristone is as safe as Tylenol. I have heard that so many times: It
is as safe as Tylenol. It is as safe as Tylenol. It is as safe as
Tylenol.
Let me start with some basics. When you take Tylenol, it doesn't take
a child's life. Mifepristone, by design on the label, takes the life of
a child. So let's just start there.
The second issue, though, is also interesting. If you follow the
label instructions for mifepristone and take it exactly as it is
labeled and if you take a Tylenol and take that exactly as it is
labeled--if you take mifepristone, though, you are 8,000 times more
likely to end up in the hospital than taking a Tylenol.
Let me run that past you again. For all the folks that say it is as
safe as Tylenol, mifepristone, according to the stats that we have that
are public--you are 8,000 times more likely to end up in the hospital
taking mifepristone than you are taking a Tylenol.
Stop saying it is as safe as Tylenol. The facts do not bear that out.
It is not.
Mifepristone also has a strong likelihood of and a side effect of
causing infertility among women. If the baby has a different blood type
than the mom and if the combination is not correct, the mom then
suffers from infertility the rest of her life. Now, if you go see a
doctor, they can tell you that, but if you just get it in the mail, you
have no idea.
How about this issue: If you have an ectopic pregnancy, which you
don't know unless you have an ultrasound, taking mifepristone can not
only kill the baby but could also kill the mom.
This is a big issue. The Biden administration became flippant about
this chemical abortion drug because the
[[Page S201]]
Biden administration was focused on having more abortions in America.
They weren't just pro-choice; they were pro-abortion, trying to
increase the number of abortions in America, but to do that, they did
not take into account the health and life of the mom because they were
so eager to increase the number of abortions.
Even in my State--in my State, we made a decision based on the Dobbs
decision from the Supreme Court that now each State can make their own
decisions about what they are going to do about this issue of life.
After decades under Roe v. Wade, the Court has now said that this is up
to every State.
So in my State, we would say this is a settled issue, except for
doctors out of State now were mailing abortion pills to women my State,
intentionally going around our State laws--intentionally.
This morning, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
chaired by my friend Dr. Bill Cassidy, held a hearing talking about
mifepristone.
One of the witnesses that was there was the attorney general from
Louisiana talking about the number of women who have experienced
coercive abortions, where a parent or a boyfriend or some other loved
one compelled them to be able to take these chemical abortion drugs
against their will--compelled them to do that--or slipped it into their
food or into a drink to be able to sneak it into their system,
literally taking the life of that child.
Do you know how they could do that? Because you don't have to see a
doctor to get access to these drugs. They can just be mailed to you as
if they are a Tylenol when they are not.
We have to have an ongoing conversation here. Decades into this
dialogue about the value of children, we are still talking about this
issue. Are children valuable? Let's keep talking about it because at
some point, as a country, we have to resolve this most simple,
scientific, ethical decision: Are some children valuable and some
children disposable or is each child valuable?
I am going to stand with the marchers that are coming in next week to
joyfully celebrate the beauty of every child.
Yesterday, I was emailed the photo of a longtime friend of mine who
just had her first child. It has been a long process for her and her
husband. I got a beautiful picture of baby Benjamin yesterday, and he
is adorable. I know you are not supposed to say that about a boy, but
he is adorable, and we are excited to see him.
Last year, there were a million abortions that were done in America--
a million. We will never see their faces. Those children either were
thrown away in the trash or ended up in a toilet after a chemical
abortion. What is the difference between those two children? Not a
thing. Not a thing.
All children are valuable, all of them, and I pray for the day when
all of them have an opportunity to live, to experience this glorious
Nation that we get to experience the freedom of every day.
Thanks to the marchers who will speak out next week for life and for
all those around the country that continue to look at the science and
continue to look at the face of a child and say: You are beautiful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Appropriations
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee--known around here as CJS--to discuss the funding for
critical national programs provided to those Agencies for fiscal year
2026.
This is one of the appropriations bills that is before the Senate
right now.
I want to thank Senator Moran, the chairman and my partner on the CJS
Subcommittee, and his staff Brian Daner, Kevin Wheeler, and Rachel
Taylor, for working closely with me and my team to produce this
important final bill for consideration of the Senate. I want to thank
House CJS chairman Hal Rogers and ranking member Grace Meng and their
staffs as well.
This bill is the result of many long days and nights of tough
negotiations over the holidays, including a very productive call among
the four of us on New Year's Eve to broker a final deal on the bill's
remaining and outstanding items.
This bill has already overwhelmingly passed the House of
Representatives. The CJS appropriations agreement meets the allocation
that was given to our subcommittee of $78 billion in discretionary
spending. It rejects the very deep and reckless cuts proposed in the
President's budget. At the same time, it is not much higher than the
2025 continuing resolution--so basically flat funding even as needs
have grown in these important programs.
We had to make tough decisions when it came to what programs to cut
and what to protect. Senator Moran and I were able to work together
with our House colleagues in a bipartisan way to do our best to make
those decisions.
I must say this is not the bill I would have written if I were doing
it on my own, but it is the result of negotiations. Republicans
currently control every branch of government--majorities in the House
and Senate and, of course, control of the White House. But this bill,
while not what I would have written alone, will ensure that Congress--
and not Donald Trump or Russ Vought--decides how taxpayer dollars get
spent for the Agencies covered in this bill.
So I am happy to report to my colleagues that the CJS conference bill
before us is a strong bipartisan one that rejects the very devastating,
misguided funding cuts and program eliminations that had been advanced
and suggested by President Trump, and it rejects dozens and dozens of
extreme poison pill riders that had been proposed by our House
Republican colleagues.
It makes smart and targeted investments in a wide range of critical
initiatives that affect the lives of all of our fellow Americans. It
prioritizes keeping our communities safe. It advances American
leadership in science and innovation. It boosts economic opportunities
around the country, including through the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program. It funds vital initiatives at Federal Agencies in
my home State of Maryland, from scientific research at NASA Goddard, to
operations at NOAA and NIST, to preparations for the next census.
Through the Department of Commerce, we maintain the current
generation of NOAA weather and climate satellites, and we invest in
next-generation satellites that will track severe weather. We also
promote American businesses and exports through Department of Commerce
efforts. We also help Agencies like NIST that are creating
cybersecurity and AI standards for the future. Through NOAA, we are
also enabling sustainable management of ocean resources that are so
vital to our fisheries and to commerce throughout our country.
To promote American innovation and scientific discovery, the bill
provides $8.75 billion for the National Science Foundation, sparing it
from the 57-percent cut sought by President Trump.
Colleagues, we cannot expect to maintain our cutting edge in science
and discovery and stay ahead of our competitors if we are not making
the vital investments in research through the National Science
Foundation.
The bill funds NASA at $24.4 billion to explore the solar system, to
advance our understanding of climate change, to promote innovation and
sustainability in aeronautics, and to protect our planet. This is
another area where we rejected very deep cuts proposed by the Trump
administration, including the 47-percent cut they had proposed to
NASA's Science budget.
Colleagues, we won't have a space program if we don't understand what
is happening in space and get to the fundamentals of science in space.
You cannot have one without the other. So we reject those cuts.
The President's budget would have wrecked the exciting work being
done right now at Maryland's Goddard Space Flight Center, where they
are completing what is known as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
It is on time--in fact, ahead of schedule--and, right now, under
budget, and is expected to launch later this year to investigate dark
energy and the formation of galaxies and stars--all things that will
add to the body of human knowledge and help the United States remain a
leader when it comes to space discovery exploration.
[[Page S202]]
The next step will be the development of the Habitable Worlds
Observatory that can answer the fundamental question of whether we are
alone in the universe.
That is another exciting project where America will take the lead,
but only if we provide the resources to get it done, and that is
another important program led by NASA Goddard.
I also included language directing NASA to preserve all the technical
and scientific world-class capabilities at Goddard during any
consolidation of the campus and calling for a National Academy of
Sciences study to make sure that NASA Goddard is set up for long-term
success. It is a national treasure, and we need to preserve it.
Reform, yes, but let's make sure we reform it in a way that can allow
it to continue to be a leader when it comes to space science, Earth
science, and the American enterprise.
Funding in this bill will also help better protect American
communities. It invests in lifesaving grant programs from State, local,
and Tribal law enforcement, to advancing criminal justice initiatives,
to providing the highest level of funding ever for the Office on
Violence Against Women.
In addition to these funding priorities, the bill also includes
language I worked on to address the Trump administration's ongoing
efforts to set aside and ignore the decades-long site selection process
for a new FBI headquarters. The language in this bill requires that
prior to spending any reprogrammed construction funds on a new
headquarters, the FBI must submit the contracted and completed
architectural and engineering plan for any new building, including the
security plan, for review by the Appropriations Committee.
I think we would all agree that it is essential that the men and
women who work at the FBI have a headquarters that meets the security
requirements that have been set out for it over the last 15 years to
two decades, which is Level 5 Security. It is the highest level of
security and needed given the very sensitive work that the FBI does on
behalf of our country.
This language is important to reasserting Congress' oversight role in
a large and expensive project and ensuring that the new headquarters
meets the mission and security needs of the men and women of the FBI.
And I want to thank Senator Moran for working with me on this
provision.
As I said earlier, this bill is not perfect. It does, however,
include guardrails to safeguard the Congress' powers when it comes to
spending the taxpayer dollars, at least within the domain of the
Agencies in this particular appropriations bill. And that is one of the
very important features of this legislation compared to what we would
otherwise see in a straight continuing resolution. In this bill, we
make sure that congressional prerogatives are protected, not just in
report language, but in the statute itself.
As I said, the bill is not perfect. There are many things that I
would have chosen to do differently if I was doing this on my own. I
will say one problem with the bill before us is that a provision that
had been unanimously adopted in the Senate Appropriations Committee
regarding the Epstein files was taken out of this bill. That provision
would have required the Department of Justice to retain those records.
It also required them to submit not just the files, but a report that
provided information and analysis on various aspects of the Epstein
files, from financial questions to links regarding foreign
intelligence, anything that the documents reflected. And I will say, at
a time when we have seen just a small percentage of those files
actually released to the public and to the Congress, we need to do much
better, which is why I have filed an amendment to this conference bill
to restore the identical language that the Senate Appropriations
Committee unanimously adopted.
Despite those shortcomings, I do think if you look at its full scope,
that this bill is something that is worthy of bipartisan support. I
think it will advance very important national interests, both when it
comes to science and discovery, when it comes to law enforcement, and
when it comes to other major national priorities.
The funding in this bill and the resources it has provided will, in
my view, strengthen our country, especially at a time when we are
facing so many challenges around the world from competitors and
adversaries, including China and others. We need to make sure that the
United States invests in the future of our people and the future of our
country. This bill is a positive step in that direction, and I urge my
colleagues to adopt it.
If I could, I did want to thank some of the folks on my team. And I
want to thank them for all of the work that they did, including Jessica
Berry, who is the lead Democratic clerk on the committee, as well as
other members of our committee, Lindsay Erickson, TJ Lowdermilk, and
Blaise Sheridan. I thanked the Republican staff members, Senator
Moran's staff, who worked with us, and I want to thank my own team as
well.
And in closing, I also do want to thank the chair and vice chair of
the Appropriations Committee--Senator Susan Collins and Senator Patty
Murray--for their work in getting us to this point, and, again, I urge
adoption of this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Trump Administration
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I will get to the primary reason that I
asked for time on the floor today. I did want to say that, if it was
within the rules and I would be able to acknowledge people in the
Gallery who happen to be my great staff who have done extraordinary
casework for years and years, and they are visiting here--if it was
within the rules for me to recognize them--I would. I understand the
rules, and I will not. But I do welcome them, nevertheless.
I am here because yesterday, the President had a tour up in Michigan,
I believe, and a reporter asked him a question about me in particular.
He said: How do you feel about Senator Tillis saying that the potential
indictment of the Fed Chair seems a bit excessive?
I didn't use those words, but that was how the question was postured.
The response to that was the President said: That is why Thom is not
running for office anymore.
He went on to say very nice things, that he likes me and we work
together. I like the President. As a matter of fact, I know many people
would be shocked to hear this, but I never had a cross word with the
President. We never had an elevated discussion in either direction. I
suppose if it came from one direction, it would have ended up that way,
but it never has.
As a matter of fact, the President has a quality to him that I find
really endearing. When I called him out of the blue because my mom was
talking about him--she is a big fan of the President. So I called him
out of the blue on a Saturday afternoon, and he picked up the phone,
and I said: Mr. President, would you speak to my mom? She loves you.
He got on the phone and graciously spoke to her for about 5 minutes.
A few months later, I was down in Florida. I had an aunt and uncle--
the same thing. I called him up--the same thing. He can be a gracious
person.
The President, though, got it wrong. He was right in saying that I am
not running anymore. But the reason that I made the decision not to run
again--and I decided it was just easier to do it here versus answer the
callous questions out in the hallway--is because in the moment where he
and I had a disagreement, I had to make a decision about how I could be
most helpful to him.
If I ran for reelection, I would necessarily always have to think
about what boundaries I should have in expressing my concern, and that
created complications for my campaign. There are redlines. There are
just certain things I would disagree with and would have to take the
heat in a campaign.
But I thought, in the moment, I would be far better equipped to give
the President my advice on policy matters. So I removed any doubt,
whatsoever, that my decisions would be based upon the consequences of
either getting his support or not having his support in a campaign.
When I did my announcement and said I was wanting to put myself in a
position where I could call balls and strikes, it was so that I could
do something that I believe some people in the White House are not
particularly concerned about.
[[Page S203]]
The night that I told the President he should find a replacement--the
press has gotten this wrong. The President did not ask for people to
replace me, and then I decided to retire. The President and I were
having a dialogue that night. I told the President that I thought it
was time for him to look for a replacement; that I had decided not to
run for reelection.
My last communication that night with the President--this is not
verbatim, but pretty close--I said: Mr. President, if I prove anything
else to you in the next year and a half, I hope that I can prove to you
that I care about your legacy, and you have people around you who
don't.
There are people who are surfing his wave until they go to the next
one. They are young people who have never served in office and don't
understand the consequences of looking around corners and protecting
this President. There are people that are more concerned with their
next job and the next Presidential campaign they may be able to get on
than making sure this President is as successful as possible.
