[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1648-S1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to
Proceed--Resumed
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R.
7147.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill
making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, enough is enough. Republicans have bent
over backward to negotiate with Democrats, and now Democrats need to
get serious about funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, let's just review things for a minute here.
In January, Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate
reached an agreement on the Department of Homeland Security funding
bill, including a number of reforms: deescalation training for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, increased funding for
body cameras, and increased oversight of border security and
immigration enforcement funding.
Then Democrats reneged on that agreement.
Republicans said: OK, we will reopen negotiations.
The White House offered up a robust list of additional reforms. The
Democrats said no.
And then, over the weekend, Democrats suggested that they would agree
to fund the entire Department with the exception of immigration
enforcement operations, and we offered them a bill to do exactly that.
And Democrats still refused.
It seems that Democrats have no interest in reaching an agreement.
Many of them are perfectly willing to leave the Department of Homeland
Security unfunded for the long term.
They claim that they want to fund the Department. They claim that
they are concerned about TSA officers and others working without pay.
But talk is cheap, and their actions belie their words.
If Democrats cared about TSA officers, if they cared about Coast
Guard employees, if they cared about the vital work of the Department
of Homeland Security, then they would be getting serious about closing
a deal, not ceaselessly offering up the same unchanging list of
demands, like a broken record or a particularly nightmarish version of
``Groundhog Day.''
Last fall, Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government for a
recordbreaking 43 days. Their Department of Homeland Security shutdown
is now on its 41st day, which means that, thanks to Democrats, TSA
agents have spent almost half--almost half--of the fiscal year working
without pay.
Let that sink in for a minute. Thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have
spent almost half of this fiscal year working without pay.
It is no wonder they are quitting in droves or that, as an NBC
article yesterday reported, they have been reduced to things like
selling blood and plasma--yes, blood and plasma; that is from an NBC
article--just to get by.
And all of this--all of this--is because Democrats have been
unwilling to consider anything other than what they think will serve
them politically.
Republicans are at the table. We have been at the table. Now it is
long past time for Democrats to get serious. How much worse do things
have to get? How many more Americans have to suffer before Democrats do
their job and work with Republicans to fund the government?
SAVE America Act
Just where do Democrats stand on voter ID? It is pretty darn hard to
tell. I mean, we spent years hearing from Democrats how voter ID is a
tool of voter suppression. As recently as mid-February, the Democrat
leader was decrying voter ID, and then suddenly Democrats started
hedging their bets.
Wait. Of course, Democrats support voter ID, Democrat after Democrat
has been claiming--and photo ID specifically. The Democrat leader said
last week:
Our objection as Democrats is not to a photo ID.
Except, is that true? Is that really true? Because on Tuesday the
Democrat leader came down to the floor and made it very clear that he,
at least, does object to photo ID. We need, in his words, ``inclusive''
voter ID options, like leases or utility bills or debit cards or
photocopies thereof. He is apparently OK with a demand for photo ID in
a million other situations--from boarding a plane to signing your kid
up for school to opening a bank account--but heaven forbid that we ask
Americans to produce the same ID they produce all over town when they
go to the polls. It is not inclusive.
Other Democrats have acted similarly, paying lip service to voter ID
and photo ID, in particular, but backpedaling the minute actually
supporting voter ID legislation comes into question.
The senior Democrat from New Jersey was on CNN Tuesday and said that
he would support a voter ID bill, until he was pressed on that
commitment, and then he suddenly started avoiding the question. The
junior Democrat Senator from Georgia boldly claimed:
I think you should have to prove that you are who you say
you are before you vote. I support voter ID.
Then he went on to knock the voter ID requirements under discussion.
And just to give the Presiding Officer an example of some of the--I
mean, this actually is quite revealing. Here are quotes from one, two,
three, four, five Democrats. This one:
Who could be against that, requiring an ID to vote?
That from a couple of days ago. Here is the Senator from Arizona:
If people want to adopt the Arizona way, which is strict
voter ID, I think that would be fine.
That was about a week ago.
The Senator from Rhode Island:
I represent a State that has a sensible voter ID law and
that regularly reviews its voter rolls. This approach has
been extremely effective.
That, again, just a few days ago.
And as I said, the Democrat leader--and this is 10 days ago:
Democrats support voter ID.
The Senator from Michigan:
[H]opefully all Americans are in agreement about [voter
ID].
That from a week ago.
Here is the other Senator from Georgia:
We have voter ID laws in my State. You should have to prove
that you are who you say you are before you vote. That is
basic.
That also from about a week ago.
So the question is will Democrats vote the way they talk. Well,
today, they are going to get a chance to support voter ID without
supporting the SAVE America Act. We are going to have an amendment. We
are going to have an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill. The only
thing--the only thing--the amendment would do would be to require photo
ID at the polls: a driver's license, a Tribal ID, a military ID, a
veteran ID, a passport. That is all it would say--and something that a
lot of Democrats have been out there openly advocating for.
And, again, supporting this amendment doesn't require Democrats to
support the overall SAVE America Act. It doesn't obligate them to vote
in any way on the final bill. They can vote for this amendment and vote
against the SAVE America Act.
What this amendment will do, however, is force Democrats to come
clean on whether or not they actually support voter ID in a real way--
not photocopies of debit cards or utility bills, as Democrats once
proposed--REAL IDs, with photos, issued by States or the Federal
Government; the kind of IDs Americans use all the time in their daily
lives; the kind of IDs that polls show Americans overwhelmingly
support.
Democrats have been trying to have their cake and eat it, too,
pretending that they stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans,
who support photo IDs at the polls, while declining any occasion to put
their money where their mouth is and support actual legislation. So
here is their chance. If Democrats are being honest, if they really
think that showing an ID is ``reasonable,'' as the Democrat whip
[[Page S1649]]
claimed, then they can support this clean photo ID amendment. Clean. No
other provisions; just a requirement to show the same kind of photo ID
at the polls that Americans show elsewhere on a daily basis. No
obligation to vote for the overall bill. No statement on the overall
bill--just a clean photo ID provision.
I look forward to seeing where Democrats really stand.
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. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
that we are going to be voting on shortly, but I want to begin by
sharing that I am a little confused--not to the substance of the
amendment--but to the process.
I think we just heard a few minutes ago that the majority leader
suggested that it was going to be a clean vote on a voter ID measure,
when as I see it, it is a stand-alone amendment with language that is
already in the underlying bill. It is also language that is in a
substitute amendment as well.
I understand there is some showmanship and theatrics going on here,
but before I talk about the substance of the bill, let me make one
other observation as to what is and what isn't happening here. As
prices are going up for families across the country--we have talked
about it so many times--healthcare costs, grocery bills, prices at the
pump. We are not focusing or debating ideas on how to bring down costs
for working families.
Instead, we have now spent 2 weeks debating a bill that would make it
harder for eligible Americans to register to vote, to stay registered
to vote, and to cast their ballot.
How un-American and how undemocratic that is.
Another observation: As we are going back and forth on negotiations
for how to restore funding for TSA and the Coast Guard and FEMA and
CISA, we are not talking about that right here and now. We are spending
even more time now on an amendment to an amendment to a bill--where the
language is already there--on a bill that the American people do not
support.
So let's get to the substance. Now, throughout this debate so many of
my Republican colleagues have chosen to focus on the topic of voter ID.
To be clear: We will always strive for free and fair elections. And, of
course, we want to make them safe and secure; and, indeed, they already
are.
Report after report, study after study, audit after audit shows that
the rate of voter fraud is exceedingly--exceedingly--rare.
What does that tell us? It tells us that existing laws, existing
safeguards are working. To suggest otherwise is fundamentally
inaccurate.
A simple way of saying it is: It is a lie. It is a big lie, a big lie
that has been used as a pretext for so many bad things in this country
coming out of this administration.
What this bill would do--or excuse me the amendment to the amendment
to the bill--same language--what this effort would do is block common
forms of IDs. Veterans IDs. Veterans and servicemembers can't use that
ID after their service and sacrifice to our Nation. ``Sorry. That is
not enough to allow you to exercise your right to vote.''
Student IDs, also not good enough. Tribal IDs without expiration
dates. Some do, many do not have expiration dates on their Tribal IDs.
That is not enough to allow you to participate in our democracy, even
though you are eligible.
But wait, there is more. The so-called voter ID amendment would also
impose new requirements on the tens of millions of Americans who choose
or rely on voting by mail.
The majority leader also suggested that: Well, through this
amendment, it is simply a requirement to show a voter ID at the polls.
As I read the bill, it is very clear. This would result in requiring
voters to include a photocopy of their ID with their mailed ballots.
This is a new, additional, and unnecessary obstacle to a very popular
form of voting.
How popular? In the 2024 election, 48 million voters chose to vote by
mail. And in case you missed the breaking news a couple days ago,
President Trump once again voted by mail in the special election in
Florida.
So what is it, good enough for the President but not good enough for
the rest of us? Secure enough for the President but not secure enough
for the American people?
Think about what a voter would have to go through with this new
requirement.
OK. You have your ID. Now, you have got to find a copy machine
because most people don't have a copy machine at home. Include a copy
of your ID along with your ballots.
Now, we have been telling people because of so many frauds and scams
that are common to protect their personal information. Be careful with
it. And now we are saying: Let's add copies of our ID and put it into
the mail.
Give me a break. This is not a requirement in Ohio or in Florida or
Texas or South Dakota or not even in Utah where voting by mail is very
popular.
In States that have voter ID, this is not a requirement in those
States. So why is it now so urgent and necessary to impose this on
voters across the country?
The more I think about it, the more it is clear: This is an ongoing
concerted effort to make it harder for people to vote.
Now, we have seen what happens when strict voter ID requirements are
imposed in our elections. We don't have to speculate. We have seen what
has happened in New Hampshire. I spoke to that experience a few days
ago here on the floor. We have seen what has happened in the State of
Kansas. I spoke to that on the floor of the Senate just a few days ago.
That is the real-world impact of policies and proposals like this:
making it harder for eligible Americans to vote.
And it also threatens to throw this year's elections into chaos
because if this were to pass and this President signs it into law, this
all would go into effect immediately. It is not just about the November
midterm elections. There is primary elections that are already
underway.
So how do you implement that with no transition period, no additional
resources to help State and local governments actually implement the
new requirements of the law?
You are going to require a voter ID but not create a mechanism for
all eligible voters to obtain a free, easily available ID so that they
don't lose their right to vote. And all of this is being done without
the most basic level of review.
That is right. What is before us has not had a hearing in either the
House of Representatives or here in the Senate and no input from State
and local elections officials who actually administer elections.
You don't overhaul election systems this fundamental without hearing
from elections officials and experts in this field. And you don't do it
in the middle of an election cycle.
That is just some of the reasons why Democrats have been so
determined for weeks now coming here to the floor every single
day fighting this bill tooth and nail because we are committed to
defending our fundamental right to vote in the United States of
America, and we will continue coming here to speak and do everything in
our power to stop this Donald Trump election takeover bill.
Now, President Trump has been very clear as to why he wants this bill
to pass. This bill is about one thing and one thing only: helping his
party win this November's midterm elections and elections for the next
50 years. That is how he has described it--the need and the urgency to
hold onto power.
This bill is about more than just voter ID. This bill would ban voter
registration drives, voter registration drives in communities on
college campuses every election cycle--gone. Banned. Eliminated.
This bill would also force States to hand over to the Department of
Homeland Security the sensitive information of every voter in America,
which would result in voter purges. Again, not speculating. It is
happening already.
[[Page S1650]]
And before anyone suggests that this is a partisan issue--``Oh,
Democrats are just opposed to it because it is a blue State versus red
State thing.''
Not true. More than half of a dozen States led by Republicans are
refusing to comply with the administration's demand that they hand over
their voter rolls.
Colleagues, this is a voter suppression bill, plain and simple. The
effect of it would be that fewer people would participate in our
democracy. We should be working to have more people participate. We can
and we do while keeping it safe and secure.
This bill takes us in the wrong direction. This bill makes more
barriers for working families, for seniors, for students, and others.
It makes us step backward at a time when we should be making
participation easier, not harder.
Colleagues, it is our responsibility and a powerful obligation to
protect the right to vote in America. And if you are willing to live up
to that, join me. I urge you all, vote no on this amendment.
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. HUSTED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Waiving Quorum Calls
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum calls with respect to Husted amendment No. 4732 and
the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
SAVE America Act
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, before I became a U.S. Senator, I spent
two terms as the Ohio secretary of state and oversaw Presidential
elections, gubernatorial elections, and senate elections, and I know
what it takes to run an election where it is easy to vote and hard to
cheat.
I listened carefully to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
They said that they don't object to photo ID--only the other provisions
of the SAVE America Act. I listened. That is what they said.
To quote minority leader Chuck Schumer:
You know what our objection is--our objection, as
Democrats, is not to a photo ID. You'd have to define it
clearly and properly and easily, but not to a photo ID when
you show up to vote.
So that is exactly what I am doing today. We are going to take them
at their word and offer an opportunity to turn those words into action.
In just a few minutes, the Senate will take a rollcall vote on a clean,
simple, straightforward amendment of mine to require a photo ID to vote
in American elections--nothing more. Straightforward. That is it. You
can use a driver's license, State ID, passport, military-veteran ID, or
a Tribal ID--something that everyone has access to. No additional
restrictions. No tricks. No games. No prohibition on absentee voting.
The SAVE America Act restrictions you have been opposed to are not in
there, and don't say that they are. They are not in there. It is
simply, straightforward, photo ID.
Thirty-six States already have some form of voter ID law in place.
This proposal isn't theoretical. This photo ID legislation has proven
the test of elections across the Nation. It works. States across our
country have shown that you can simultaneously make it easy to vote and
hard to cheat. Georgia, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, along with my
home State of Ohio, have photo ID requirements, just to name a few.
That standard is in this amendment. That is the standard this
amendment achieves to adopt.
So the question before this body is very simple: Should you have to
show who you are when you vote?
The American people have answered that question as ``yes'' by an
overwhelming margin. Roughly 80-20 Americans support requiring a photo
ID to vote.
Americans are required to show a photo ID when they rent a car, when
they start a job, when they board a plane. This is something that
people do every single day. It is common sense, and it is a commonsense
requirement for Americans to show a photo ID when they vote.
This is a clean vote. If you oppose this amendment, then let's be
honest--it is not the other provisions in the SAVE America Act that you
oppose; you object to photo ID itself, because that is what this vote
is: simply, straightforward, photo ID.
Americans deserve confidence in elections, supported by integrity
measures like photo ID. It is time to set a nationwide standard for
election integrity, and a ``yes'' vote on this amendment will do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. 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. 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.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, today, Senate Republicans are once
again wasting time on voter suppression instead of paying TSA.
Republicans have an amendment on the Senate floor dressed up as what
they call commonsense voter ID, but let's be very clear what this
amendment is: It is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and it is a giant
coverup to cover up what their bill really does, which is dramatic
voter suppression, kicking 20 million or more people off the rolls
without their knowledge or consent.
The point here is not at all about voter ID. In fact, 99 percent of
the SAVE Act doesn't talk about voter ID. Most of their bill is kicking
people off the voter rolls and making reregistering, once you are
kicked off, a bureaucratic nightmare, an almost impossibility for many
people.
And, once again, the public saw the SAVE Act for what it really is--a
voter suppression bill. And once that happened, Republicans had to do
something. So they cobbled together this amendment as a coverup. It was
never in the original bill, and now they pretend it is reasonable
policy on voter ID.
But let's get to the facts. The amendment Republicans are pushing
today would impose the single strictest voter ID law in America--
stricter than Texas, stricter than Florida, stricter than any State in
the country.
Republicans are calling this amendment common sense. But if it is so
common sense, why is it stricter than what every single red State
already offers?
Many States already have rules in place for voter ID, and every State
has some method to verify the identity of voters.
Republicans pretend like States don't have backup verification
systems, backups to those backups, and redundancies in place to ensure
that our elections are safe and secure, but we do. And it is why voter
fraud--this whole bill is hidden, covered up because they say they need
to stop voter fraud. There isn't any to mention at all. That is how
absurd this is.
The Heritage Foundation, a rightwing conservative organization,
studied voter fraud and found only 77 cases of noncitizen voting in 24
years. And we are going to upend our whole system of how people
register to vote for that because of those 77 cases in 24 years?
Just 0.04 percent of voter verification cases are returned as
noncitizens. Now you see what the Republicans are doing. It is what
Trump said. They want to determine who should vote. Trump wants
people--Noem said this as well that the only people who should vote are
people who agree with them. It is disgraceful, disgusting. This radical
amendment would toss out every single voter ID requirement in all 50
States for Federal elections and put in an overly restrictive, one-
size-fits-all approach except only a handful of IDs.
Let's talk about vote-by-mail. Under this ridiculous amendment--this
amendment--voters who choose to vote by mail, which is about one in
three Americans, guess what they would have to do? They would have to
add a photocopy of their ID with their ballot.
[[Page S1651]]
So the election officials would open up the envelope and could see
how you voted. The sacred secrecy of our ballots would be undone by
this amendment. It is ridiculous.