So I decided, by just making the decision not to run for reelection,
I can speak truth to a President that, I hope, goes down in history as
the most successful Republican President in the history of this
country. He has that potential, if he starts to recognize advice that
he is getting that I think is bad advice and won't age well.
I will get to a few. I am going to keep my temperature down. I told
everybody, this isn't cranky Thom; this is Thom trying to explain a
very serious subject.
Ladies and gentlemen, the thought of the United States taking the
position that we would take Greenland, an independent territory within
the Kingdom of Denmark, is absurd. Somebody needs to tell the President
that the people of Greenland, up until these current times, were
actually very, very pro-American and very, very pro-American presence.
We had as many as 17 military installations in Greenland at our height.
Frankly, I bet that once we get through this tension we have today,
they would be willing to accept us. We have the power to project some
capability in Greenland, and we haven't necessarily put a 75-year
alliance in NATO and dissolving it in the mix. That is the smart,
sustainable way to achieve the President's goal of securing the Arctic.
The not smart, unachievable way is whoever told the President that
this was a viable path. It doesn't make sense.
I will give you another example. Over the weekend, the President--the
question yesterday had to do with Chair Powell. I made the statement
that I felt like now that the Fed Chair is potentially under
indictment, I will not support any vote for any Fed Board member until
this matter is decided. Why? Well, because the whole argument about Fed
independence comes into question, right? If all of a sudden, the
Justice Department, apparently--according to the President, unknown to
him--he reported it was a surprise to him. Since then, he has been
briefed. He is standing by the Justice Department on this indictment.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless there is a really compelling reason,
unless the prosecution succeeds--and I think it is unlikely, virtually
impossible, that Chair Powell will be found guilty of anything. This is
all about the testimony in a Banking Committee hearing. That is all it
is. If they succeed, then they have created a device that really will
put the Fed's independence in question and can cause serious problems
for us in the future.
I think one of the reasons why the financial markets did not react
precipitously in a negative way with the revelation of Chair Powell is
because many people stood up in Congress and said this seems to be
crossing a line.
I believe, if the financial markets thought it was almost certain
that Jay Powell was going to resign or be prosecuted, I believe we
would have a very different reaction.
This is another example of where--Jay Powell, I think, has made
decisions that I disagreed with, similar to decisions that have been
made by conservative Justices that I disagreed with, but I think they
did it for the right reasons. It is just another example of where--in
this case, according to the President's public comments, he was
surprised about the indictment. It is another example of who in there
thought this was a good idea?
Now, because it is a current investigation, we will just have to wait
and figure it out after they either proceed with an indictment or they
decide to dismiss it.
Then the final thing is, I am in a position now, without question, to
say that anyone who thinks that President Trump adopting Elizabeth
Warren's idea on capping credit card interest rates--it is literally
what the President said over the past week. They are not the
conservatives that I thought they were. Anybody that thinks this is a
good idea will not speak truth to this President to say: You can't do
that. If you want to unbank or underbank people, then not allow
interest rates to be set based on the risk, and you will see what will
happen.
I told Senator Warren on the floor yesterday: Good on you.
Senator Warren and I have a good relationship. We don't hardly ever
vote on the same stuff, but I said: Good on you. You convinced the
President of the United States to actually embrace something you have
been pitching for as long as I have been here.
She said: Are you going to set the policy?
I said: No, I will work hard to kill it. I like good execution, even
when it is not policy I like. And that was good execution. You
convinced the President to embrace your policy.
Then, finally, there is the Credit Card Competition Act, which is
another example, ladies and gentlemen, that other countries have tried,
and it has failed. The industry is trying to come up with a compromise
that works, but once again, somebody in the President's orbit thought
capping interest rates was a good idea and told him. I don't expect him
to be an expert in the consequences of that. Somebody thought to do the
Credit Card Competition Act after it was unsuccessful here because
Republicans thought it was a good idea, but it is still a bad idea.
So, to the President: Mr. President, I am going to live up to my
promise. I am going to do everything I can to point out advice that you
are being given by people who are not thinking about your legacy, who
are not thinking about good policy, and from time to time, they are
fading far out of the realm of what I consider to be good,
conservative, free-market ideology.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Fraud Accountability Act
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, with all of this upheaval in Minnesota
and certainly with some other States, Tennesseans are learning a whole
lot more about what is happening in this country with fraud and how
people are defrauding not only the Federal Government but many State
and local governments as well.
The calls that are coming into our office and the emails that we are
getting show that this is an issue that has really grabbed the
attention of Tennesseans. I think that one of the reasons is that
people have seen fraud play out in their local communities. They have
seen title theft, where forgers go in and steal properties. Then
someone finds out their property is going to be sold on the courthouse
steps. They all know of contractors who take deposits. They are fly-by-
night, and they never show up to do the work. They know senior citizens
who are being defrauded out of life savings. They have seen kickback
schemes in their local counties and cities, where local officials go
hire a friend and make a contract there at these enormous rates.
I do think that what has happened in Minnesota has caused the
American people to look more closely at what is happening with their
hard-earned taxpayer dollars and how these are being stolen through
fraud.
We know that this issue goes far from Minnesota and into every corner
of the country. The Government Accountability Office--and this report,
I think, is significant--estimates that each year, each and every year,
our government is losing between $233 billion and $521 billion to
fraud--fraudulent programs, fraudulent claims.
So think about that. You have individuals and entities which
willfully misrepresent themselves so that they can get taxpayer
benefits--taxpayer dollars. They are stealing up to $521 billion a year
of your money, and that
[[Page S204]]
$521 billion could be an underestimation. We have a former Assistant
Director for the Government Accountability Office who believes the
number is actually closer to $750 billion a year. For context, that
$750 billion is more than the entire amount of money we spent on
Medicaid in fiscal year 2024.
That is $750 billion--estimate--that is going to fraud that would
have more than funded everything we spend on Medicaid, and it is just
shy of the $850 billion that we spend on defense. Those are some of the
biggest components of our Nation's budget--Medicaid and defense--yet
the estimate is that money is being spent via fraud.
Now, these figures don't include the taxpayer dollars that are lost
through improper payments. These are payments that go to the wrong
person or that maybe exceed the correct amount. Since fiscal year 2003,
the GAO estimates that the Federal Government has lost $2.8 trillion to
improper payments.
So you have to say ``Where is the money going?'' when you look at
these numbers. According to the GAO, in fiscal year 2024, more than
half--$85 billion--were improper payments under Medicare and Medicaid.
That is called sloppy bookkeeping. And this should come as no surprise:
In Minnesota, this is where much of the fraud has been occurring,
including through the Medicaid housing program. This fraud could help
explain why Minnesota saw the second highest in per-enrollee Medicaid
spending under the ObamaCare expansion, where Federal dollars are
underwriting nonexistent services and treatments. So Minnesota, with
all of the fraud going on there, has the second highest cost per
enrollee, and it shot up during the ObamaCare expansion.
We learned even more about the fraud occurring in blue State Medicaid
Programs and in ObamaCare during the Schumer shutdown. Last month, the
GAO released findings that showed just how easy it was to commit fraud
with the Biden bonus credits under ObamaCare. It is the same program
that the Democrats fought to bankroll with another 450 billion taxpayer
dollars.
To test the program's safeguards against fraud, the GAO said: We are
going to conduct an experiment. So they decided to make up 24
fictitious applications, and they did these quite sloppily. They made
up names, addresses, information. They left out some required
information on these 24 applications. So they are all false, and they
are all missing information.
How many of those applications do you think were approved for
ObamaCare? There were 23 of the 24 that were approved. They were fake,
but they got approved anyway. So the Federal Government was paying more
than $10,000 a month each and every month to insurance companies to
provide coverage for enrollees who did not exist. That is a lot of
money being wasted.
It gets worse. A preliminary analysis by the GAO found that there
were at least 190,000 applications between 2023 and 2024--that is that
fiscal year--that had unauthorized changes by agents or brokers. That
means the individual--of course, we now know that many of these are
fake--they didn't approve this or submit it or ask for it; it was the
agent or the broker, without permission, who made that change.
Over the same period, there were close to 100,000 duplicate Social
Security numbers enrolled in the program. In 1 case, there was 1 Social
Security number that was used to apply for more than 125 policies. And
guess what. They got approved. And guess what. All fake.
It is the insurance companies making the money every month, and it is
your tax dollars at work for what is a fraud scheme.
Despite all of this fraud, the Democrats this week demanded a vote to
overturn the Trump administration's Marketplace integrity rule, which
protects consumers from the fraud that plagued the system under
President Biden and his administration. I can't believe they wanted to
overturn Marketplace integrity, but, oh, they did.
This is just one part of the puzzle. Every year, we spend more than
$4 trillion on more than 2,400 aid and subsidy programs. Get that? More
than 2,400 aid and subsidy programs. And almost all are vulnerable to
fraud--housing subsidies, student loans, childcare programs, food
stamps, unemployment insurance, and the list goes on.
We should be grateful that President Trump is working to root out
this widespread fraud. The American people expect the government to
work for law-abiding citizens, not criminals, and ensuring these
scammers face justice is crucial to restoring trust and accountability.
To support his efforts, I recently introduced the Fraud
Accountability Act. This legislation would amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to explicitly make clear that fraud is a deportable
offense. This will provide another tool for the President to deport or
denaturalize scammers who have come to our country to steal from the
American people--to steal from the U.S. taxpayer; to steal from the
Federal Government--and pad their pockets.
Hard-working taxpayers deserve to know their money goes to those who
truly need it. It should not be going to criminals who are choosing to
game the system. I know the Fraud Accountability Act will help and
assist in holding these individuals to account.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Minnesota ICE Shooting
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the American people can be forgiven
for wanting to turn off their computers or TVs and feeling a sense of
abhorrence and repulsion at what they are seeing again and again and
again as the video of Renee Good's killing is replayed for them.
What it shows is a horrific tragedy--a mother who was 37 years old,
an American citizen, subjected to alleged murder. I use the word
``alleged'' because I have spent most of my career in law enforcement,
and the word ``alleged'' before a conviction is always mandatory. But
what is on that tape is there for everyone to see--the absolutely
needless, reckless use of excessive force with a firearm, without any
apparent need for self-defense.
We are seeing a surge of violence in this country that is not only
from private individuals but now from supposed law enforcement--ICE--
which has a responsibility to uphold the law and respect norms that
protect everyday citizens.
We are a country built on due process and the rule of law, and we
were founded on the idea that we resist tyrannical monarchs; that we
fought a war, in fact, against a tyranny that used totalitarian,
Gestapo-type tactics. And now we see them on the streets of our own
country.
Yes, Americans have a right to be repulsed by these videos and
outraged, angry, but also saddened and grief-stricken because the
killing of Renee Nicole Good last week at the hands of an ICE agent
showed the tragic outcome of abuse of power. This death was preventable
and predictable. It was preventable. It needn't have happened.
But it was also predictable because it is only an example of the
rising tide of lawlessness and recklessness on the part of ICE that has
been documented, in fact, by my report on the investigation we did, as
ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the
report that was the result of that investigation. We released it
several weeks ago, and it can be found at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8-ICE-Report-revised-FINAL.pdf.
I released this report, which documents firsthand accounts of 22 U.S.
citizens in 10 different States who were physically assaulted, pepper-
sprayed, denied medical treatment, detained, sometimes for days, by
Federal immigration agents. And we did a hearing with a number of those
American citizens who were injured, denied medical care, prevented from
contacting their families or lawyers, some of them for days on end,
while detained under very harsh conditions. And it was graphic; it was
gripping. But it was only 4 or 5 examples of 22 individuals we
interviewed who themselves were only a subset of hundreds of American
citizens who were physically assaulted, detained, and many of them
injured.
This pattern and practice is not coincidental. It is the result of an
apparent policy on the part of this government Agency that involves
agents who are masked, unidentifiable, who turn violent without
provocation, crashing their government vehicles into citizens' cars,
dragging them from those
[[Page S205]]
cars, slamming them to the ground, violently assaulting them, often
leading to lasting injuries, including trauma.
One of the individuals who appeared at our hearing was a veteran who
served and sacrificed for this country in the belief that he was
helping to preserve the very liberties that he was denied when he was
arrested.
Now, every one of these people sought to tell the agents that they
were an American citizen. They offered their passports or their
driver's license or other identification to show they were American
citizens. There was no reason to assault them in this way.
In California, they beat a 79-year-old man so badly that they broke
his ribs, and they slammed another man's head into the ground so hard
that he was concussed. In Illinois, a woman was shot five times, while,
in Indiana, a man was punched in the face and dragged outside his
family home in the early morning hours. It didn't matter whether
children were present; agents acted with reckless disregard for their
safety and well-being. In Idaho, children were taken from a car at
gunpoint and later zip-tied. In Massachusetts, an autistic child was
deliberately taken from her parents and used as bait by law enforcement
to try to lure their parents out of the house.
These detentions were not limited to one State or a few States. They
spanned the Nation--from Idaho to Alabama, from California to Illinois.
And we know there are so many stories that haven't been told because
people fear retaliation and retribution--American citizens fearing
their own government retaliating against them for speaking truth to
power about physical assaults by their own government.
These ICE agents have been trained and they have been recruited by
the Department of Homeland Security, which is complicit in this
misconduct--complicit because it has failed to provide the right
training and perhaps has recruited people who are wrongly in these
roles, and it has failed to either provide protocols or to enforce
them.
What became clear through our interviews and across the stories that
keep emerging is that the Department of Homeland Security does not have
just a few rogue agents. It has become a lawless force as an Agency of
the government. It is engaged in a coordinated, nationwide effort using
the same tactics, the same violence wherever they are deploying.
So after months of investigating these kinds of lawless abuses, I am
really saddened to say that Renee Good's death came as no surprise. It
was predictable, and it was preventable. And also preventable are
the injuries and the deaths and the lawlessness that are happening
every day, right now, in the streets of America, in the neighborhoods
of our great country.
They are a betrayal of the rule of law that is the foundation of our
Nation. It should shock America's conscience, and I believe it has, as
it has shocked mine. These kinds of brazen, abusive, lawless tactics do
not represent our Nation. Americans will have a hard time--and they
should--recognizing our great Nation in what they are seeing hour after
hour, day after day--right now, in realtime--in those abuses and in so
frequently used Gestapo-type tactics.
I initially thought: I don't want to go there. My father escaped
Germany in 1935 and came to America after seeing what was to come in
those same Gestapo-type tactics in Germany. He came here speaking no
English, having not much more than the shirt on his back and knowing
virtually no one. If he had stayed in Germany, he would have seen a
paramilitary force going door to door, rounding up people just like
him, exactly the kinds of tactics we now see unfolding: ICE as a
paramilitary force going business to business, door to door, church to
church, school to school, seizing people, dragging them out of their
cars or homes without much more cause than the fact that they are
people of color or they speak a different language or they are working
in a place where undocumented immigrants are thought to be working.
In this country, now, decades after that time in the 1930s, in the
pinnacle of democracy, what we are seeing is a paramilitary force
stopping people in this same way, searching them and assaulting them.
And the parallels are unmistakable and frightening. We cannot, in this
body or anywhere in our great country, stand idly while our fellow
citizens are rounded up and subjected to this treatment. We should not
be standing idly as any human being, whatever their status, is
subjected to this kind of abuse.
I will continue, on my subcommittee, the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, the work that we have done, the investigation that is
ongoing right now. We will press for accountability. We will press for
the facts, the truth. And we have a lot of it already. We will not sit
idly and watch as the Nation I love--all of us in this body do--demeans
and betrays our Constitution. We have all taken an oath to uphold it.
So have those ICE agents that are betraying it. Our Constitution will
crumble unless we fight for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Iran
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, since December 28, Iranian civilians
have taken to the streets to protest the bleak economic conditions and
the daily hardships imposed on their families by the Iranian regime.
Local protests have spread across the country to all 31 Provinces,
drawing tens of thousands of citizens into the streets. These men and
women are rightfully calling for accountability, freedom, and an end to
authoritarian rule.
I stand in solidarity with the people of Iran. They have endured
decades of brutal oppression, corruption, and economic mismanagement.
They want to live with dignity, to provide for their families, and to
secure a better future for the next generation. These are universal
aspirations, and they deserve the support of the international
community. And the people of Iran deserve liberty.
The regime's response has been swift and ruthless. In an attempt to
silence dissent and conceal its abuses, Iranian authorities have shut
down the internet and the phone service. They have cut citizens off
from one another and from the outside world. Peaceful protesters have
been met with lethal force.
Although the regime has shut down nearly all communications, we are
seeing reports estimating that over 12,000 innocent civilians have been
killed. More than 18,000 individuals have been arrested. This level of
violence against Iran's own people is indefensible.
I commend President Trump for imposing economic pressure on those who
continue to support and sustain that regime. These measures send a
clear message: The United States will not ignore the suffering of the
Iranian people, and the exploitation of the Iranian people must end.
The newly imposed 25-percent tariffs on countries doing business with
Iran are designed to strike at the economic lifelines that enable this
repression. Some of Iran's largest trading partners unsurprisingly are
our adversaries. It is both in the interest of our national security
and in the interest of the Iranian people to hold these enablers
accountable. The courage of the Iranian people deserves nothing less.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Campaign Finance
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, 16 years after the Supreme Court's
disastrous Citizens United decision, families across Arizona are paying
more for groceries, rent, gas, and healthcare. And they are wondering
why the people they elect to represent them always seem to have time
for the priorities of billionaires and big corporations but not enough
time for them.
That question did not come out of nowhere; it came from lived
experience. Hard-working Americans are doing everything right. They are
working longer hours. They are budgeting carefully. They are raising
their families. And they are just trying to stay afloat, but they are
still falling behind. That is why we are here today.
In 2010, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that put a ``for
sale'' sign on our democracy. The Citizens United ruling opened the
door for corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited amounts of
money to influence our elections, often without the public ever knowing
who is behind it.
The Court decided that spending money on elections is the same thing
as political speech and that corporations should have the same
political
[[Page S206]]
rights as individual Americans. Does that make any sense?
The results of this were somewhat predictable, and it wasn't limited
to a courtroom. It changed how this place, the U.S. Senate, works. The
loudest voices in Washington became billionaires and not everyday
Americans.
It led to the rise of super PACs and dark money groups. These groups
come out of nowhere, and they spend millions and millions of dollars
attacking one candidate or cause or supporting another. They organize
around what benefits them financially, and they pour massive, massive
amounts of money into securing a specific outcome that benefits them.
They aren't subject to the same transparency or accountability of the
campaign that a candidate runs.
It created a system where power shifts away from everyday Americans
and towards the people who can write the big, giant checks. That shows
up in the policies politicians fight for and the ones they block. It is
no surprise.
Right now, under Donald Trump and Republicans in Washington, we are
seeing this dynamic play out very clearly.
Last year, Republicans passed a bill to hand out massive tax breaks
to billionaires and giant corporations, paid for by throwing 300,000
Arizonans off of their healthcare and slashing food assistance for
families who need it.
He has stacked his Cabinet with billionaire friends who are
completely out of touch with everyday, working Americans who are often
living paycheck to paycheck.
Early in his term, he tapped an unqualified person, Elon Musk--the
wealthiest man in the world--who spent more money than anybody else to
get Donald Trump elected. He hired him to oversee an effort to
recklessly fire thousands of hard-working Federal employees and shut
down entire Agencies, undermining our national security.
Americans are living through a serious cost-of-living crisis right
now. Families are struggling with rising expenses for healthcare, for
housing, for utilities, for groceries, just about everything. What I
hear from my constituents is that they want relief. They want their
government to help bring down costs and help make their lives more
affordable, but time and again, the policies that would do exactly that
stall or they just die right here in this Chamber and down the road at
the White House.
Sixteen years after Citizens United, this is not about relitigating a
court case; it is about recognizing how deeply money and politics
affect people's lives and about drawing a clear line between a
political system that serves billionaires and one that serves people.
Americans see this clearly. They are demanding transparency. They are
demanding accountability. They are demanding a government that answers
to voters, not to the billionaires and not to the special interests.
That is why from day one I have approached this job differently. I
have never taken a dime of corporate PAC money, and I never will, and I
have introduced legislation to ban corporate PACs.
I publish my schedule online so that everybody can see what I am
working on, who I am meeting with, and how I am spending my time in
this job, and I have introduced legislation to require all Senators to
do the same exact thing.
I have also led on legislation to ban Members of Congress from
trading stocks. Let me be clear. Nobody should be able to use this job
to profit personally. It is horrendous, and it is a huge problem. One
of the first things I did after being elected was move all of my assets
and those of my wife Gabby Giffords to a qualified blind trust--the
best standard identified by Senate ethics--and I think all Members of
Congress need to do that.
These are not radical ideas; they are about restoring trust and
making sure that this place works for people who don't have lobbyists,
who don't have super PACs, who can't write a seven-figure check.
These shouldn't be radical demands. They are basic expectations. And
here is why this matters so much right now. As long as big money and
billionaires dominate our politics, it will continue to block progress
on the issues that people care about most: lowering skyrocketing
healthcare costs, making housing more affordable, increasing
competition so families aren't left paying more every single
month. Those fights all run straight through the influence of corporate
money. It is very clear.
So let me be clear. Money is not speech. I mean, who came up with
that? And corporations are not people.
So this moment isn't just about looking backward at a Court decision.
That is not what we are getting at. It is about deciding what kind of
Congress we want to be moving forward. Do we accept a system where
access is bought and outcomes are shaped by the wealthiest members in
our society or do we set a higher bar and say that democracy should
work for the people who vote, not the people who spend millions of
dollars of their own money in elections? That is the choice right in
front of us.
I am proud to be joined by my colleagues today, as we mark 16 years
since the Citizens United ruling, to make clear that the damage from
that decision is real, and it is ongoing, and it is standing in the way
of progress on the issues that people care most about.
This conversation should not end here. It should continue with
action, with accountability, and with a commitment to put people back
at the center of our democracy.
Thank you, Mr. President.
With that, I want to welcome my good friend and colleague the Senator
from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Kelly for
coordinating this unfortunate commemoration of a truly disgraceful
decision by the Republican appointees of the Supreme Court 16 years
ago.
This decision opened the floodgates of our politics to billions and
billions of dollars in dark money, and those billions and billions in
dark money have distorted our political process in ways that are
obvious and evident to everybody who works in this building. Some are
winners from that dark money spent, and some are losers from that dark
money spending, but everybody sees it.
Billionaire spending in our elections is up 160 times. That is 160
times more billionaire spending in our elections now that billionaires
can pump money in by the millions. Just 100 families poured a
recordbreaking $2.6 billion into Federal elections in 2024. I don't
know how democracy survives in an environment in which 100 superwealthy
families are dumping $2.6 billion in special interest spending,
influence spending, into our elections.
This is not a hypothetical problem.
I care a lot about climate change, and I see what is happening to our
coasts, particularly in Rhode Island. I was here before the Citizens
United decision, when robust, meaningful, bipartisan climate
legislation was constant here in the Senate. I can think of four major
bipartisan bills here in the Senate. And I remember my friend John
McCain running for President, carrying the Republican banner into that
Presidential election with a completely solid and respectable climate
platform.
Well, right after Citizens United, all of that stopped. The barrage
of fossil fuel dark money into our politics killed bipartisanship on
climate change instantly.
It is still a problem today. Just yesterday, I asked to move a
resolution that declared that climate change is not a hoax, that
climate science is sound science, and that research into the effects of
climate change should continue, and Republicans objected to that simple
resolution.
The fossil fuel industry bought that obstruction of climate
legislation for 16 years now with money. They poured $450 million into
political influence spending during the 2024 cycle, and that is only
the identifiable money. Then there is the dark money, and we don't know
how big that number was.
We are already seeing the climate problem cascade into a homeowners
insurance crisis, cascade into a crisis of mortgage unavailability and
ultimately home value losses. It is already happening in Florida, for
instance. So this is real, with real consequences for regular
Americans.
There was a big flaw in the Citizens United decision. The Citizens
United decision hung on two assertions of fact
[[Page S207]]
by that slim Republican majority that warped our politics for the
billionaires. Those two false facts were that all of this new spending
was going to be independent of political campaigns--that was never
tested, never vetted, never litigated. That was a fact that was
invented behind the curtains of the Supreme Court by those five
Justices. History shows since then that had a real factfinding effort
been undertaken, it would have been clear that this spending is not at
all independent of political campaigns.
But here is where it is indisputable. The Court also held--those five
Judges--that all of this unlimited billions that they were letting
loose into our politics would be transparent, that voters would know
who was behind the money. Well, in 2024, $1.9 billion in money was
spent in elections that we don't know who is behind. That is a $1.9
billion factual rebuke to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
It simply isn't true.
So that decision hangs on a false fact that was found by a Court that
shouldn't even be doing factfinding and which for 16 years those five
Justices have scrupulously refused to correct even as the falsity of
the fact upon which their decision depended has been proven over and
over and over again.
I will close by pointing to the DISCLOSE Act--a bill that can remedy
this by requiring contributions over 10 grand into a political race to
be disclosed by the actual donor. No more hiding behind a 501(c)(3)
that converts to a 501(c)(4) that sends it to a super Pac that sends it
to the election. No, you go all the way back to the actual, real donor.
We should pass that bill. Every time we brought it up, every
Republican has voted to defend dark money, and every Democrat has voted
to rid our politics of this corrupting scourge. Every time, every
Republican, every Democrat. It is a clear divide, a clear difference
between us. And the public is with us. The public is infuriated that
big, secretive special interests can control our politics from behind
the scenes with massive dark money contributions.
Last point. If you can make an enormous dark money contribution, you
can threaten or promise to make an enormous dark money contribution,
and those threats and promises will never be seen. It is the core of
political corruption to make decisions based on secret threats and
promises about massive political spending.
We have to get rid of this. The decision was ill-founded, factually
wrong, and needs to be corrected.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse, who has been
pointing out that we have a money and politics system that is
corrupting the vision of government by and for the people and is
replacing it with government by and for the powerful. Who in America
wants a governmental system, designed and intended to be a reflection
of ordinary citizens' desires and aspirations and opinions, to simply
be a country run by oligarchs, by billionaires? Yet that is where we
have arrived.
We absolutely need to change this campaign system--moneys in the
campaign--in order to save any possibility of a republic by and for the
people.
What we really have now are two campaign systems--one for ordinary
citizens and one for the megarich that gives the megarich extraordinary
power.
If you or I make a donation to a candidate, well, first of all, there
is a cap on it of several thousand dollars. I know nobody in my blue-
collar community donates several thousand dollars to a campaign, but
there are upper middle-income families that do donate thousands of
dollars, but it is thousands, not millions, not tens of millions, and
it is completely disclosed. You can look up who gave to the candidate.
It is disclosed. It is capped. That is the system for ordinary
Americans.
But then there is the system for the powerful that every single
Republican in this Chamber keeps voting to defend. It is called the
dark money system. There is no cap on the amount that can be donated.
There is no public disclosure to the American people.
The Supreme Court created this dual system, saying: You know, a cap
on money to the candidate--well, that could produce a conflict of
interest or appearance of corruption, so you can cap it. But if you
give it to the friend of the candidate to run a parallel campaign,
well, that is suddenly whitewashed or washed clean and no influence on
the candidate. The candidate probably won't even know about it.
Well, everyone knows that is a complete fallacy, complete and
totally. Somebody gives $10 million to the friend of the candidate to
run a parallel campaign, the candidate knows that is happening. They
know the ads. They hear about the source. Even that parallel campaign--
they can still share staff. I mean, there is no real division between
them.
So that was a completely phony distinction created by the Court to
create a system of corporate and billionaire power in America. As my
colleague pointed out in the context of climate, we saw a radical
change immediately.
Well, the growth in dark money has been stunning. Because there is so
much money among the oligarchs and billionaires, they want to spend it
to create laws that favor the oligarchs and billionaires, and they are
spending at an extraordinary rate.
Six years ago, it was about $300 million. That is a lot of money. But
according to the Brennan Center article from May 7--Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have this Brennan Center article printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[May 7, 2025]
Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024, Federal Races
(By Ian Vandewalker)
The 2024 federal election cycle was the most secretive
since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.