Again, anyone who voted by mail would have to put a voter ID inside
the envelope, and the board of elections would have to open it up and
see how you voted. It is incredible.
It would also leave people susceptible to identity theft. It would
violate basic privacy. So let's be clear. Most people wouldn't like the
idea of having to stick a copy of their photo ID with their ballot in
the mail. This requirement is another Trojan horse for trying to weaken
and kill vote-by-mail altogether.
Democrats are supportive of commonsense voter ID standards. Just look
at the Freedom to Vote Act, which had the full support of the
Democratic caucus. It set flexible, comprehensive standards based on
West Virginia's then-law for voter ID requirements.
Their amendment--this amendment--is not about security; it is about
exclusion. It is not about security; it is about exclusion. The SAVE
Act is not about protecting our elections; it is about suppressing the
vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. HUSTED. Mr. President, I would like to suggest that I go through
this again about what is actually in this amendment because it was just
misrepresented.
This isn't the SAVE America Act. This is, frankly, me listening to
the minority leader, what he said, and how he supports--he doesn't
object to photo ID. So all that is in this amendment is five forms of
photo ID that people can list to vote, which people have.
I ask the American people: Do you have a driver's license? Do you
have a State ID? Do you have a passport? Do you have a military or
veterans ID? Do you have a Tribal ID? Because every American has one of
those things or has access to it. In Ohio, we will pay for you to have
a free State ID. That is all this asks. Show one of those five forms of
identification.
And then the misrepresentation about what this does on mail-in
ballots, clearly some people don't know how it works. I can explain to
you how it works.
When you have a mail-in ballot process, you have the ballot. You have
the mail-in envelope. You have two envelopes. You have the mail-in
envelope. Then you have a security envelope inside, in which your
ballot is contained.
You put the information, whether that is a photo of your passport or
the last four digits of your Social Security, on the outside of that
envelope where no one can see your ballot. It validates that the ballot
inside is legit, that it is from a qualified registered voter.
They remove that information and put the ballots on the other side in
the presence of both a Democrat and a Republican, and then the ballots
are counted. That is how it works, not that misrepresentation.
The problem is this is too simple. It is simple photo ID. You either
believe that we need to know who is voting or you don't. And this
simple amendment accomplishes that. The misrepresentation of how it
works needed to be corrected.
I ask unanimous consent that the previous scheduled roll call votes
begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
4732 to the motion to concur in the House message to
accompany S. 1383 with substitute amendment No. 4420, a bill
to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access,
and for other purposes.
John Thune, Jon Husted, John Kennedy, John R. Curtis, Tom
Cotton, Tommy Tuberville, Katie Boyd Britt, David
McCormick, Steve Daines, Mike Rounds, Cindy Hyde-Smith,
Thom Tillis, Ted Cruz, Bill Cassidy, Ashley Moody,
Cynthia M. Lummis, Joni Ernst.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum
call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 4372, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr.
Thune, to the motion to concur in the House message to accompany S.
1383, with substitute amendment No. 4420, a bill to establish the
Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, and for other purposes,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
47.
Three-fifths of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill making further
consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, Eric Schmitt,
James Lankford, Bernie Moreno, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Steve
Daines, Josh Hawley, Jim Justice, Shelley Moore Capito,
Kevin Cramer, Ashley B. Moody, Jim Banks, James E.
Risch, Tim Sheehy, Joni Ernst.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 7147, a bill making further consolidated
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
[[Page S1652]]
NAYS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). On this vote, the yeas are 53,
the nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Motion to Reconsider
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Remembering Sue Wagner
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, today, I recognize my friend and
mentor Sue Wagner, who passed away in Reno, NV, on March 17, 2026.
Sue blazed a path for women in government in the great State of
Nevada and is an inspiration not just to me but so many others. She
will be remembered not just as the first woman elected Lieutenant
Governor of Nevada or as one of the incredible leaders who secured a
woman's right to choose in our State but also as someone who you could
always count on to stand up for what is right.
She was born in Maine, and she grew up in Arizona. Since childhood,
Sue had an appreciation for public service and engagement. Her father
was actively involved in Maine politics, and his activism sparked Sue's
interest in public service. From a young age, she was inspired by
female political leaders, and she was also inspired by Senator Margaret
Chase Smith, one of her childhood role models.
Sue moved to Reno in 1969 with her husband Peter and their two kids
Kirk and Kristina. It is there where her political career began. In
1975, she was elected to the Nevada State Assembly, and she served in
the assembly until 1980, when she successfully ran for the Nevada State
Senate, where she stayed for another 9 years. In 1990, Sue made history
as the first woman to be elected Lieutenant Governor in the Silver
State.
During her political career, Sue supported many causes, including
safe houses for abused women, prison system reform, and governmental
accountability. She was also a driving force behind the creation of the
Nevada Commission on Ethics and the marriage license fee to fund
shelters and strengthen safety services for domestic violence
survivors.
She was especially a champion of women's rights. She fought for a
woman's right to serve in public office. She worked to ratify the Equal
Rights Amendment, and, most notably, she was instrumental in the
success of a 1990 referendum in the State of Nevada that helped codify
abortion rights into law.
She was one of the strongest women I knew. She overcame and survived
several personal tragedies. Just months before her election to the
Nevada State Senate, her husband Peter died in a plane crash, leaving
her a single mother of two kids.
And during her 1990 campaign for Lieutenant Governor, she herself was
in a plane crash, leaving her with severe injuries to her back and
neck. Despite her misfortune, Sue was resilient and continued to serve
Nevadans and lead with grit and integrity.
Sue's contributions to Nevada weren't limited to her political
career. In 1981, she established a memorial endowment at the Desert
Research Institute in Reno, where her husband had been an atmospheric
physicist. Through that endowment and her own work as a member of the
DRI staff for nearly a decade, Sue created opportunities for women in
science and fought for funding for environmental studies.
She was appointed to the Nevada Gaming Commission in 1997, where she
served for 12 years. She also served as the associate director of the
Great Basin Policy Research Center at the University of Nevada, Reno.
Throughout her career and lifetime, Sue was an advocate for women's
rights and for domestic violence survivors. She increased public and
higher education funding, environmental conservation, protections for
at-risk children, and, yes, increased governmental accountability.
Sue had a career to be proud of. She blazed trails that will be her
legacy and was beloved by all who knew her.
I am honored to have learned from her and to be able to call her as a
friend and mentor. She empowered me and so many others to become
champions for Nevada. I will always be grateful for her friendship, her
inspiration, and the decades of service that she gave to Nevada. Her
life and legacy have not only left a lasting impression on me but the
entire State.
I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sue Wagner and her
remarkable legacy.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Department of Homeland Security
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, for 41 days, Democrats have kept the
Department of Homeland Security shut down--41 days. This is on top of
Chuck Schumer's 43-day shutdown last fall.
Thanks to Senate Democrats, right now, 50,000 TSA agents have been
working without pay since February 14. No wonder they are quitting: So
far, 480 and counting.
Democrats walked out on TSA. Because of them, it hasn't been a
surprise that TSA agents have walked out of their jobs.
An agent in Indiana hasn't seen a full paycheck since Valentine's
Day. She is now doing her grocery shopping at a food pantry.
One married couple who both work as TSA agents at the Orlando
International Airport have two young children. When faced with no
income coming in, the husband started working as a DoorDash driver in
his spare time and is considering resigning from TSA.
These are just a few of the hard-working folks whom this shutdown is
hurting.
My Democrat colleagues seem to forget that bills are due and expenses
must be paid each month, regardless of the political games they want to
play with government funding, all because Democrats wanted to create
chaos under President Trump.
It is sad, folks. They hate this President more than they love
America and the men and women who protect our homeland.
It is clear Democrat priorities have been all wrong. My Democrat
colleague Chris Murphy said the quiet part out loud the other day. He
said:
[T]he people we care about most--the undocumented . . .
Folks, the people every elected Representative should care the most
for should be their constituents--the American people. But that sums up
Democrats' DHS shutdown. They would rather make a political point than
to do their jobs.
While we have been waiting on them to come to their senses, Democrats
have created the longest wait times in TSA history and have also caused
660 canceled flights. So, if you have been stuck standing in line at
the airport for a few extra hours, call Chuck Schumer. We have
literally been waiting on him to pass this bill.
Angry? tired? frustrated because of delays?
Call Chuck Schumer.
Missed a flight?
Call Chuck Schumer.
And if you missed a paycheck because of Democrats' shutdown--right
here, folks--call Chuck Schumer because Republicans presented him with
compromises to make sure folks get paid and we can keep Americans safe,
but he has been like Lucy with Charlie Brown's football. Democrats have
claimed they just want a few reforms, but when a deal is right in front
of them, Schumer moves the ball.