Dark money groups, nonprofits and shell companies that spend
on elections without revealing their donors, plowed more than
$1.9 billion into last year's election cycle, a dramatic
increase from the prior record of $1 billion in 2020.
Citizens United, which allowed corporations and unions to
raise and spend unlimited amounts on elections, was premised
significantly on the Court's assumption that all of this
newly permitted election spending would be transparent. In
reality, many of the groups the Court allowed to spend money
on elections were not required to disclose their donors.
Since Citizens United, dark money groups have spent at least
$4.3 billion on federal elections.
As dark money has proliferated, it has also evolved.
Immediately after Citizens United, many newly empowered
groups purchased their own ads to influence elections. Some
of these purchases were reported to the Federal Election
Commission (FEC), which makes such information publicly
available. However, since at least 2020, dark money groups
have largely shifted toward making large transfers to allied
super PACs--in amounts that far exceeded any previous direct
ad spending. These totals can only be tabulated by reviewing
each super PAC's campaign finance reports. Dark money groups
also increasingly run ads, including many online ads, that
are worded and timed such that they do not trigger FEC
disclosure requirements.
This analysis offers the first comprehensive accounting of
dark money in the most recent federal election cycle.
It combines publicly available FEC data with data on
otherwise undisclosed television spending from the Wesleyan
Media Project, a research institute that tracks political
advertising, and data on digital political ad sales that
certain online platforms voluntarily make public. Some other
categories of undisclosed political spending cannot be
reliably tracked. Therefore, the $1.9 billion figure reported
in this analysis necessarily--and perhaps substantially--
underestimates the true scale of dark money spending in 2024.
Types of Dark Money Spending
The term dark money as used in this analysis refers to
election spending and contributions by nonprofits and shell
companies that are not legally required to--and do not--
disclose the identities of their donors. The lack of
transparency does not make the spending analyzed here
illegal, although the Brennan Center supports legislation to
require full disclosure of more of it. Dark money flowed into
the 2024 elections in four ways that can be tracked:
contributions to super PACs, direct spending reported to the
FEC, TV spending, and online spending.
Contributions to Super PACs
During the 2024 election cycle, shell companies and 501(c)
nonprofits that did not disclose their funding sources gave
$1.3 billion to super PACs--more than in the prior two
election cycles combined.
Citizens United and later court cases led to the creation
of super PACs, which can receive contributions of any amount,
including from corporations and unions. Although
[[Page S208]]
super PACs are supposed to operate independently from the
candidates they support, many are established by candidates'
close allies or run by former staff or party operatives. Many
share consultants with campaigns and even enlist candidates
to help them fundraise.
Recent FEC rulings have opened the door to even more direct
cooperation between candidates and super PACs in certain
critical areas--including canvassing and get-out-the-vote
efforts.
Donald Trump's 2024 campaign outsourced many of these
activities in swing states to a super PAC run by his largest
supporter, tech billionaire Elon Musk, while Kamala Harris
leaned heavily on a super PAC run by Democratic Party
operatives.
Super PACs are required to report their donors, but they
can easily hide the original sources of their funds by taking
money from dark money groups. This practice has exploded in
recent elections. Many of the top-spending super PACs in
2024--including Future Forward USA, which worked to elect
Harris, and the Senate Leadership Fund, which is tied to
Republican Party leaders--had affiliated dark money groups
that provided eight- or nine-figure sums.
The chart below shows how dark money has evolved since 2010
according to FEC data. Direct ad spending by dark money
groups used to be the main reported funding avenue, but its
2012 peak is now eclipsed by dark money contributions to
super PACs in each of the previous three elections. (For the
purposes of this analysis, the term super PACs includes
groups called Carey committees or hybrid PACs that have both
an independent expenditure arm and an arm that takes limited
contributions.)
Television Ad Spending
Dark money groups spent approximately $242 million on TV
ads targeting federal candidates during the 2024 election
cycle, according to new Wesleyan Media Project research. The
vast majority was not reported to the FEC. As explained in
the methodology below, this study's dark money total of $1.9
billion avoids double counting the small amount of spending
that may be included in both data from the Wesleyan Media
Project and FEC data.
Federal rules only require certain campaign ads to be
reported to the FEC. Ads that do not expressly advocate for
the election or defeat of a candidate using unambiguous
phrases like ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' are generally
not subject to reporting requirements, except for TV and
radio ads run within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of
Election Day.
By running ads that avoid explicit calls to vote for or
against a particular candidate outside of the mandated
reporting windows, dark money groups can bypass FEC
disclosure rules. Some of this spending can still be tracked
because it is available through TV ad tracking services, and
those ads are reflected in this analysis. But additional TV
spending on streaming applications like Hulu and local TV ad
buys means the actual total exceeds the $242 million
discussed here.
Online Ad Spending
Digital ads are another form of dark money spending that is
often missing from FEC data, and data from the largest online
platforms shows that hidden sources spent $315 million. Like
TV ads, online ads can avoid disclosure requirements if they
do not explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a
particular candidate. Unlike TV and radio ads, online ads
that mention candidates are not subject to FEC reporting
regardless of proximity to Election Day.
Nevertheless, some major online platforms voluntarily
maintain databases of political ad sales. These datasets
indicate that about 320 groups that do not disclose their
donors collectively spent more than $281 million on online
ads during the 2024 election cycle without disclosing any
spending to the FEC. Another 38 nonprofits that do not
disclose their donors but reported at least some spending to
the FEC spent an additional $34 million on online ads. (As
with TV spending, this analysis does not double count
spending that appears in both data from online platforms and
FEC data.) Without standardized disclosure regulations for
online political advertising, however, the full extent of
digital election spending remains difficult to quantify.
The major platforms that reported political ad sales for
2024 are Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube, X, and
Snapchat. Spending totals for Facebook, Instagram, Google,
and YouTube were collected by OpenSecrets, and spending
totals for X and Snapchat were obtained directly from those
platforms.
Social media platforms owned by Meta, the parent company of
Facebook and Instagram, attracted the majority of documented
online spending by dark money groups for the 2024 cycle--
about $238 million.
Google and YouTube, which are owned by Alphabet Inc.,
attracted about $66.2 million in dark money over the same
period. Snapchat documented about $7 million. X reported
around $3.9 million in dark money ad spending, though
analysts have raised questions about the completeness of its
data.
Importantly, each online platform makes its own decisions
about how to define reportable political advertising, and
these definitions can shift over time. Other practices,
including what information is provided for ads and the format
in which it is presented, also differ considerably.
Researchers have documented significant gaps in multiple
political ad archives. And even the most comprehensive
archives generally exclude certain categories of spending,
such as payments to influencers for content or political
endorsements, further obscuring the whole picture.
Direct Spending Reported to the FEC
Nonprofits that do not disclose their donors reported about
$43 million in direct spending to the FEC during the entire
2024 cycle. That amounts to less than 2.5 percent of all dark
money in last year's election. A small portion of this FEC-
disclosed spending went to ads that are also included in TV
and online ad data discussed above, but this analysis avoids
double counting those expenditures.
The $43 million in direct spending is an increase over the
prior cycle. During the 2022 midterms, dark money groups
reported less than $25 million in spending to the FEC, the
lowest total since the Citizens United decision. Spending
reported to the FEC peaked at around $309 million in 2012.
However, as groups switched to a strategy of largely funding
allied super PACs, direct spending reported to the FEC
gradually dropped.
Spending That Cannot Be Tracked
Several other types of election spending by dark money
groups have not been included in this analysis because they
are difficult or impossible to track. As noted, not all
online platforms release spending data, and none publishes
data on certain forms of expenditures, like paid influencers.
This analysis also does not include data for radio ads that
are not reported to the FEC, and, as mentioned above,
streaming video applications and some TV spending. Other
forms of communication, like billboards and flyers, are also
generally left out of FEC data unless they expressly advocate
for or against a candidate.
Dark Money by Party
Both Democrats and Republicans benefited from hundreds of
millions of dollars in dark money in 2024. More spending
backed Democrats, as has been the case since the 2018 midterm
elections (before which more dark money typically favored
Republicans). The presidential race was the source of much of
this disparity in last year's cycle.
Overall, dark money groups boosting Democrats put up about
$1.2 billion to influence 2024 elections, while groups
boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million.
The Presidential Contest
The presidential election attracted more super PAC
spending--totaling around $2 billion--than any other race in
the 2024 cycle. Political committees supporting Trump or
Harris collectively received more than $500 million from dark
money groups.
Future Forward USA Action, the main dark money group
supporting Joe Biden and then Harris, gave the most. The
501(c)(4) nonprofit poured more than $304 million into
spending on ads and contributions to its closely tied super
PAC, Future Forward USA. That means that $1 out of every $6
from undisclosed sources in the 2024 election cycle came
through a single dark money group.
At the same time, multiple dark money groups also worked to
elect Trump, and the flow of money increased substantially in
the final months of the election cycle. Securing American
Greatness, after its incorporation in March 2024, spent more
than $81 million, about $67 million of which went to super
PACs.
Another major supporter of Trump's presidential bid was
Building America's Future, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that
reportedly received funding from Musk. It contributed more
than $35 million to super PACs that spent heavily on
seemingly pro-Harris ads falsely suggesting that her campaign
supported divisive policies.
Congressional Leadership
The presidential election was not the only race to attract
large sums of money from secret donors in 2024. The main dark
money groups aligned with the Democratic and Republican
Parties in Congress spent more than $432 million, up from
about $346 million during the 2022 midterms and $320 million
during the 2020 cycle. These groups are 501(c)(4) nonprofits
that each have ties with party leadership and share staff and
resources with an affiliated super PAC.
Majority Forward, a dark money nonprofit affiliated with
Senate Democratic leadership, poured more than $136 million
into key Senate races. More than $81.7 million of that money
went to Senate Majority PAC, the main super PAC aligned with
Senate Democrats in recent cycles. But unlike prior cycles,
Senate Majority PAC did not spend the funds directly.
Instead, it seeded a new super PAC named WinSenate that spent
the money on ads to influence Senate races.
One Nation, the main dark money group with ties to Senate
Republicans, spent about $123 million in 2024. Of that, $59.3
million went toward advertising, mainly to TV ads. More than
$53 million worth of airtime made One Nation the top dark
money spender on TV ads during the 2024 election cycle,
according to research by the Wesleyan Media Project. One
Nation also steered more than $63 million to an allied super
PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund.
House Republicans' dark money group, the American Action
Network, poured $69 million into the 2024 elections. The main
dark money group affiliated with House Democrats, House
Majority Forward, gave about $61 million to influence
congressional races.
[[Page S209]]
Conclusion
Dark money spending in federal elections broke records in
2024, even as it became harder to track. Fueled by Citizens
United, secretive political spending has eroded
accountability and Americans' trust in the political process.
The trend toward secrecy in U.S. campaigns is likely to
continue until Congress takes action to require disclosure of
large political contributions and expenditures.
Methodology
The methodology for this analysis yielded a conservative
estimate of dark money in 2024 federal elections by building
on a system created by OpenSecrets to measure dark money in
2020. This approach included an examination of spending
reported to the FEC by groups without disclosed donors, TV ad
data from research conducted in partnership with the Wesleyan
Media Project using Vivvix CMAG data, and online ad data from
major platforms. Spending totals were obtained directly from
Snap and X, then analyzed by the Brennan Center; spending
totals for social media platforms affiliated with Meta and
Google were provided by OpenSecrets, then analyzed by the
Brennan Center. OpenSecrets' viewpoint coding system was used
for any groups that reported independent expenditures or
electioneering communications to the FEC. Some dark money
groups report ad spending to the FEC. To avoid double
counting the amounts reported to the FEC, this analysis
followed a methodology similar to the one applied by
OpenSecrets in 2020: Both online and TV ad spending were
combined into a total figure for each group, which was then
compared against the FEC-reported spending. Only the larger
of the two amounts was used.
Mr. MERKLEY. Dark money hit a record-high $1.9 billion in the 2024
races. That is a sixfold increase in 6 years. That is the rich and
powerful buying their government. It is an absolute travesty.
No one in the founding community of our Nation who wrote the
Declaration of Independence, who wrote the Constitution, wanted to
design a system where the megarich ran the place as a cabal of elites,
but that is what we have, and that is what we have to change.
We saw this with President Trump. On April 11 in 2024, he met with
the fossil fuel executives. He had dinner at Mar-a-Lago. His pitch was
simple: In exchange for $1 billion, he told them, he promised to
prioritize their preferences in the next election.
Well, those fossil fuel leaders delivered hundreds and hundreds of
millions of dollars in election spending and lobbying. And what did
Trump do? He delivered for them. He gave them $18 billion in new and
expanded tax breaks. A pretty good deal, huh? With hundreds of millions
of dollars invested, you get $18 billion in tax breaks.
He penalized their competition. The renewable energy that is cheaper
and cleaner? He put up all kinds of obstacles to favor dirty, more
expensive fossil fuels. He green-lighted LNG terminals. He blocked new
solar and wind. He took the United States out of the Paris climate
accords. That is the example of how this money corrupts.
So everything we are fighting for, for the ordinary person, is being
torched by these megadonations. You saw what Trump calls this Big
Beautiful bill. It was really a big, ugly betrayal of American
families. It proceeded to cut nutrition. It proceeded to cut healthcare
to deliver, well, trillions of dollars of tax breaks for the richest
Americans, and it even will run up the debt by $30 trillion in the next
30 years for those richest Americans. If we are going to change this,
we have to change this dynamic. If we fail, we have really failed in
our oath to the Constitution.
I invite my Republican colleagues to start fighting for a vision of
government by and for the people, not by and for the elite--oligarchs
and the billionaires. Let's save our Republic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to mark 16 years since
the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which opened the
floodgates to unlimited special interest money in our elections.
We had a campaign finance system. It wasn't perfect. There was a
bipartisan effort to put some limits on things. The problem with the
way it is now is that it opens it up, and it is impossible to even
trace what money is coming in and from where.
I want to thank Senator Kelly for bringing us to the floor today to
discuss such an important issue for our democracy and thank my
colleagues who are here today.