[[Page S1653]]
Well, not today, Charlie.
Look, folks. We need to get this done not only because it is the
right thing to do for hard-working Americans who have earned their
paychecks but because safety and security are on the line.
After Democrats shut down DHS, including the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, an American company faced a cyber
attack from Iran. Meanwhile, teens brought explosives to a New York
City protest--Schumer's home State--and were charged with attempting to
provide materiel support to ISIS.
If that isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is. But while Schumer
has his own bodyguards and Members of Congress have funding for
personal security, Democrats are leaving our homeland and our
communities vulnerable.
Enough of the Washington double standards. Republicans have stood
ready and willing to fund DHS. We have voted for it--Republicans have
voted for it--11 times. Meanwhile, Democrats have voted down our
efforts every single time.
While our Democrat colleagues have refused to join us to end
unnecessary pain for thousands of Americans, President Trump is pushing
through the politics and is paying our TSA agents, bringing wait times
down, and keeping our citizens safe.
Now Democrats must join us in doing their jobs and actually fund the
rest of DHS to fully protect our homeland. There is no time to delay.
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. McCORMICK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. President, I rise today to implore my Democratic
colleagues one more time: End this ridiculous shutdown at the
Department of Homeland Security.
Every day--every day--the stakes get higher, and every day the real-
world consequences get more severe. Shutting down DHS to make a point
on immigration is reckless, and it is devoid of basic, fundamental
common sense. It weakens the Agencies that protect the homeland. It
punishes--punishes--the men and women across TSA, CISA, FEMA, the Coast
Guard, and the rest of DHS, who stand watch every day over this
country, and it burdens Americans who depend on those public servants.
So what has this shutdown accomplished? What has it brought us?
Well, first, it endangers America and endangers Americans. Since
combat operations began in Iran, the homeland has seen five major
attacks: an ISIS-inspired bombing attempt outside of Gracie Mansion in
New York City; a terrorist shooting in a ROTC classroom at Old
Dominion; a vehicle attack at Temple Israel in Michigan; a terrorist
shooting at a bar in Austin, TX; and a pro-Iran cyber attack on
Stryker, one of America's great medical products companies, whose
systems support patient care in hospitals across the country.
These threats come on top of the violence already made possible by
the Biden administration's disastrous, catastrophic border policies.
Just last Thursday, we saw it on the television. Just last Thursday, an
illegal immigrant shot and killed an 18-year-old Loyola Chicago
student, Sheridan Gorman.
The killer had crossed the border in 2023, was caught and released,
and then, after a later shoplifting arrest, was released once again.
And now, sadly, tragically, a young woman is dead at his hands.
And that is why we must keep DHS fully operational, including ICE. We
don't know what threats exist among the 10 million illegal immigrants
who entered our country during the Biden administration. But we do know
that those risks are growing, and they are made much worse, much more
severe because of the carelessness of the Democrats in shutting down
and not being willing to fund DHS.
And yet, in our moment of real national need, Democrats are choosing
performance theater over the safety of the American people. It is
irresponsible. It is callous. It is disgraceful. And it must stop. It
must stop. We are 40 days into this. It must stop.
Now, second, shutting down DHS hurts the very people who step forward
to protect us--to protect all of us. The average TSA agent earns about
$50,000 a year. Many live paycheck to paycheck, and those are the
paychecks my Democratic colleagues chose to withhold to stage this
stunt.
Now, fortunately--and thank God--President Trump, earlier today, has
intervened and directed the new Secretary of Homeland Security to find
a way to pay these folks.
But, tragically, much of the damage has already been done. Too many
Pennsylvanians are already paying the price. TSA officers in the
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh airports have had to rely on food banks--
that is right, food banks--to get by. The men and women standing
between the traveling public and the danger that faces us should not
have to depend on charity because Congress can't do its job.
The consequences of this shutdown are mounting. Last Sunday--last
Sunday--one in four TSA agents in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
airports called out--25 percent. Twenty-five percent didn't come to
work because Democrats have forced them to work without pay. They can't
do it. They can't protect their families and come to work and not be
paid. Not many Americans can.
And since the shutdown began, at least 450 TSA agents have quit--450
trained professionals gone out of the TSA force. Replacing them will
cost money. It will take time. And until then--until then--the risk,
the threat facing the American people has gone up. It is irresponsible.
It has got to end.
Third, this shutdown imposes real costs--real costs--on the American
people, and that creates real vulnerabilities. We have all seen the
images: these airport security lines snaking out of the terminal into
the parking garages. Families heading out on spring break, workers
traveling across the country to see loved ones, people hitting the road
for work--all are victims of a politically manufactured crisis.
And I wish I could say it was just the airports, but the consequences
go far beyond the airports. The World Cup security preparations in
cities around the world--including Philadelphia--have already fallen
behind. Security grants for houses of worship are tied up. Local
communities are without critical DHS threat information sharing. Our
cyber security readiness is diminished. And in Pennsylvania,
firefighters and first responders have lost access to critical DHS
training.
The bottom line--the bottom line is this shutdown is petty, political
theater putting American lives at risk. It is unacceptable, and it has
to stop.
And to be clear, I reject--I reject--the false choice between funding
and reforms. We can address the legitimate concerns the American people
have had about immigration enforcement, while fully funding DHS. We can
secure the homeland and insist on professionalism and competence.
That is why I support the commonsense reforms that Republicans in
Congress and the administration have put forward: body cameras for ICE,
funding for deescalation training, increased transparency requirements,
and regular inspections of detention facilities. These are serious
proposals. They are commonsense proposals. They have been offered by
the administration and Congress in good faith--by Republicans in
Congress in good faith--and yet the Democrats have turned their head.
It is because they don't want to find a resolution to this. They want
to try to use this as an issue for political advantage in the midterms.
And the American people are suffering, and they deserve better. The
American people deserve better.
So, moreover, I am confident that my former colleague Markwayne
Mullin, whom we confirmed on Monday, will bring the leadership required
for DHS at this critical moment. He is the right man to meet this
moment.
Now, whatever our differences are in this Chamber over policy,
shutting down the government is never the right answer. It is never the
right answer. Our citizens who put us here expect more.
President Obama's DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, said last week:
[[Page S1654]]
We need to get out of the business of coupling policy
disagreements in Congress with funding the government.
And shutting down the Department of Homeland Security for the third
time this Congress amid major combat operations in the Middle East is
not merely wrong; it is reckless.
And I am proud that my friend and fellow Pennsylvania Senator John
Fetterman agrees that shutting down the government is ``wrong.'' He and
I can always be depended on to walk together on this for a better
Pennsylvania.
I urge my colleagues across the aisle and I urge the others in the
Democratic Party to fund DHS, protect America, pay the men and women
who are defending us--putting themselves in harm's way, defending the
homeland--and relieve the American people of these ridiculous,
politically instilled, unnecessary burdens.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCORMICK). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 305th time with my
increasingly weathered and battered ``Time to Wake Up'' chart to warn
this Chamber about a corrupt danger to our country--a danger powered by
fossil fuel industry money, orchestrated by dark money front groups,
and now executed at the highest levels of a corrupted executive branch.
In previous speeches, I described the four phases of climate denial.
Phase 1 was bury the evidence. The fossil fuel industry scientists
told them what the science was. They ignored it, and they buried it.
Phase 2 was lie about the evidence, pretend it wasn't true, as the
rest of the scientific establishment came on board with what their
scientists had already told them.
Phase 3 was flood our politics with dark money to protect fossil
fuel's pollute-for-free business model. After Citizens United, out
poured the money.
Now we have entered into phase 4, the most dangerous phase yet--
weaponizing the government itself to attack clean energy, protect
polluters, and steamroll lawful government process.
Today's speech is about a lie. We are now so deep in phase 4 that
heads of executive Agencies feel entitled to lie to Congress if it
helps carry out President Trump's fossil fuel-captured agenda.
Notice what distinguishes phase 4. Phase 1 involved buried evidence
kept secret. Phase 2 involved lies filtered through think tank reports
with plausible deniability for the fossil fuel interests behind the
front groups. Phase 3 flooded politics with dark money through
anonymous front groups--all hidden. But phase 4, using the government
itself to execute the polluters' agenda--against the law, against
Congress, and against the courts--that must be done out loud, under
oath, before judges, and before this body, in plain view. In phase 4,
the lying becomes official, brazen, on the record.
There once was a time when lying to Congress mattered; when swearing
an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
meant exactly that; when if someone lied to Congress, even Members of
the liar's own party would hold them to account. Unfortunately, those
days are gone. But truth should still matter.
So this evening, I present to you the story of Lyin' Lee Zeldin. I
will show you what happened when EPA Administrator Zeldin came before
two congressional committees in May of last year. Our review of
thousands of pages of sworn court filings, internal EPA emails, and
other communications and documents produced under the Freedom of
Information Act proves it. Let me walk you through the sorry saga.
At the beginning of his term, Trump, following the Project 2025
blueprint, instructed Agencies to cut off funding that his fossil fuel
donors didn't like. Remember, Candidate Trump had promised Big Oil a
massive return on their investment if they donate $1 billion to get him
elected. Well, fossil fuel companies indeed donated massively--hundreds
of millions, maybe even the full billion--and Trump dutifully provided
the payback in innumerable policies benefiting fossil fuel and
kneecapping fossil fuel's clean energy competitors. The heavy hand of
government was put to work for fossil fuel.
As soon as Zeldin arrived at EPA, he diligently obeyed President
Trump by freezing and then terminating as many as 781 grants with
awards totaling over $1.7 billion. These grants were congressionally
appropriated and obligated to the grantees to fund projects in clean
energy, coastal resilience, lead pipe removal, and improving air
quality for children.
EPA's own inspector general found, after reviewing one of the grant
programs that had awarded $1.5 billion in canceled funds, that the
Biden EPA had done so in a fair, transparent, and legally compliant
way.
There simply was no excuse to claw back this money except that the
fossil fuel donors wanted it done. You won't be shocked to learn that
it is actually illegal for the executive branch to unilaterally roll
back appropriated and obligated congressional grants. So it prompted a
swath of lawsuits against the EPA.
From Washington, DC, to Rhode Island, from Maryland to South
Carolina, from Biden judge to Trump judge alike, Federal courts over
and over reached the same conclusion: The grant freezes and
terminations were likely illegal, and the grant money should go to the
recipients.
One Federal court ruled that EPA had to conduct individualized grant-
by-grant reviews and could only cancel grants based on specific
findings related to the unique characteristics of a particular grant.
It is a pretty simple rule grounded in separation of powers. The
executive branch cannot veto congressionally appropriated and obligated
funds outside the veto process, particularly not based on big donors'
political resentments. That is the law. To cancel a grant, EPA must
review each grant itself, its terms, its conditions, its obligations
and have a specific reason for doing so.
Note here the difference between individually reviewing grants versus
reviewing entire grant programs under which may fall dozens or even
hundreds of individual grants. The review can't be grant program by
grant program; it has to be individual grant by individual grant.
In response to court orders, EPA made a huge production of documents.
After sifting through the ``thousands of documents'' EPA offered up,
the court found this:
Not one document showed any individualized review.
The court said it went through thousands of documents and looked at
them and said:
Not one document showed any individualized review.
There was no grant-by-grant analysis, nothing that met the legal
individualized review standards. Instead, what the court found was
illegal targeting based on the grant containing general terms that the
big donors didn't like, like ``climate,'' like ``greenhouse gas
emissions,'' like ``environmental justice.''
Entire grant programs were canceled en masse. Internal emails said
``cancel them all.'' It was the opposite of what the law requires. In
short, the court found, after extensive review, that Administrator
Zeldin did not follow the law.
Administrator Zeldin then made an astonishing move. That same day,
May 20, 2025, that the court rejected the EPA's claims as ``hard to
believe,'' Zeldin walked into a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee
hearing and repeated the same discredited story he had tried to sell
the court, plus an added new twist.
He claimed that he personally conducted the individualized review of
what he called ``every single grant'' before he canceled them.
The court, based on the actual evidence from those thousands of EPA
documents, had not bought that story, but Zeldin figured that a
Republican-controlled congressional subcommittee just might. The very
next day Zeldin came to our Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, and--under oath--told me the same false story; that he had
personally reviewed every grant, this time adding that his deputy
[[Page S1655]]
also individually reviewed every single grant.
The problem with all of this? The evidence shows that the opposite is
true. Remember what the court found after reviewing those thousands of
pages EPA had produced:
Not one document showed any individualized review.
But wait, there is more. That deputy that Zeldin claimed also
reviewed every single grant individually? He filed a sworn declaration
to that same court averring only that he had conducted a review of
grant programs. Remember the difference between grant programs which
contain dozens of potential grants and the individual grants.
All he would say under oath is that he had reviewed grant programs,
not individual grants. Under oath in court, the deputy in charge of
coordinating the grant review would only swear his name to a
declaration about a review of programs, not of individual grants.
Other circumstantial evidence also cuts against Zeldin. We looked at
detailed EPA calendars obtained by FOIA requests showing that the
Administrator held five meetings with EPA staff related to grants.
Total time across all five meetings: 2 hours and 45 minutes. His
calendar showed no entries for other personal time to review grants.
So do the math: 2 hours 45 minutes to review 781 grants individually.
That is about 13 seconds per grant. That math ain't ``mathing,'' as
they say.
And then look at what eventually happened within the five grant
programs at issue. Every single grant in every single program was
canceled except one outlier, a government-to-government grant, the only
one to a single State. All the rest, swept clean.
Another tell here was Zeldin's behavior in our committee: his madcap
yelling, accusing, fist-banging. It is Trump administration standard
operating procedure to yell and shout and accuse when they can't answer
a legitimate question. We have seen that play run over and over and
over.
So all the evidence points plainly in one direction: Zeldin didn't
follow the law, and he lied about following the law. Why? Why lie about
that? Well, here is why: Trump demands two things from his Cabinet;
one, fawning flattery; and two, slavish implementation of his political
instructions.
Zeldin admitting that he messed up the grant cancellation process
would batter EPA's chances in litigation. He would be guilty of failure
to execute on Trump's big donors' political agenda. He would have to
face the White House's ire.
So Administrator Zeldin became Lyin' Lee, desperate to keep Trump's
illegal plans alive to carry out the political purge of clean energy
grants, all to satisfy that audience of one by rewarding Trump's
thuggish fossil fuel Kingmakers.
This kind of gangster and ``Gong Show'' absurdity, this kind of
brazenness, shows what happens when fossil fuel private interests own
the executive branch of the U.S. Government.
Follow the money. This is phase four. This is what it looks like when
government is captured by polluters and put to their service.
Zeldin's testimony was no inadvertent statement; it was a calculated
stratagem to lie and try to shout his way out of the pickle he was in.
Let's be clear who is hurt here, what the real costs are. Lying to a
court is bad. Lying to Congress is bad. Lying to frustrate judicial
review is bad. Lying to thwart Congress' constitutional power of the
purse is bad. All of that is bad.
But behind all of that were real people trying to earn a living on
the other end of those grants that Zeldin lied about and canceled.
Those grants funded tangible projects that would cut people's energy
costs, protect people from natural disaster, create real jobs for real
people. It was real stuff.
Here is some of the real stuff the illegal grant cancellations held
up: In North Carolina, residents were relying on a nearly $20 million
grant to replace residential water service lines to get dangerous lead
out of their drinking water. Other lead drinking projects were canceled
in Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Another one, Kipnuk, AK, lost a nearly $20 million grant to stabilize
its riverbank. Those consequences were real and immediate. In October
of 2025, the remnants of Typhoon Halong swept through, flooded the
river, leveled the town, killed 1 person, and displaced over 1,500
people.
A climate specialist at the University of Alaska had noted a pattern.
Three devastating ex-typhoon storms hit Western Alaska in 4 years.
Zeldin's canceled grant did not just fail to prevent a predictable
flood; it may actually have contributed to the permanent erasure of a
Native community's home.
Just last week, Kipnuk Tribal members voted to relocate away from
their flooded ancestral village. The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe was
planning to use nearly $20 million to create a Tribal resilience hub
that would have provided essential services during emergencies. Anybody
who has had to evacuate in an emergency knows how important that is--
gone.
Texas A&M University would have received $14 million to install
wastewater treatment systems throughout 17 counties in Alabama that had
inadequate plumbing capacity where residents suffer from preventable
conditions like hookworm, but I guess that was too woke for Lyin' Lee.
A $500,000 grant for the Childhood Lead Action Project--a project
launched in 2018 to reduce lead exposure in children--gone. The list
goes on, but the mass cancellations share the same characteristic.
Zeldin and his merry band of DOGE boys killed off grant programs
based on ideas and phrases they didn't like and wanted to cancel:
``environmental justice,'' ``DEI,'' ``climate change.''
None of this was based on the required individualized review he
pretended to have done. That is the Zeldin lie under oath, the Zeldin
lie that is sanctionable, but it is not his big lie. His big lie is
Zeldin repealing EPA's 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, the
bedrock scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gas
emissions endanger public health and welfare. He boasted it was the
``single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.''