In the 2024 Federal election, secret money groups spent $1.9 billion,
nearly double the amount spent just one cycle before. This undermines
our democracy and shakes the public's trust because unlimited,
anonymous Federal spending in our elections doesn't encourage free
speech. It drowns out the voices of the American people who are seeking
to participate.
I have long supported a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens
United and restore the authority of Congress and the States to
establish reasonable limits on campaign spending, and I will keep
making the case to build support for that effort. In the meantime,
there are things that we can do to make our campaign finance system
stronger and more transparent.
That is why I have led the effort, alongside Ranking Member Padilla,
to advance commonsense bills, including the Freedom to Vote Act, to
shine light on secret money and make sure Americans know who is trying
to influence their votes. We came very close to passing my bill in the
last Congress. The Freedom to Vote Act would provide important new
tools to rid our politics of Big Money and root out foreign
interference.
It includes the DISCLOSE Act, which I have cosponsored--Senator
Whitehouse's bill--in every Congress since 2012, to end secret money in
our politics. The DISCLOSE Act also makes it harder for billionaires
and others to hide their contributions by ending the use of transfers
between organizations in order to cloak the identity of donors. It
requires organizations that spend money on political activities to
disclose the true owner.
The Freedom to Vote Act also includes my Honest Ads Act, bipartisan
legislation that I first introduced with Senator John McCain, whom we
miss very much and his leadership when it comes to campaign finance.
This bill would require online platforms to take steps to prevent
foreign nationals from buying ads. It would ensure that all online
platforms disclose their buyers of digital political ads if the
platforms reach 50 million or more unique U.S. visitors per month,
meaning online platforms would finally have to follow the same rules
that TV and radio stations already follow for political ads.
It is simply insane that, in one medium, there are some rules and, in
another, there are not. These changes will increase transparency while
including commonsense exemptions to protect the First Amendment rights
of websites that are simply part of traditional media.
Third, the Freedom to Vote Act would strengthen rules banning the
coordination between candidates and super PACs to make sure candidates
cannot evade contribution limits by working with their super PACs.
Finally, the Freedom to Vote Act includes important reforms to the
Federal Election Commission to improve the enforcement of our campaign
finance laws. Since the Citizens United decision came down, 16 years
ago, new technologies have emerged that only make the need for reform
more pressing. AI videos are making their way into political ads,
giving dark money groups a new and cheaper tool with which to influence
politicians and mislead the public.
That is why I lead bipartisan bills to ban the use of AI to create
deceptive campaign ads--that is a bill that Senator Hawley and I lead--
and to require disclaimers on political ads that have content
substantially generated by AI.
Think about it. If they are blatantly deceptive and are not satire or
parody, which is allowed by our Constitution, then they are banned.
Otherwise, at least there is a label that says ``Created by AI.'' That
will let the voters know something is up. Maybe this isn't really the
politician I love or the politician I don't love.
Whether it is a question of who is funding an ad or whether or not
the content of the ad is real, voters deserve transparency. We need to
end secret money in our politics to make sure the American people know
their elected officials work for them, not the wealthy and the powerful
few, and to make sure we have a government that works for everyone.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today with such deep concern about the
state
[[Page S210]]
of our democracy. Why have we let the scourge of money in our politics
get this bad? Why have we ignored the vast majority of Americans who
want us to get it under control? Why have we ceded our democracy to the
highest bidder? I am not alone in feeling exasperated and feeling
frustrated and being angry.
As we look back at 16 years, in the wake of the Citizens United
decision, we should be honest with ourselves: Our politics were never
truly fair. Voters were marginalized or excluded because of the color
of their skin. Machines and bosses took advantage of everyday people.
The powerful thought they could decide for the rest of us.
But we made progress. We took steps forward. So much of it was
reversed with one swoop of Citizens United. Now we are awash in money
and influence, living through politics where the new bosses hide behind
a Supreme Court decision that allows them to pump unlimited money into
elections without the risk of exposure or accountability. It feels
overwhelming. But to understand how bad the amount of money in politics
has gotten, you just have to look at the numbers.
According to OpenSecrets, during the 2008 election cycle, outside
spending totaled about $574 million. Two years later, the Citizens
United decision came down. Just 2 years after that, during the next
Presidential election cycle, outside spending topped off at nearly $1.3
billion. And just 2 years ago, in 2024, it came close to $4.5 billion.
Those numbers are disgusting. The American people are sick and tired of
this, being bombarded with ads.
But it is not just about that. It is worse. The American people know
that they are being purposely manipulated, fed lies. The amount of
money--untraced, unaccountable, undemocratic money--is beyond
comprehension.
To me, what is even more unbelievable is that it is insanely
unpopular. Last year, the group Issue One conducted a poll on the 15th
anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Nearly 80 percent said
that unchecked spending gave rise to corruption. More than 75 percent
said that the amount of money in politics was causing them to lose
faith in democracy itself, while 77 percent said that, when we tackle
Big Money in our politics, we make our democracy stronger. These
numbers are across the political spectrum, and these numbers are borne
out in survey after survey. Pew, in 2023, showed that nearly three-
quarters of all Americans just want us to put limits on what can be
spent.
We live in a time when there is the greatest amount of distrust in
our government in modern American history. Now, I decided to run for
office nearly a decade ago because I saw what Citizens United did and
how the unchecked money in our politics was impacted. It was one of the
first things I talked about on the campaign trail. It was one of the
first things I pushed to introduce and spoke out about on the House
floor, and every year, we have carried the fight forward to reverse it.
It is important for us to remember not to feel helpless. I have often
said that the opposite of democracy is apathy. And too often, we say of
money in politics that this is a problem too big, that we can't solve;
or that the challenges are too entrenched and that we are not going to
be able to mobilize to fix it. I would just urge us, on this
anniversary of Citizens United, to keep in mind that it doesn't have to
be this way. We don't need to have a politics that is exasperating. We
can have one that is empowering. We can have one wherein the voices of
voters, not the endless bank accounts of the well-off and the well-
connected, decide who represents us, and we can have a politics that
restores and grows trust rather than actively degrades.
This year is the 250th anniversary of the independence of our Nation.
We will be referencing that a lot in this Chamber because this is our
moment to free Americans from the influence of Big Money and to give
them back their voice in a democracy. Let us come together and get it
done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Mark Kelly for
bringing people to the floor to talk about that which is,
unequivocally, the greatest threat to American democracy right now. It
is the cancer that is metastasizing more and more and more.
Since the Citizens United decision, I have watched as to how this
body has seen clearly corrupt forces beginning to overrun the common
sense and the will of the people in policy. More and more are being
bent to the whim and the will of the wealthiest of the wealthy in our
country and the world, as well as to corporations--many of them,
multinational corporations.
We are in crisis--our Nation is in crisis--as more and more Americans
lose trust and lose faith in our country, in our democracy, in the
people who serve--the 535 Members: the 100 Members of the Senate and
the 435 Members of the House of Representatives. They feel more and
more that they are in it for themselves and for the corporations and
not to do the hard work of the people.
Trust is vital for a democracy to thrive, and there has been nothing
more powerful in the undermining of that trust, in the years that I
have been in the Senate, than what I have seen in the destructive force
of money in our politics. We know that the decision that was made by a
conservative majority of five Justices--three of whom are still on the
Court--permitted those billionaires and corporations to pour unlimited,
unchecked money into our elections, drowning out the collective voices
of the people.
Let me give you an example, a sobering fact. In 2024, about 44
percent of all of the money raised to support Donald Trump came from 10
individual donors.
Think about that for a second. Of the billions of dollars that were
spent on this election for the President of the United States right
now, 44 percent of that money was contributed by 10 people. This is not
just a purview of any party, though; this is something that is
infecting our entire system.
People ask the question rightfully: What does all that influence and
money buy? Well, right now, we are seeing it. Individuals like Elon
Musk and other billionaires are exercising an outsized influence on our
party, threatening people in this body and other bodies to drop
millions and millions of dollars against them. And to say that doesn't
have an influence is wrong. Unlimited corporate cash literally buys
policies that put even more money in the pockets of the wealthiest,
allows them to rig the system to benefit them, while working-class
Americans more and more get a raw deal.
We are seeing a virtual welfare state for the wealthiest of the
wealthy in our policies that benefits and protects the wealthiest, that
serves the largest corporations, that is designed to line the pockets
further and further of the wealthy. It is a tax cut for corporations
that we have seen in policies, while Americans and their most important
issues--whether it is their healthcare, whether it is their ability to
make a living--are further and further undermined.
Citizens United has created a system where Presidential pardons are
pay-to-play, where environmental regulations that keep us safe and
healthy are slashed, where corporate mergers are rubberstamped by
Federal regulators.
For 16 years now, we have seen the slow, cancerous corruption of
American democracy. We have seen how folks who pay the price get
outsized influence, that a small group of billionaires and corporations
wield enormous power over elections and, in turn, over the policies
that all Americans have to live under. And this has fueled what is
growing to be a growing discontent.
Ending Citizens United is wildly popular on both sides of the aisle.
The majority of Americans want to see an end to this cancerous
decision. Americans are sick and tired, and they are demanding that we
act.
I believe this body should come together in a bipartisan way to end
the nightmare that has been unleashed on America by Citizens United. I
know from private conversations with people on both sides of the aisle
that it would be a relief not to have this outsized influence of money
and power on this body. It would allow us to focus in an undeterred way
on the business of the people.
I am proud to cosponsor bills that would end this nightmare like
Democracy for All, the amendment to overturn this misguided decision. I
am proud to champion commonsense reforms like the Freedom to Vote Act
[[Page S211]]
and--God--the DISCLOSE Act, which would ensure that the dark money
pouring into our elections, the cancerous resources unleashed by the
wealthiest of the wealthy--that at least they could not pour that money
in and then hide their identity. It would shine light on what is a
dark, dark process.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle but particularly my
Republican colleagues to listen to the overwhelming majority of
Americans who just not only want to avoid the dark, cancerous reality
that Citizens United brought to us but are hoping and yearning for our
democracy to get back to the ideals that we all share, that we pledge
allegiance to, that could make this 250th anniversary of our country
something truly to celebrate: that we are a nation free from this
cancer, free from the dark money that is flooding our politics; that,
indeed, we are free at last to see what can happen in America that
focuses on the people and the power of the people and not just the
power of the wealthiest.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Mark Kelly for
bringing us together on the floor to talk about Citizens United.
Senator Kelly has the honor of representing the State of Arizona.
When I was a Member of the House of Representatives, I served with a
Congressman from Arizona named Morris Udall. He was a great guy. He ran
for President. He was, I guess, the source of more jokes and comedy
than any politician of his day. He used to say: If you have politics in
your bloodstream, only embalming fluid will replace it.
I am living proof that he was right. In 1982, I decided to run for
the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time. This was after I
lost three straight elections. My wife said this is my last chance. So
I took on an incumbent in 1982 for the U.S. House of Representatives.
He had been in that seat for 22 years. But because of the quirky law in
Illinois, the Democrats got to draw the map, so I got a map against the
Republican incumbent which was 40 percent new territory. I had a
chance. And 1982 was a big year for Democrats. I remember it. I still
remember my fear: Would I raise enough money to be a viable candidate?
Nobody knew for sure.
The average cost of a congressional campaign in 1982 was $215,000,
for a campaign to run for the U.S. House. I raised and spent, as did my
opponent, $800,000. We set records--$800,000.
If you say that today--``Would you start off and wage a campaign for
the House with $800,000?''--they would say ``Well, that is just for the
announcement, right? You are going to need a few more dollars if you
are serious about a campaign.'' The number has grown dramatically and
now is in the millions for candidates for the House and for the Senate.
You are looking at the last open, public sponsor of public financing
of campaigns. Nobody else has tackled it since I stopped introducing
it. At the time I introduced it, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a
Republican, was my cosponsor. We had a bipartisan bill. I still believe
it is the right way to go, but it doesn't have a chance.
Under the current system that has been described by my colleagues
here on the floor, there is so much entrenched money that they
virtually control the agenda and scare the living hell out of average
individuals who don't have a fortune to spend. That is the reality of
what we face.
Senator Booker is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is
an interesting world we live in. There is a group--I won't name their
names on the floor, but it would be easy to figure out who I am talking
about--that admonishes me regularly, as the chairman and ranking member
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that I am just not progressive
enough; I am not doing enough.
This influence group here in Washington is a dark money operation. We
don't know where their money is coming from. They are the reformers,
this dark money operation.
We now have, currently, a debate going on on the floor about
cryptocurrency. Remember what happened in the last campaign on
cryptocurrency? The industry decided that they would pick out one or
two Democrats and make a point that they were in the wrong position
when it came to cryptocurrency. So they spent $40 million to defeat one
of our colleagues here in the Senate, and they succeeded. That is the
kind of thing that happens now: 40 million bucks. That is more than a
good day raising money for most candidates, but that is the reality of
what we face.
This decision that we face today--Citizens United--was mindless. To
say that a business has the same rights as individuals under the
Constitution is a mindless conclusion. And it is no surprise. If I am
not mistaken--I will double-check--if I am not mistaken, not a single
Supreme Court Justice who ruled in that case had ever stood for office,
ever had a fundraiser, ever had to go through it and understand what it
does to you.
I think ethical reform that is meaningful requires a scandal that is
earth-shattering. I am not sure what is left by way of scandal. What is
going on with corruption in this business has become almost routine.
And I am sorry to say that because so many people on both sides of the
aisle are good, honest people who are public servants trying to do
their best. But this Citizens United decision and where we are in
politics today have changed this business so much, I am not sure we can
ever reclaim the kind of idealism that we all aspire to as public
servants in this institution.
I thank the Senator for drawing us to the floor today. There is a lot
of work to be done, and I may not be around for some of it. But I will
still remember that $800,000 when I first ran was a record. Now it is
rather routine.
Let's make sure that if you have politics in your bloodstream, it
doesn't take embalming fluid to replace it. Let's replace it with the
ideals that we all aspire to.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kelly for bringing us down
to the floor today.
It is hard to believe it has been 16 years since our politics were
upended, since the floodgates were opened to corporate money in an
unlimited way, in an anonymous way, coming into our elections.