What he did not say is this: EPA's own scientists disagreed. The
National Academy of Science had just reaffirmed the Endangerment
Finding, saying it ``was accurate, had stood the test of time, and is
now reinforced by even stronger evidence.''
So EPA, having trouble challenging that science, argued that the
Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to regulate greenhouse gases at
all, which was an argument the Supreme Court had already rejected back
in 2009 in Massachusetts v. EPA.
The science has not changed. The law has not changed. The fossil fuel
industry's complete infiltration of our government is what changed.
Lying to Congress about grant reviews is serious, but lying about
science, that is big. Even bigger and even more consequential for the
American people is the enormous lie which Zeldin, Interior Secretary
Doug Burgum, and Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright spout
constantly.
The enormous lie is that clean energy is more expensive than dirty
polluting energy; the fact of the matter is that it is not. And the
easiest way to prove that it is not is to look at what is called the
generation stack of the electric grid. As we all turn on lights and
air-conditioners and electric appliances, powerplants get called up to
provide the power to meet the demand.
For obvious reasons, grid operators call up the lowest cost power
first. Here is what that looks like for two of our electric grids:
ERCOT covers Texas; PJM runs westward from the Mid-Atlantic to the
Midwest.
This shows the order in which, in real life, they actually call up
their powerplants, least expensive first. And guess what? Solar and
wind and hydro come before coal and gas. Same here, solar, wind, and
hydro come before coal and gas.
In real life, based on real prices actually bid into the electric
grid, that is how they stack up. Solar, wind, and other renewables come
first because they are less expensive. So it is indisputable that
Burgum, Zeldin, and Wright are lying.
Here is another proof point. This time series compares costs on the
Texas grid ERCOT at various levels of demand in 2018 and in 2024. This
line shows the demand cost curve of ERCOT in 2018. This line shows the
same information for the same grid in 2024 after a
[[Page S1656]]
huge clean energy surge went onto the Texas grid--17.6 gigawatts of new
clean energy joined the grid.
Look here at the high point in 2018 when demand peaked at about 68
gigawatts. What was the price point? Mr. President, $75 per megawatt
hour.
You hit that exact same level of demand 6 years later with all of
that new clean energy on the grid and the price had fallen by two-
thirds. It is now $25 per megawatt hour--$75 before the clean energy
surge, $25 after. In real life, in real time, Texas saw clean energy
press prices down.
It is a before-and-after look at how clean energy reduces prices of
electricity. With power costs down when clean energy goes up, this is
more evidence that Zeldin, Burgum, and Wright are lying.
Here is another example: Australia. Australia is loading up on clean
energy. They are loading up on residential, solar, and other clean
energy arrays. And that allows them now to have their grid propose 3
hours of scheduled free electricity every day.
Three hours a day, no matter who you are. If you are using
electricity, you plug in, you run your dryer, you run your washing
machine, and for those 3 hours you know, that is free electricity. It
is free electricity from Australia's abundant clean power strategy.
Literally, clean power so cheap it makes electricity free.
One last data point on costs. The court filings of the state
attorneys general fighting the illegal Trump stop work orders against
offshore wind farms off Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Here is what our States asserted about Revolution Wind in court where
lying is sanctionable.
Once operational, Revolution Wind alone will provide
hundreds of millions of dollars each year in energy bill
savings to New England.
Hundreds of millions of dollars each year in energy bill
savings to New England.
The ISO New England's grid operator wrote that had offshore wind been
online, it would have saved regional production costs by $80 to $85
million over a 2-week cold snap in 2017 to 2018, resulting in $11 to
$13 per megawatt hour, less costs in what the grid charged ratepayers.
Zeldin, Burgum, and Wright could have come into that courtroom and
offered their evidence to the contrary, filed affidavits asserting the
cost savings of fossil fuel. It was a great opportunity for them to
make that case in court that they were spouting on FOX News and on X.
Well, guess what? In the forum where lies are subject to court
sanction, they had nothing to say.
The Trump administration's attack on clean energy may reward Trump's
big polluter donors, but people, people who already face the Trump
affordability crisis, they see their costs go up when clean energy is
kept off the grid.
When the Big Oil cartel hikes prices, families pay the cost. When
volatile natural gas prices spike, families pay the cost. When cheaper
clean energy is blocked from the grid, families pay the cost.
In this case, Texas families, had it not been for that clean energy,
would have paid an additional $50 per megawatt hour. In this Trump
clean energy scam, money goes from regular people's pockets, from
customers' pockets, straight to Trump's big fossil fuel donors, in
billions. In billions. It is the biggest payback for political support
that I can remember.
Banning clean energy, it hurts homeowners and renters. And as climate
disasters surge, insurance markets falter. They are already staggering
in Texas and Florida.
The Economist magazine has warned of a potential $25 trillion
collapse in global real estate value as properties become uninsurable
and unmortgageable, and in some cases, even unlivable.
The chief economist at the mortgage giant Freddie Mac predicted a
cascade. Climate risk makes regions uninsurable, which makes properties
there unmortgageable, which crashes property values, which all
collapses in a 2008-style economic recession.
Canceling clean energy investments to help out big polluter donors
accelerates that dangerous trajectory until property values crash.
Clean energy is where the jobs are. Over 400,000 had been created
since 2020, with a faster growth rate than the rest of the energy
sector.
Fossil-fueled sabotage of this sector means fewer of those jobs in
America, more in China, and a shrinking economic future for American
workers. And, yes, attacking clean energy means more emissions,
more disasters, more billion-dollar storms, more hits to communities
like Kipnuk.
NOAA shows that Americans suffered over $100 billion per year in
disaster costs in each of the past 5 years, half a trillion dollars.
And that cost gets worse. And that harm cascades, from the families
struggling with a soaring property insurance bill, to the worker whose
clean energy job never materializes, to the taxpayer footing the bill
for ever more costly disasters.
These are the real consequences of government by falsehood. When
truth is denied, when science is ignored, when courts are defied, the
public ends up bearing the cost. And that cost grows every day that the
polluters' evil machinery is left to run unchecked.
Zeldin lying about his review of grant programs is obviously a lesser
matter than the wholesale lies designed to mislead the public and prop
up the failing and polluting fossil fuel industry. But those lies to
Congress were under oath--under oath--and that ought to matter.
There is no exception to the duty to tell the truth for lies that
benefit Trump's big fossil fuel donors. For years, fossil fuel
interests believed that they could pollute for free, deceive the
public, buy elections with dark money, and do it all without
consequence.
They have bought and paid for this administration and now use
operatives like Zeldin to run the Federal Government from the inside.
The brazenness of executive branch officials on the polluter payroll is
there for everyone to see.
Zeldin's own EPA colleagues are saying so too. Over 1,200 EPA
employees, career scientists, lawyers, and enforcement staff have
signed a public letter to Zeldin laying out their concerns that he has
spread misinformation through official EPA channels; that he has
promoted a culture of fear among his own staff; and that he has
redirected the Agency's mission from its legal mission to protect
public health to the service of big polluters.
Separately, a watchdog organization has sued the EPA in Federal court
after the Agency failed to produce any documentation backing up a
Zeldin claim made in front of the President at a Cabinet meeting that
EPA employees were absent or were ``ghost workers.'' Zeldin doesn't
just lie to Congress, he lies about his own people at the EPA.
Accountability is coming. The courts are waking up. The public is
waking up. Even some in the business community are waking up to the
looming peril.
And President Trump is losing steam, losing cases, losing
credibility, losing his popularity, losing the illusion of
invincibility that cowed so many into silence.
It is long past time for Republicans to discover their oaths of
office, to stand up for the Constitution and for Congress as an
institution, and to defend our American constituents from Trump and his
gangster government.
One place to start is with a really simple rule for our witnesses:
You do not lie.
So for that reason today, I am calling on Lee Zeldin to go. It is bad
enough that he has weaponized the EPA to do the bidding of the giant
fossil fuel and chemical corporations that donated to Trump's campaign.
But if he can't be relied on to tell the simple truth to Congress, to
answer simple questions honestly, how could anybody in this body
believe him? Or is the new rule that lying is OK if it is done for big
polluters?
Late last year, Moms Clean Air Force and their 1.6 million members
called on Zeldin to resign. Earlier this week, a coalition of over 160
organizations, led by the Climate Action Campaign and Moms Clean Air
Force, demanded that Zeldin resign or be fired.
Moms Across America and many others in the Make America Healthy Again
movement are fed up with Zeldin flip-flopping on toxic regulations and
failing to respect the core mission of EPA to keep Americans healthy
and safe.
People across America on both the left and the right are waking up to
the dangers of Lyin' Lee Zeldin running a
[[Page S1657]]
corrupted EPA. It is time for us here in the Senate to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am now going to just continue what
Senator Whitehouse has been raising for the consideration of the
American people.