Senator Durbin, of course, has been a hero, as he mentioned spending
much of his career trying to introduce legislation and pass legislation
that would put citizens in charge of our elections rather than Big
Money.
So let's just for a few minutes here, because I know there are others
who want to speak--I just want to make maybe three points.
The first is to just give you the scope, if we haven't put this
information on the record already, as to how things have changed.
Senator Durbin was doing some of this already in referencing how little
elections used to cost compared to how much they cost today, but let's
just talk about the full amount of money that is in politics today as
compared to let's say 1976--a few years before Senator Durbin was first
running for Congress.
In 1976, total Federal election spending by candidates and committees
was $160 million. In the last election, in 2024, candidates and
committees together spent $15.9 billion. OK. Now, it is a long time
between 1976 and 2024, so let's adjust that for inflation. Adjusted for
inflation, it is still 100 times more money. That is stunning. That is
stunning in and of itself, but here is what makes it corrupt. What
makes it corrupt is that prior to the Citizens United decision, outside
groups, noncandidate groups, were spending about $144 million in
elections annually. In 2024, outside groups spent $4.2 billion.
When Senator Durbin was first running, he was raising money from
individuals, folks who were spending $25, $100, maybe a couple hundred
dollars on campaign contributions. Individuals today make up just 16
percent of total spending in elections--16 percent. Eighty-four percent
of all the spending in elections today is not done by citizens; 84
percent of spending is by corporations and organizations. Most of that
money--maybe not most. Much of that money is anonymous; you have no
idea where it comes from.
So let me tell you what the impact of that is. The impact of that is
corruption. Let's just call it what it is. When a handful of
billionaires and corporations have that much influence on our
[[Page S212]]
elections, an unaccountable influence--you have no idea who is spending
all of that money, who is throwing these ads on TV that are being
produced by PACs with innocuous sounding names like Save Our Future,
Build Our Future, This Is Our Future--the impact of that is just--it is
corrupt. It is corrupt.
There is a group that is being formed right now called Leading the
Future--another one of these innocuous sounding PACs. It is promising
to spend $100 million in the election this fall, and it is being funded
by a group of AI companies--companies that are trying to get the
Congress to pass legislation to essentially give these AI companies a
free ride--no protection from deepfakes, no protection from the poison
they are feeding our children. They want free rein, so they are putting
up $100 million in this next election.
I just did the math, sitting at my desk, quickly. The average
individual contribution today is about $25. That is a lot of money for
some people, to give $25 to an election. If every single resident of my
State--every single resident--gave $25, that wouldn't equal the $100
million commitment that one super PAC has made to this next election.
That is stunning. That shows you how much power a handful of these
companies have.
The only way that this group Leading Our Future can put $100 million
into this next election to try to stop Congress from regulating
artificial intelligence is because of the Citizens United decision,
because that decision allows those companies that are swimming in money
right now to be able to write an unlimited check into this next
election.
So you can understand why people feel powerless today, why people
feel like this whole system is rigged because even if they give $25, it
just doesn't make a difference when a handful of companies can, with
the snap of their fingers, muster $100 million to try to change the
impact of an election on public policy.
The last point I want to make is this: This fight that we are having
now in which only Democrats care about changing our campaign finance
laws, in which Republicans almost to a person have no interest in
trying to decrease the influence of corporations and billionaires in
our elections, it is ahistorical. In fact, this has not historically
been a particularly partisan issue except for the last 25 years.
There is a giant, cult-like poster of Donald Trump on the Department
of Labor that I drive by every day in and out of the Capitol. It is
super creepy, the idea that we have Mao- and Stalin-like banners of the
President of the United States surrounding the U.S. Capitol. But next
to the banner of Donald Trump on the Department of Labor building is a
banner depicting the image of Teddy Roosevelt. I guess it is an attempt
by the President to draw an equivalency between himself and Teddy
Roosevelt. That is a pretty--that is a stretch.
But Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, a Republican who in the wake of
a pretty minor scandal, in 1904, when a couple of companies sent secret
checks to his campaign and to other Republican campaigns, came to
Congress and said: We have got to ban corporate money from elections.
He had trouble getting Republicans to do it at first. So he reached
out across the aisle and worked with a particularly vile Democrat, a
guy by the name of Benjamin ``Pitchfork'' Tillman--just a bad, bad guy.
Actually, our rule XIX, which we use against each other occasionally to
try to settle the tone of debate, it is in our rules because of
Benjamin ``Pitchfork'' Tillman.
Anyway, Roosevelt--a Republican--and Tillman--a Democrat--got
together and said: Let's ban corporations from being able to influence
our elections. That is the Tillman Act that was the law of the land in
practice until the Citizens United decision. For 100 years until that
decision, Republicans and Democrats actually worked together pretty
well to say: You know what, the people should be in charge, not
corporations. That wasn't a partisan idea. It is now, unfortunately.
I am grateful to Senator Kelly for bringing us down to the floor to
talk about the way our citizens feel like they don't have power, the
way that the Citizens United decision has left our voters feeling like
the game is rigged. But it is kind of sad that it is only Democrats
down here talking about the impact that that decision has had on the
influence of corporations and billionaires in our politics. For a long
time, Republicans cared about trying to make sure that our democracy
was fair. That is not the case any longer.
I thank Senator Kelly for allowing us to come down and have this
discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
War Powers Resolution
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are here on the floor of the Senate today
to discuss the War Powers Resolution, to discuss the recent war
activities in Venezuela, and yet there still is a debate. Some say
there is not a war; some say there is a war; some say we won't know for
a while if there is a war or isn't a war.
Last year, we had this debate. The junior Senator from Texas came
forward and presented a War Powers Resolution for Gaza. He said that
President Biden's decision to send U.S. troops in to build a beachhead,
to build a pier, was sending them into a war zone.
Interestingly, every Republican Senator at that time voted against a
point of order, and the point of order said no hostilities existed. The
point of order at the time said Gaza is not a war. And every Republican
voted against that point of order because every Republican considered
that Gaza was a war zone and that the War Powers Resolution applied.
Fast forward to today, the proposition that the majority of
Republicans will put forward is a point of order saying there isn't a
war in Venezuela. So they all believed that there was a war in Gaza,
but they all now believe that there is not a war in Venezuela.
Now, there are arguments, I think, actually for both being war. In
Gaza, the troops that were building the beachhead were fired on
multiple times, so I think U.S. troops under fire sounds a bit like you
are putting them into a war.
Now, we have a situation in Venezuela where hundreds of troops were
sent in--dozens and dozens--and pilots and planes were sent in. You
bombed a nation's capital. You had extraordinary rendition of the
nation's President, and now, we have a blockade involving hundreds of
ships and thousands of sailors, but that is not a war.
It is somewhat boggling to the mind that almost every Republican
Senator believed there was a war when a few soldiers were shot at in
Gaza trying to build a pier. I agreed with them. I think that was
putting U.S. troops into war.
But now every Republican--not every Republican--virtually all
Republican Senators who believed that it was a war in Gaza now believe
it is not a war in Venezuela.
Now, some of them on the quiet will tell you: Well, it was a war, but
it is all over. It is all done. Yeah. We are not going to quibble. We
really weren't arresting somebody. It wasn't a drug arrest. It was a
war. It is a mini-war. But it is all over, so the War Powers Resolution
doesn't apply because the war is over.
And yet, we still have an entire military blockade of a country, and
that is not a war. This is a real question.
So we have been given a legal opinion by the current administration,
and we had one of their assistant attorneys general come and explain to
us why this is not a war. You have to realize this is an important part
of the debate because, if it is a drug bust, it is not a war. So they
told us this is really just a drug bust. We had to bomb the entire
capital. We had to remove all their air defenses. We have an armada of
20,000 ships and hundreds of airplanes flown from all over the world,
but it really was just a drug arrest; it really isn't a war.
But this young man came in to us, and he explained to us that we
probably don't know yet whether it is a war. The way we will know it is
a war is by the scope, the extent, and the duration, including how many
people die in the war.
So the problem we have, though, is the Constitution gives us the
power to initiate war, to declare war. But if we don't know if it is a
war until after all the people die and we add up how many people died
and they call it a constitutional war because a lot of people died,
wouldn't it then be a little bit late to vote on initiating a war?
[[Page S213]]
See, this is an enormous debate. This is an important debate, and
this should not be sluffed over as, Oh, no big deal. The war is already
over.
Well, we actually don't even know if the war is already over. We are
under a blockade. The current administration has said they will send
troops back in if they need to. They said they will send troops into
other countries if they need to. The blockade is said to be, Oh, we are
going to control the ships, and we are going to sell the oil, and we
are going to run. We are in charge. It is our oil. We are going to be
in charge of Venezuela.
But that sounds to me like a military blockade, a long-term military
blockade, and I don't know how we argue that that is not war. But the
position of the administration and probably the position of other
Presidential administrations--because this isn't really and shouldn't
be Republican versus Democrat--this should be legislative prerogative
versus Presidential prerogative, and it should be about the
Constitution.
The Constitution specifically, thoughtfully, vested the power of
initiating war and declaring war to Congress. They talked about it.
They talked about it in the Constitutional Convention. They wrote about
it in the Federalist Papers, and from Hamilton to Jefferson, the
spectrum of our Founding Fathers concluded they didn't want the
President to have this power. They said the initiation--the declaration
of war shall be vested by Congress in the legislature.
So what we have is an elaborate song and dance. They know the
declaration of war resides here. They know initiation of war--so they
argue first that it is not war; it is a drug bust. But then they say:
Well, internationally, people say it probably is a war, so in case you
think it is a war, we are going to tell you that it is not really a war
because we won't know if it is a war until it is over. We will tell you
more about it. We will know when the war is over whether it actually
was a war and whether we should have voted to initiate war when the war
is over depending on how many people die.
And then they say: Well, we are going to look at the scope, extent,
and duration of the war, but since we don't know what that is, we are
going to guess based on what the policymakers say. And they say to us
now we are not going back in, so we don't have to vote on whether or
not we are going to war with Venezuela.
This, to me, is an absurdity; it is logic that runs in circles, and
it doesn't get us any closer to where we need to be. The reason the
Founding Fathers gave this power to the legislature is because they
wanted to make war less frequent, they wanted to make war hard to
initiate, they wanted to see war more as a defensive notion, not as an
offensive enterprise.
During the debate over whether Gaza was a war, the resolution was
introduced by the junior Senator from Texas, and virtually every
Republican voted for it. Interestingly, Marco Rubio voted for it. The
Secretary of State actually voted to say that the war in Gaza where
troops were being shot at that were building a pier was a war. But now,
things seem to have reversed, and all those who thought Gaza was a war
where there were some shots being fired at the people trying to build a
pier--which by many people's interpretation would be a lot less than an
entire invasion of a capital and removal of a President and a blockade
of an entire country--every Republican in this body, including the
current Secretary of State, voted that Gaza was a war.
In making the arguments that Gaza was a war, the junior Senator from
Texas expressed the reality that the Senate had abdicated its
constitutional responsibility. So at that time, the junior Senator from
Texas argued that Gaza was a war. He said:
Over recent decades, we have seen the Senate hand away much
of our responsibility on foreign policy and national security
to the Executives. That is contrary to the design of our
Constitution, and it is frankly harmful to the Senate and
harmful to this country.
I couldn't agree more, but I don't understand how it was harmful when
we were talking about Gaza and it is no longer harmful when we are
talking about arguably a much greater military incursion into a
country. It seems as if--and I know this would be shocking to people--
that there is some partisanship here, that there is a different
definition of war under Democrats than there is under Republicans.
My colleague from Texas went on to highlight the flagrant hypocrisy
of both parties, saying on the Senate floor:
[Now], far too often, the Senate has stepped out of our
historic role in foreign policy and [has] said: Whatever the
President wants, we, the Senate, aren't going to say anything
about it.
When there is a Republican President, Democrats suddenly
discover their voice and say: Hey, the Senate ought to say
something.
But when it is a Democrat President, it seems no matter how
incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the
Democrat President, [the] Democrat Senators don't want the
Senate to exercise its authority.
I would argue today is evidence that both sides are guilty of this. I
would argue that if Gaza was a war, that bombing of the Venezuelan
capital and removal of the President and the blockade of an entire
country might qualify as a war.
If a few soldiers shooting at our soldiers who are trying to build a
temporary pier or a temporary port in Gaza is war--which every
Republican in the body voted for--certainly they must think the
invasion of a capital is a war, that removing a President is war, or
that blockade of a country.
So even though the first incursion, the first invasion, may well be
over, is the blockade of a country not a war? Are we not at war when we
have a military blockade of a country?
The American people are sick and tired of their elected officials
disregarding the Constitution when their party is in power and then
becoming ardent defenders of the Constitution when the opposing party
is in power. Each of us took an oath to the Constitution to defend it
that applies at all times, not just when it is politically convenient.
Congress maintains a constitutional duty to debate matters of war.
Playing politics when the lives of our brave servicemembers are on the
line and our country is at risk of being entangled in yet another
foreign conflict is an inexcusable dereliction of duty.
At this point, I think we need to have a fulsome debate--a debate in
the country, a debate in the Senate--over what war is. But I think
anyone who accepts the ludicrous notion that they will tell you what
war is after the war is over should not be treated seriously.
How can we do our duty? How can we do our duty to initiate and
declare war if we don't know what war is until it is over?
If after the war we can count the casualties, and there are a
significant amount of casualties, or the incursion took a significant
amount of time, then there is war. Or some will say: Well, we can just
defund the war. You know what, it has never happened.
Find me the Senator or Congressman who wants to vote against money
for our troops who are being shot at. It is very difficult to stop
funding a war once we start because a nation's patriotism rises up
naturally.
The time to start a war is before it gets started. But if they are
telling you they define war by how many casualties there are, you have
got to wait until the war is over to determine whether it was a war, to
determine whether we should initiate the war. This is an absurdity.
Both parties, frankly, have been guilty of hypocrisy on this, but the
order today that we will be voting on is whether or not the point of
order says that this is not a war.