I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership as the top
Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee and for
throughout his entire career focusing upon the corruption which is at
the heart of the fossil fuel industry's control of the energy agenda,
the climate agenda in our country. That is something which Senator
Whitehouse has done insistently, persistently, consistently over the
last decade, just rising over and over again to make the very clear,
compelling, and undeniable point that the fossil fuel industry controls
the energy policy of our country and that it has succeeded for 100
years in squashing the competition until very recently.
They got a second breath, once Donald Trump was reelected this year,
in their efforts to ensure that wind and solar and all-electric
vehicles and clean energy technologies were, in fact, once again
snuffed out after they had seen a great resurgence because of the 2022
Inflation Reduction Act, which really should be called the greatest
climate bill ever passed in the history of the world.
Senator Whitehouse has been the leader in raising these issues about
corruption, about their ownership of administration after
administration which did not, in fact, advance a clean energy agenda
for our country.
So I join with Senator Whitehouse this evening in calling for the
resignation of Lee Zeldin as the EPA Administrator. When someone's
track record is as full of failure as Lee Zeldin's, they should flunk
out of the class. He has failed to uphold science, failed to protect
health, failed to hold regulated industries accountable.
He has failed to carry out the basic mission of the Agency which he
was appointed to lead. The basic mission he is failing on is to protect
human health and to protect the environment of the United States of
America. Since he has been in charge, the only thing ``EPA'' has stood
for is ``Every Polluter's Ally.'' He has spent his first 15 months as
the Administrator protecting the polluters instead of protecting the
health and the environment of our country.
Trump and Zeldin may be in public office, but they are not on the
public's team. They are batting for the Big Fossil Fuel and Big Tech
billionaires, not for parents worried about their kids' asthma, not for
families worried about whether their water is safe to drink or food is
safe to eat, and not for young people worried about their future as
climate change continues to cause global chaos.
One of Lee Zeldin's first moves as Administrator was to come for the
Agency's brain trust--the dedicated public servants who serve as the
engine powering the EPA's core mission. Who are those people? They are
biologists. They are chemists. They are climate scientists. They are
mathematicians. They are people who have dedicated their lives working
at the EPA in order to create the best science which can be used in
order to guide American policy to protect the public health and the
environment in our country.
They empowered DOGE--these young, ideological thugs--to enter into
the EPA headquarters and all the regional headquarters of EPA in order
to peer over the shoulders of scientists, of chemists, of biologists,
of climate scientists, and question, as a 25-year-old DOGEr, what the
qualifications are for these people, these scientists, to have their
jobs. I mean, it is absolutely absurd that in 2026, we would allow for
that to happen at the lead environmental Agency for the world, but yet
that is what Donald Trump and Elon Musk unleashed--the terrorization of
career, brilliant scientists.
How do we know they are brilliant? Because every person in America
knows that when they were in high school, the first row--the first
row--was filled with all the kids who were going to go to college to
study biology and chemistry and physics and mathematics. The second row
was filled with everybody else. But everyone knows who the smartest
kids are, and they have been the smartest kids since they were in the
sixth grade or the seventh grade. They are dedicated to science. They
are dedicated to getting the right answer. Yet Donald Trump and Elon
Musk unleashed an army of DOGE--mostly young men, unqualified for
anything except going in almost as mafia-like hit men to take out these
career, brilliant scientists who decided not to go out into the private
sector to make 5 times, 10 times more money working for chemical
companies, writing algorithms for hedge funds--no. They dedicated their
lives to working on the science of public health and the environment,
and Trump just unleashed these young DOGE men to go in and terrorize
these workers. They pushed out these EPA workers who test our water,
who monitor our air, who study how to keep us safe from chemicals, from
pollution. All the while, he pushed to keep--to keep--chemicals like
glyphosate on the market.
The amazing thing about this is the Make America Healthy Again
movement wants chemicals like glyphosate to be taken off the market.
They want it. They actually ran on that, the Make America Healthy Again
movement. That is what Robert F. Kennedy was saying he wanted to do.
Do you know who is more powerful? The chemical industry. The chemical
industry wants it legal. The chemical industry wants it on the market.
The chemical industry wants families to be exposed to it. So the EPA
under Lee Zeldin--he is all on board for something like that. He is not
going to be bucking the chemical industry on behalf of the health of
the American people.
By the way, Zeldin spent $86 million in taxpayer money to pay EPA
staff not to work. Your taxpayer money went to avoiding environmental
protection and saying to the workers: You don't even have to show up.
We will pay you not to come in, not to protect the public health and
safety.
After firing thousands of these brilliant people, the Agency is at
its lowest staffing level since the 1980s--40 years ago--all while we
deal with our modern-day challenges like forever chemicals, toxic
pesticides, climate change--you name it. All of these issues which have
been identified by a new generation of scientists are now all on the
back burner at the EPA because of Lee Zeldin, because of the White
House, and because they are just completely beholden to these special
interest, polluting companies that are in the favored class of Donald
Trump acolytes.
But that wasn't enough. Then he came for the rest of the country. He
came for projects to plant trees, to shade us on hot summer days, to
get water to drink from our taps that is free from lead and build cheap
solar energy to power our homes--projects that have been illegally shut
down, shut off, shut out of funding in red and blue States alike. That
is how ideological, that is how obsessed they are with giving the
polluters everything they want.
Zeldin illegally came for the National Climate Bank, based on my
legislation with Senator Van Hollen, which would have lowered energy
bills, created good-paying jobs across the country, and built cleaner,
safer, and healthier communities. And why did they come for the green
bank, for the climate bank? Well, that had $20 billion in it, and
McKinsey, a renowned and respected consulting firm, estimated that that
$20 billion would unleash $150 billion of private sector investment in
clean energy solutions, and that is an existential threat to the fossil
fuel industry.
So Zeldin just said: It is gone. It is gone. I can't, on my watch,
said Zeldin, be part of a plan that allows for competition with clean
energy technologies to reduce the profits of the natural gas and the
oil and the coal industry.
So he just abandoned American families, and his polluter pals refused
to follow the law, so he decides he will just break it for them.
Lee Zeldin is rolling back soot prevention rules that could have
prevented 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 cases of asthma over just
the last 6 years. Under Lee Zeldin, ``MAGA''--M-A-G-A--stands for
``Make America Gasp for Air.'' More asthma, more lung cancer, more
disease in our society--that is what the Trump-Zeldin EPA looks like.
[[Page S1658]]
He set up an email inbox for polluters to receive automatic
exemptions from nine air quality standards, allowing for complete
noncompliance and unchecked pollution before any scientific review,
public input process, or regulatory consideration.
Zeldin is shirking his duty to enforce the Clean Air Act that exists
to ensure we don't breathe mercury or lead or arsenic--all because he
wants polluters to make more money while they make us sick.
Just 1 year into this administration, the United States saw an
increase in powerplant emissions after decades of emissions decline.
That is not a coincidence. That is a diabolical scheme, written by the
Heritage Foundation and its fossil fuel backers, and executed by Lee
Zeldin, but that still wasn't enough for Zeldin. Last month, Lee Zeldin
moved to repeal the endangerment finding, which is the bedrock of air
pollution and emissions regulation in our country.
Senator Whitehouse has already made reference to this most important
environmental Court decision in the history of the United States. That
case is Massachusetts v. EPA. It was a decision that was rendered in
April of 2007, and it was a very simple decision which was made, driven
by the devastation that climate change wreaked on my home State of
Massachusetts. Massachusetts sued, and the Supreme Court agreed that
greenhouse gases were air pollutants, and they made that decision
almost two decades ago. The Supreme Court also agreed that the EPA
needs to regulate air pollutants if the science shows they endanger our
health and our welfare.
Now, that may seem like a no-brainer to you. Climate change is real;
the science is clear; and the harm from climate change is more obvious
and more damaging every single year. The EPA acknowledged the
connection between greenhouse gases and climate harm back two decades
ago.
What makes Lee Zeldin think he can change the facts now?
Well, here is why. It is that Zeldin and Trump have taken a page
straight out of ``1984,'' when George Orwell wrote:
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your own eyes
and ears.
Americans aren't stupid. Americans know what this crisis means. We
are living through climate change, and we can see it with our own eyes
that these extreme weather disasters are here now, making headlines,
and making their communities more dangerous than ever before.
Over 10 years, from 2000 to 2009, the United States experienced 67
extreme weather disasters that cost $1 billion or more. That is over a
10-year period. In the last 5 years alone, we have lived through 116
disasters that have cost $1 billion or more--nearly twice as many
disasters in half the time just 10 years later.