Well, invasion of another country, blockading of a country, and
removing another country's leader, to my mind, clearly is war, and I
will vote against this point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President and my colleagues, last week, the Senate
agreed to discharge our bipartisan War Powers Resolution from the
Foreign Relations Committee so that we could finally, after months,
debate military action against Venezuela and Venezuelans, on the floor
of the Senate, and not just allow the administration to wage combat on
its own with no information shared except in classified settings.
I thank my colleagues, two of whom are here on the floor today, who
voted for this resolution. They did not vote to rebuke a President,
although, for some reason, he has chosen to see it
[[Page S214]]
that way. Instead, they voted to uphold a basic constitutional
principle that we should not be waging offensive hostilities without a
debate and vote in Congress.
As I described last week, the reason for that principle is clear:
Don't send our sons and daughters into military hostilities without the
debate and vote in Congress that would put the thumbprint of the
Nation's leadership on the validity of the mission.
I believed that today we were going to have a debate about the War
Powers Resolution, possibly consider amendments to it, and then hold a
vote on final passage. But I have now learned that some want to
foreclose the possibility of a debate and allow the President to carry
out this unauthorized campaign with no public debate and no vote. And
they are apparently preparing a parliamentary move to deprive our
resolution of the privileged status given it under the War Powers
Resolution and, thus, shut debate down.
First, an effort to declare this resolution not privileged--
apparently, by arguing that the campaign in and against Venezuelans is
not hostilities--is something that the House has actually been doing,
but the Senate should not emulate.
Some of you remember that the Senate has passed a number of
resolutions against President Trump's unilateral tariff taxes that are
privileged. They are also privileged--or they used to be--in the House,
but the House was so afraid to even have a debate or vote about this
matter that they used a procedural parliamentary trick to turn off the
privilege. I don't think that is worthy of emulation by the ``greatest
deliberative body'' in the world. We shouldn't be afraid to debate or
discuss anything, especially matters of war and peace.
Second, an argument that the Venezuelan campaign is not ``imminent
hostilities'' within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution is a
violation of every reasonable meaning of that term.
Let's begin with the boat campaign against boats with Venezuelans on
it, starting in mid-September, that has now killed more than a hundred
designated combatants; the amassing of U.S. military assets, what the
President calls an armada in and around Venezuela; the President'
authorization of covert action in Venezuela; the U.S. military's use in
the interdiction of oil from Venezuela; the attack, over two weekends
ago, to seize the Venezuelan President, President Maduro, and his wife,
where more than a hundred combatants were killed, where U.S. troops
were injured; and now ongoing control facilitated by the U.S. military.
The United States is determining who can govern Venezuela. We have
tapped the Vice President of Venezuela and determined that she is
somebody who should be the leader, rather than the opposition who won
an overwhelming election, just a year ago.
We have said we can determine when Venezuela will finally be entitled
to have its own election, saying that they are not going to be ready
for that for some long period of time.
We are seizing the nation's primary economic asset, its oil. We are
deciding how the oil revenues--every penny of the oil revenues--of this
nation should be spent, and President Trump is even saying that he gets
to determine which U.S. companies can even invest in the Venezuelan oil
economy.
And it is all being done with the active participation of the U.S.
military. The U.S. military assets in place around Venezuela are, as
President Trump said, an armada, 16,000 U.S. personnel. This is open
source reporting as of 2 days ago, arrayed around Venezuela:
The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group: Carrier Air Wing 9, the
USS Winston Churchill, the USS Bainbridge, and the USS Mahan.
The Iwo Jima Amphibious Readiness Group, which includes: the USS Fort
Lauderdale, the USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary
Unit.
The USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116), the USS Stockdale (DDG-106), the USS
Lake Erie (CG-70), the USS Gettysburg (CG-64), the USS Wichita (LCS-
13), the USNS Waters, the USNS Joshua Humphreys, and the USNS Kanawha.
And that is in addition to air assets that are arrayed all around the
region that have been used and are likely to be used in the future.
Everything that is being done to control Venezuela, its politics, and
its economy are being facilitated by the U.S. military, but it is more
than assets in place. Operation Southern Spear, the boat strikes of
Venezuelan boats in international waters, is still being carried out by
the U.S. military. The U.S. military is engaged in a naval blockade of
Venezuela, transit out and transit in. Would we think that was an act
of war if Russia was blockading the United States and not allowing
commerce to come into or out of our ports?
The U.S. military is engaged in active interdiction of Venezuelan oil
in the Pacific and the Caribbean and elsewhere in the world, and the
United States is threatening future military action.
President Trump said about Vice President Rodriguez, if she didn't
act well, she would have a fate worse than President Maduro. President
Trump was going to do a second invasion, last Friday, that he called
off after our vote Thursday afternoon--threats of future invasion.
If this is not ``imminent hostilities'' with the death now of more
than 200 combatants, with U.S. troops injured, with an armada arrayed
around, a naval interdiction of oil, and a blockade of this country's
economy, it would violate every reasonable meaning of this term, and to
pretend otherwise would weaken the respect that this institution should
aspire to.
Finally, to my colleagues, there has been some recent correspondence
between the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
Risch of Idaho, and the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, that basically
underlines my points.
Some Senate colleagues wanted to use this procedural maneuver today,
and they felt that it would help if they could have a clear definition
or description from the administration that the military operation is
over.
And so, I have the letter here that Senator Risch wrote to the
President of the United States yesterday, and he asked two simple
questions: First, ``provide Congress with an official correspondence
confirming that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended''--first request--
and second, specify ``that U.S. military personnel are no longer
involved in hostilities in Venezuela.''
Two simple questions. I don't know that those questions would have
been sufficient for me, but, apparently, Senator Risch thought if he
could get ``yes'' answers to both of those questions, it would be
sufficient for him.
Secretary Rubio sent a response today and would not answer yes to
either of the questions. The letter from Senator Secretary, dated
earlier today, January 14, very explicitly does not say that Operation
Absolute Resolve is over. He was asked to say that it ended; he would
not say that it has ended.
How could it be ended when the President is still threatening other
sanctioned and indicted Venezuelan officials with a fate worse than
Maduro's if they don't meet the U.S. standards?
So in this letter which my colleagues sought to justify this
parliamentary maneuver that is coming up, Secretary Rubio would not
specify that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended.
Well, how about the second question: Please specify ``that U.S.
military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in
Venezuela.''
Secretary Rubio would not say that either. ``There are currently no
U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela.'' He didn't say U.S. forces aren't
involved in hostilities in or against Venezuelans because he couldn't
say that with the interdiction, with the blockade, with the boat
strikes.
And so even the effort of my colleagues to try to find a
parliamentary escape hatch--oh, there is no hostilities--and softball
set of two questions to the Secretary of State to justify their
position produced a response where he would not agree that the
operation is over--the military operation--and he would not agree that
the United States is now not in hostilities in or against Venezuela.
This is the third vote we have had on Venezuela in the last 3 months.
Only now--only now--does the administration and its supporters make the
claim that there are no hostilities. They didn't make that claim in the
first 2 months, as the armada was amassing, as we were killing people
in open
[[Page S215]]
waters, as we were committing to covert action, as we were preparing
and practicing for an invasion.
They knew that it was hostilities, and that is why they didn't
challenge it. But only now, on the third vote, are they challenging
whether this is or is not hostilities, and they are doing so to avoid
public debate. That is the reason they are doing this.
If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous and so
lawful, the administration and its supporters would not be so afraid to
have this debate before the public and the U.S. Senate.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to avoid a parliamentary gag
rule on discussion of this military operation and support the
bipartisan War Powers Resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, this year our Nation will celebrate its
250th birthday--250 years in which our country has built on the
foundation that is our Constitution.
The Framers could not conceive exactly what the future would bring,
but they did anticipate a great deal, in significant part because they
could count on some of the immutable characteristics of human nature,
of institutions, of communities--like the attraction of the
accumulation of power--and how, unless that gravitational force is
counterbalanced, one institution or one man can come to dominate the
life of a country.
One power in particular concerned our Founders, and that was the
power to make war. They had seen and been the victims of a monarch who
used the power of war against them. So they made the radical decision--
so contrary to all the precedent at the time--not to invest such a
vital attribute of state sovereignty in the Executive but to grant the
power to declare war to Congress.
In April 1798, a future President, James Madison, wrote to another
future President, Thomas Jefferson, underscoring the danger and the
decision. He said:
The constitution supposes, what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, is that the Executive is the branch
of power most interested in war and most prone to it. . . .
It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of
war in the Legislature.
``[M]ost prone to it''--words written more than 200 years ago and so
fitting for today, when in but his first year in office, the President
used military power in Iran, Nigeria, Syria, Yemen, and most
significantly, in Venezuela.
After months of escalating military action against boats in the
Southern Caribbean, after amassing a massive military armada on the
doorstep of a foreign nation, the administration dispatched American
servicemembers to invade and arrest the corrupt leader of Venezuela,
Nicolas Maduro--military action that we were repeatedly told would
never come to pass, by a President who promised to avoid starting new
foreign wars, engaging in nation building, or conducting regime change
operations.
This operation was not about narcotics, nor was it about democracy,
nor was it about oil. The military occupation in Venezuela captured the
country's corrupt dictator but has left the corrupt drug-running regime
in place instead of turning over the reins of governance to that
country's legitimately elected leadership of Maria Corina Machado and
Edmundo Gonzalez. And now our President has committed to running
Venezuela for years in order to exploit its oil resources.
Today, we have the opportunity to exercise the power bestowed on us
by our Framers to authorize the use of force--or decline to do so--but
to reassert some constraint on an Executive grown too fond of the use
of military power.
We took the first step last week when a bipartisan majority of this
body voted to set before the Senate a War Powers Resolution on
Venezuela. That was a strong bipartisan signal that this Chamber was
unwilling to let the war powers of this body atrophy to the point where
they are no more substantial than air.
Now we are on the precipice of that debate--whether we should again
risk the lives of our servicemembers to procure access to another
nation's oil--and the American people should see us weighing that cost.
The President has threatened the possibility of additional strikes in
Venezuela if Venezuela does not ``behave.'' And by ``behave,'' I think
we have to acknowledge that the behavior the President expects is for
that country to share access to its oil wealth with American oil
companies. Many of those companies are dubious about investing in
Venezuela. Some believe it would take years or more than a decade to
make that profitable.
Whether it makes good business sense to them is their decision, but
whether we use the military might of the United States of America to
safeguard their investment is our decision, and I say it is not worth
risking the lives of our troops.
There are some deeply important questions as to the use of American
military power that are implicated in this debate--questions that
deserve answers.
Will we see years of American gunships parked off of Venezuela as
part of some new, amorphous ``Donroe Doctrine''? How do we expect to
run another country of more than 20 million people? Will U.S. forces be
used to protect oil infrastructure in Venezuela? Will our President
continue to stand by the illegitimate regime that Maduro's capture has
left in place or will we support the outcome of the last election in
which Maduro's opposition was triumphant? Are we better off spending
our Nation's time and taxes on Venezuela or should we spend them at
home to bring down costs and address the affordability crisis?
Our servicemembers and their families deserve answers to these
questions before we ask any servicemember to put their life on the
line. Let us make sure they get those answers. Let us have this debate.
Let us move beyond a parliamentary point of order designed to hide from
the American people the cost of our military involvement in Venezuela,
the continuing cost of it. Let's have the fulsome debate that deserves
because at the center of this debate is a question of whether we want
to risk our servicemembers' lives in order to secure the oil resources
of another country.
I do not believe it is worth doing so, but let those who believe that
it is worth the risk and the danger to our servicemembers and their
families--let them come to the Senate floor and make that argument. Let
us have this debate. Let us not hide behind some parliamentary maneuver
to even avoid a conversation here.
There hasn't been a single hearing in committee, an open hearing, on
this subject, not a fulsome debate over the use of our military power.
Let us do so now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the need for this resolution is simple.
It is clear. The American people do not support another forever war
with Venezuela. The American people don't want Donald Trump sending our
troops into harm's way without so much as a debate in Congress.
Today, the Senate has a chance to move forward on asserting
Congress's constitutional authority on matters of war and peace. We can
tell Donald Trump: Enough with foreign adventures. It is time to focus
on lowering costs here at home. That is what the American people want.
This resolution is necessary right now because Donald Trump has made
clear that what happened in Venezuela is not a one-and-done operation--
not at all.
Last week, the New York Times asked him: Are we going to be there a
month? 6 months? a year?
Do you know what his answer was? Donald Trump said:
I would say much longer.
He said: We want to give money to Venezuela.
Here we are. People don't have enough money for healthcare, for
housing, for so many other things, and we want to give money to
Venezuela? How is that ``America first?''
Trump threatened further military action if the current government
doesn't cooperate with the United States. The administration is trying
to concoct an argument that we are not engaged in hostilities, but that
is absurd. You don't have to be a great expert on military affairs to
know that
[[Page S216]]
we are heavily engaged. Donald Trump says we are not engaged in
hostilities? Tell that to the 16,000 U.S. servicemembers currently
deployed in the Caribbean. Tell that to our servicemembers on the Ford
Carrier Strike Group. Look at the Marine Expeditionary Unit operating
in the region.
Donald Trump is turning the Caribbean into a dangerous powder keg,
and Congress must rein him in before one mistake ignites a larger, more
unstable conflict.
So the Senate needs to exert its constitutional role when it comes to
the use of military force.
I know that there are Senate Republicans acting in good faith who are
worried about Venezuela getting out of hand. I urge them to reject this
point of order, to provide a necessary backstop, a necessary check, a
necessary guardrail on Executive power. It is the right thing to do for
the American people. That means no more forever wars, no more military
escapades without congressional authorization, no more tens of billions
to prop up foreign regimes while American families struggle right here
at home.
I want to thank Senator Kaine, I want to thank Senator Schiff, and I
want to thank Senator Paul for joining with me in this very necessary
resolution. Of course, I thank our great ranking member of the Armed
Services Committee for his good work as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week, this body advanced a War Powers
Resolution to rein in President Trump's unauthorized military actions
in Venezuela. This week, we will vote on final passage. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
It is important to recall how we arrived here. What happened on
January 3--the military raid in Caracas, the capture of Nicolas Maduro,
and the President's declaration that the United States will ``run''
Venezuela and seize its oil--was not an isolated incident; it was a
culmination of a monthslong campaign built on dubious legal arguments,
institutional failures, and Congress' willful abdication of our
constitutional duties.
For months, my colleagues and I warned that President Trump's
military campaign against the alleged drug boats was strategically
incoherent and legally questionable. We warned that the massive
military buildup was not about narcotics trafficking. We warned that
this campaign was always directed at military action against Venezuela.
At every turn, this body had the opportunity to exercise oversight
and demand accountability, and at every turn, we failed to do so. Now
we must correct that failure.
President Trump began laying the foundation for this operation--all
the operations in Venezuela--the moment he was sworn in. On his first
day in office, he designated multiple drug cartels as terrorist
organizations. Shortly thereafter, he ended temporary protected status
for some 350,000 Venezuelan migrants and authorized holding some at the
naval station at Guantanamo before deportation.
On March 15, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act--a wartime
authority that had not been used since World War II--and declared that
Tren de Aragua, or TdA, was a cartel plotting to invade and actively
invading the United States as an ``invading force.'' He did this
despite a National Intelligence Council assessment in April of 2025
that concluded the Venezuelan Government was not directing an invasion
of the United States by TdA.
It would not be the last time President Trump disregarded the law and
the facts to achieve his policy goals.
Also, by last summer, it was clear that, in addition to Secretary
Hegseth, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State
Marco Rubio were engaged in planning these various proposed operations,
and their personal agendas converged. Their goal was ultimately to
destabilize and depose Maduro and secure access to Venezuelan's oil
reserves.
Over the summer and fall, the Department of Defense flowed massive
military assets into the Caribbean: the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready
Group, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, attack submarines, P-8
Poseidon aircraft, Aegis destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and eventually
the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group. The administration never
explained why this buildup was necessary other than vague references to
drug interdiction. It was clear then and it is perfectly clear now that
they were preparing for an attack on Venezuela.
By late summer, President Trump had signed a secret directive
ordering the Pentagon to conduct maritime strikes on drug boats.
Secretary Hegseth then signed an execute order, or EXORD, directing
lethal military strikes against alleged drug boats. He has refused to
submit that EXORD to Congress despite legal requirements for him to do
so. By not following a statutory requirement to submit these EXORDs to
Congress, Secretary Hegseth and the President are breaking the law.
On September 2, the U.S. military carried out its first strike,
killing 11 individuals on an alleged drug boat. Additional strikes
continued throughout the fall and winter, and to date, the U.S.
military has conducted 35 known strikes, killing at least 120 people.
President Trump tries to justify these lethal attacks by creating a
new term--``designated terrorist organization''--a term that does not
exist in U.S. law or anywhere else, so far as we have been able to
determine. What does exist in law--authorized by Congress--is the
``foreign terrorist organization'' designation, which authorizes legal
and economic sanctions. In other words, designating a cartel as a
foreign terrorist organization limits that group's financial, property,
and travel interests. It does not authorize lethal military action. We
have searched high and low for a designation authorized by Congress of
a group that would automatically allow lethal action, and we have not
found it. Congress is still waiting for the President to publicly
release the legal opinion underlying these legal actions preceding the
recent operation in Venezuela, Operation Absolute Resolve. They have
not done so yet, although they have released the latest legal opinion.
Even more troubling is that, in the process of conducting these
strikes on the alleged drug boats, the JAGs--the judge advocates
general--who had to opine on the legality, did not have access to this
controlling legal opinion by the Department of Justice. They didn't get
access to it until November, which was long after many of these strikes
took place.
The legal foundation for this campaign and the operations that
President Trump engaged in became extraordinarily tenuous during the
September 2 strike. According to numerous public reports, after the
initial attack, two survivors were left floating on the wreckage of
their boat, miles from land. The United States had complete control of
the skies and waters for miles around. Yet, after monitoring these
survivors on video for the better part of an hour or at least 40-some-
odd minutes, the order was given to fire lethal rounds at these
survivors.
Even if one accepts the President's determination that we are in an
armed conflict with cartels, the Geneva Conventions still apply.
Article 12 of the second Geneva Convention defines ``shipwrecked''
persons as those ``in peril at sea or in other waters from any cause.''
The U.S. Navy's ``Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval
Operations'' makes clear that ``following each naval engagement at sea,
belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures to search for
and rescue the shipwrecked.''
The Department of Defense's ``Law of War Manual'' states that members
of the Armed Forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders,
including law of war violations. It even provides a definition and an
example to avoid confusion:
For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be
clearly illegal.
That is our law. That is the manual of the Department of Defense.
The administration has released a video of all of these attacks
except this one, and I think it would be helpful to the public--to all
of us--to make that video available.
As we all know, on January 3, this campaign reached a climax. U.S.
forces conducted airstrikes to neutralize anti-aircraft systems,
carried out cyber operations to shut down power in Caracas, and
executed a helicopter assault
[[Page S217]]
on the Presidential compound to seize Maduro and his wife. The tactical
success of this mission is a testament to their capabilities and also
to the incredible courage and quality of the men and women of our Armed
Forces.
However, military skill is not the same as strategic wisdom.
Executing a successful raid does not constitute a plan for governing a
nation. Indeed, alleviating the plight and misery of the Venezuelan
people appears nowhere in the administration's stated plans for the
future of Venezuela.
Instead, President Trump announced that the U.S. was ``going to run
the country'' and seize control of Venezuelan oil production. He stated
that ``we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need
to.'' So the possibility of hostilities certainly still exists in the
President's mind, and he expects to be involved in Venezuela for years
to come. This is not really a plan; it is an aspiration. Even the
experts in the oil industry suggest that it is not one that is feasible
at this moment.
Under international law, the raid on January 3 violates article 2(4)
of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state. The United States is bound by treaty to follow the U.N.
Charter. The Constitution makes treaties part of the ``supreme law of
the land,'' and the President is bound by his oath to ensure the laws
are faithfully executed.
The administration, however, seems to have determined that it can
ignore the supreme law of the land because it claims it was simply
enforcing the law. That is wrong and cynical, and we are in a situation
where the President continues to assert that we can use hostilities at
any time. In fact, on January 9, he said, ``We are not afraid of boots
on the ground.''
Let me, for a moment, point out another great hypocrisy that has
arisen in this situation. This all began as a way to prevent drugs from
reaching this country and affecting families throughout this country.
The President was standing up and down, spouting about how he has
gotten rid of fentanyl. Of course, fentanyl does not come out of this
area of the world.
But this is one of the interesting things that happened just last
night: President Trump canceled $2 billion in grants for the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. These were grants
intended to fund overdose prevention work in communities, to provide
lifesaving reversal drugs, and to fund treatment for people with opioid
addiction. These are the very programs that put people on a path toward
long-term recovery to avoid deaths through drugs. The Trump
administration is prepared to commit billions of dollars to attack
Venezuela but will take it from those people who are suffering from
drug addiction in the United States.
It is our duty to ensure that the United States engages in armed
conflict only after having the approval of Congress. This body has had
every opportunity up until now to demand accountability, and too many
of us have refused. The President has flouted the law, and we have
failed in our duty to correct it. So we must, I think, vote for this
resolution. It is our responsibility. It is the oath we took, and it is
the oath, tonight, that we must follow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today to raise a point of order on
the War Powers Resolution before the Senate, which I reserve the right
to do at the close of my remarks and after Senator Kaine moves the
matter forward.
I understand many of the sentiments people have about war powers and
the balance between Congress and the President. There is truly clear
tension between the branches and the Constitution on this matter, and,
of course, that has reared its head many, many times during the
existence of our country.
Putting U.S. troops in hostility is an incredibly serious matter.
These are American lives on the line, and we should not expose them to
danger unless there are vital national interests, and, of course, we
should not ask them to engage in endless wars.
We are not debating those issues here today. What we are debating is
trying to stop something that is not happening. Let me say that again.
The objective of this resolution is to stop something that is not
happening.
The resolution is relatively short--three pages long. It is full of
the usual whereases, wherefores, et cetera, et cetera. But this is the
operative language. It is very clear:
Congress hereby directs the President to terminate----
terminate--
the use of the U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities within or
against Venezuela.
That is what we are voting on today. We are attempting to direct the
President to terminate the use of the U.S. Armed Forces for hostilities
within or against Venezuela. Only Congress can dream this up.
Now, I know there are a lot of people who think this is a very
powerful institution, and it is, indeed, but even this institution
cannot stop something that isn't happening, and that is exactly what
the resolution directs the President to do.
Currently, there are no U.S. forces engaged in hostilities in
Venezuela. The President did authorize actions that were limited in
scope, short in duration, and done to protect U.S. interests and
citizens. The operation only saw 200 troops, and they were inside
Venezuela, on Venezuela's soil, for less than 2 hours. Those troops
engaged with some unfortunate Cuban guards, who are no longer with us,
for 27 minutes. That is what this was made up of. It was incredibly
brief, targeted, and very successful.
The War Powers Act requires a President to submit a report to
Congress within 48 hours of ``introducing U.S. forces into
hostilities.'' The President did that. If U.S. troops stay in
hostilities, the President is required to submit reports to Congress
``periodically,'' is the word used. Sadly, the War Powers Act never
required the President to submit a report to Congress when hostilities
ended. It should have been in the bill; it wasn't.
For this reason, I sent a letter to the President asking him to
confirm that there are no U.S. forces engaged in hostilities in
Venezuela. Now, I knew that. You all knew that. You were all in the
briefing when we got it. However, since this was raised and people were
trying to stop something that isn't happening, I asked the President of
the United States to confirm that it is not happening. Obviously, they
responded--the administration responded and said clearly that there are
no hostilities and no troops in Venezuela.
I sent a letter to the President, and the response confirmed that the
operation has ended, that it is over, that there are no troops there,
that there is nothing to terminate.
There are no U.S. forces in hostilities.
Now, I know some of my colleagues will argue that a vote for this
resolution is a prospective statement about limiting future action in
Venezuela. That is not what it says. They argue we still have ships in
the Caribbean. Clearly, the President is ready to invade again, they
say. But, again, that is not what the resolution says. It says cease
the hostilities that are going on. No language in this resolution
addresses future action, and, indeed, the War Powers Act doesn't allow
that unless there are ongoing hostilities.
As we have seen in the days since the operation, the administration
is enforcing U.S. sanctions and seizing vessels that are violating
them. Many of those sanctions were created by the laws passed by
Senators voting here today, and the War Powers Act has no binding
authority to constrain the President's Commander in Chief powers before
U.S. forces are put into hostilities. Nothing in the act does that, nor
does the Constitution allow it.
If the President was to deploy U.S. forces again, the administration
has committed they would require, as is required by law, to send a new
report under the law, and Congress could then act. That is the law.
Let me be clear. No President, Republican or Democrat, will ever
consider a prospective War Powers Resolution vote as binding on the
President's constitutional article II powers as Commander in Chief, and
they shouldn't. Having 535 ``Commanders in Chief'' is a really, really
bad idea, and our Founders knew that.
President Trump is laser-focused on protecting American interests
while
[[Page S218]]
also avoiding costly and life-threatening conflicts. The recent actions
in Venezuela were limited in scope, short in duration, and done to
protect U.S. interests and citizens. What President Trump has done in
Venezuela is the definition of the President's article II
constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief.
Similarly, President George H.W. Bush authorized limited military
operations to arrest and bring Panama's Manuel Noriega to the United
States to stand trial for drug-related charges. Interestingly, that
lasted 2 weeks, and there were thousands of troops involved--not done
in a very short period of time with only a handful of troops--and the
Democrats applauded President Bush for his action.
For years, my Democratic colleagues have called for Maduro's removal.
You heard me the other day read statements that my Democratic
colleagues have made. But when President Trump actually made that
happen, now they say: How dare he do this. This is TDS, Trump
derangement syndrome, at its obvious worst.
I firmly believe the operation in Venezuela was a good thing. I
understand that some of my colleagues disagree with me, but that does
not give this body the right to block the Commander in Chief's article
II authority and defy every law of gravity and try to stop something
that isn't happening.
I yield the floor to my friend from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in a moment, I will make the motion that my
colleague from Idaho mentioned, the motion to proceed to Calendar No.
298, but I do want to just address the points that he made very
briefly.
My colleague from Idaho had said there is no current use of U.S.
hostilities in Venezuela, and he has also said that the military
operation Absolute Resolve is over. That is what he has just told this
body. And he has said, because of those two facts, he is making the
motion that we will hear in a moment, the inquiry.
I just want to refer my colleagues to the letter exchange between
Senator Risch and Secretary Rubio because that is not what the letters
say. The letters do not say what has been represented by my colleague.
Let me read what Senator Risch asked the President, and then let me
read Senator Rubio's response.
Senator Risch said: I respectfully request that you provide Congress
with an official correspondence confirming that Operation Absolute
Resolve has ended and that U.S. military personnel are no longer
involved in hostilities in Venezuela.
Those were the two questions posed to the President.
Let me read you Senator Rubio's answer. He did not confirm in his
answer that Operation Absolute Resolve has ended. The letter does not
mention Operation Absolute Resolve because it hasn't ended. The
President himself has said that he is holding out the possibility of
doing the exact same thing that he did to President Maduro to other
Venezuelan officials who have been indicted by the United States, and
that is why Secretary Rubio, in the letter, could not give an
affirmative answer to Senator Risch's question. Operation Absolute
Resolve has not ended.
There was a second question Senator Risch asked: Confirm that U.S.
military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities in Venezuela.
Secretary Rubio wouldn't confirm that either. All Secretary Rubio
says is: There are currently no U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela.
What about the boat strikes? What about the naval blockade? What
about the naval seizure of Venezuelan oil? Those are all hostilities
under domestic and international law. They are all hostilities. And
that is why Secretary Rubio, I think, being intellectually honest,
refused to give an affirmative answer to my colleague's question. He
said there are no troops currently in Venezuela, but he would not say
that the U.S. military is not involved in hostilities.
So even on this record, with my colleague posing two questions to the
administration--tell us the operation is over; tell us the United
States is not involved in hostilities--the administration would do
neither. And for that reason, I ask that we proceed on the path we are
on to have this debate finally before the American public.
____________________