Climate change is real; climate change is happening; and the evidence
is in the damage that it is inflicting upon our Nation. It is drought.
It is storms. It is making groceries more expensive. It is making
insurance, as Senator Whitehouse constantly points out, for homeowners
and small businesses go skyrocketing across our country. The heat waves
are making our air-conditioning bills more expensive. Wildfires and
rising tides are making home insurance again more expensive all across
our country. Lee Zeldin would rather sell us a lie than make our lives
more affordable.
Even if Trump and Zeldin try to put EPA's science in shackles, the
law is clear. The EPA is still beholden to its mission to protect human
health and the environment. Trump's EPA might break the law, but they
cannot rewrite the law. All they can do is break the law. Greenhouse
gases are air pollutants, and the Clean Air Act says the EPA must act.
By repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration will be
creating a clear and present danger to the public because climate
denial costs lives. This isn't a deregulatory agenda; it is a deranged
agenda.
Our lives may be worth nothing to the Trump administration--and that
is not an exaggeration because, under Lee Zeldin, the EPA is valuing
human health at zero dollars in its rulemakings. But we know that we
matter; that you matter; that every American matters. It is our voices,
our lives, our futures that matter in this battle, and the EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment still matters. So
that is what we are going to raise from now to the end of this year.
Donald Trump, today, in a press conference, with his Cabinet members,
said that the country was going great, but he decided to take a little
detour, he said, into Iran. Well, Trump's little detour is coming at a
very high price--higher gasoline prices, higher home heating oil
prices, higher natural gas prices, higher prices for jet fuel, higher
prices as a result for plane tickets, higher prices for groceries
because they have to be transported across the country. In fact, there
are higher prices for everything in our country which needs oil or gas,
which is every other product.
So, when you look at the stock market, you will always see the same
thing. Whenever oil is skyrocketing, that means all of the funding from
all of those businesses and consumers is all going to one industry, and
right now, their stocks are skyrocketing. Their executives are cleaning
up. Their executives are getting the return on investment that they
made when they met with Trump in April of 2024, and he said: If you
give me $1 billion, I will kill all of your clean energy competition.
And, in the IRA, in July of 2025, with JD Vance coming here to cast the
deciding vote, that is what they did to the wind tax credits, to the
solar tax credits, to the all-electric vehicle tax credits, to all of
the incentives that were in the books for a clean energy revolution.
Yes, it was pay to play. The oil executives and the gas executives got
exactly what they bought when they raised all that campaign cash for
Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
Yes, that is where we are right now. We have the United States over
in a war against Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is, for all intents and
purposes, shut down. The price of oil is skyrocketing. The stocks of
the oil companies are skyrocketing. The pay for CEOs, you should be
sure, is going to skyrocket this year for oil companies, and the whole
rest of the stock market is cratering because they are all dependent
upon oil and gas to fuel their industries.
Trump is now saying, because of what has happened over in the Middle
East, that he is going to send in the Marines to attack Kharg Island,
which is the center for the export of energy out of Iran. So he is
going to take what is already a complete mess--what is already one of
the most pluperfect violations of the first law of holes--which is,
when you are in one, stop digging. He is planning on digging this hole
even deeper because what happens in the Persian Gulf winds up at the
pump for ordinary consumers and ordinary families. This is Trump at the
pump. His picture might as well be on every single pump in the United
States of America.
This is all as a result of Zeldin, Secretary of Energy Wright, and
Secretary of the Interior Burgum all going along with this agenda to
kill the all-electric vehicle revolution and the solar and wind
revolution. They said we have energy independence. There is no energy
independence with the price of oil and gas being set on the global
market. If it goes up, you are going to see it at the pump in the
United States no matter where you live.
So that was a big lie right from the get-go, right from the Trump
administration--that they had achieved energy independence. No, we have
not. We are reliving right now what we should have learned over and
over and over again, but Trump could not learn it because there is an
old saying: It is hard to learn something when you are paid not to
understand it.
He got paid by the oil and gas industry not to understand that
reality. The oil and gas industry wanted to be able to engage in these
predatory practices--in this exploitation of families across our
country--for their own self-enrichment. That is what this is all about.
Every time you fill up your tank, it is Trump at the pump. He owns it.
What is he asking for right now from my Republican colleagues? He
wants $200 billion more for the war. What does that mean? Well, it
costs $2 billion a day to fight the war. If you give him $200 billion,
which my Republican colleagues seem to want to do, that would be 100
days more of this war. That takes us into the summer.
[[Page S1659]]
So, if you are watching the deliberations here in the U.S. Senate, be
mindful of the fact that their plan is to fund a war that will go on
indefinitely, and as a result the price at the pump, the price for
heating oil and the price for natural gas are going to continue to
spike.
It doesn't make any difference whether you are just an ordinary
family member with their car and they are trying to fill it up or if
you are a small business person who is basically saying: Oh, my
goodness. There has been a 40-percent increase in the price I have to
pay for my home heating oil tank or to just keep my business warm or
the air-conditioning on. It is everybody in America who is going to pay
the price because of what Trump is seeking to perpetrate upon the
American people because there is no energy independence when we depend
upon fossil fuels.
We need to ensure that we move to real energy independence. That is a
renewable energy agenda--an all-electric vehicle future. That is when
we will have energy independence. We were heading in that direction
before Trump cut the clean energy incentives, the clean energy
programs, and these CEOs, you know, are now reaping the benefits of
that--the fossil fuel CEOs personally. They are getting the windfall
profits. They are able to engage in this profiteering out on the open
marketplace.
By the way, the price of oil goes up like a rocket when the crisis
starts, but it comes down like a feather, very slowly, so that the oil
and gas industry can milk every last cent out of every single consumer,
tipping them upside down at the gas station and shaking money out of
their pockets so that they can enjoy those profits while they are
chuckling that they won't have the competition from the wind and solar
and all-electric vehicle industries that were moving at the most rapid
pace that our country had ever seen, and it was endangering the
business model of the oil and gas industry.
And Lee Zeldin? He was at the front of the line saying: We are going
to end that threat. We are going to make sure that those oil and gas
and coal executives don't have to worry about their business future.
And who is going to pay the price?
The price is going to be paid in higher taxes to fight this war by
ordinary families, in higher prices at the pump by ordinary families to
fight this war, and by the families who are going to, unfortunately,
lose loved ones who are service people who are serving our country over
there. The price is going to be very high for American families.
And who is going to benefit?
It is going to be the oil company executives. It is going to be the
natural gas company executives.
That is where we are right now. We need to end this war, and we need
to end the war on clean energy technologies because we have no energy
independence as long as we are dependent upon fossil fuels. That is the
big headline of what has happened over the first 28 days of this war,
and that is why Senator Whitehouse, myself, and others on this floor
are going to campaign all year long on these issues.
We are going to campaign against the Zeldin agenda, against the
Wright agenda, the Burgum agenda, and, ultimately, the Trump agenda,
which is nothing more than the oil and gas and coal industry agenda for
our country--making us less healthy, less safe, more dependent upon
fuels that get us into more and more danger the more that we allow
ourselves to have this law of unintended consequences to its pluperfect
form be invoked every single time we go over to the Middle East for a
war.
So that is where we are right now. We have got this moment where, as
a Senate, we can stand up and fight; or we can be like the Republicans
out here, who can see the rising costs for all of these goods--
including healthcare; including their tariffs, the sales tax which
Trump has imposed on pretty much every product in our country.
The American public is arriving with pitchforks, heading toward the
Republicans at the polls this year, and they know it. And that is why,
for the last several days, they have tried to squash Americans' right
to vote, Americans' right to be able to go in and cast a ballot
independently and freely without fear.
That is what the SAVE Act is all about. The SAVE Act is all about
squashing the ability for minorities, for married women, for
transgender folks to be able to vote this year, because they are afraid
they are going to lose.
The SAVE Act is really the ``Save Their Asses Act.'' That is what it
is all about. How do they protect themselves from all of these rising
costs that are coming from Trump economic policies? That is what this
is all about--the bottom line.
The way to protect themselves while enriching the oil and gas and
coal industry, the insurance industry, all of those industries that are
part of that MAGA coalition? Just suppress the vote. Just make sure
fewer people show up at the polls.
So that is really at the heart of where we are right now on the floor
of the U.S. Senate. We are waiting for the Republicans to finally
become responsible, to accept the responsibility of actually responding
to the real harm that is being imposed upon American families.
So, from my perspective, we are at a historic inflection point, and I
just hope that the Republicans finally--finally--hear the American
people, because, otherwise, as Steve Bannon said, having these ICE
agents go to the airports right now is only going to be practice for
ICE agents at the polls in Georgia, in Ohio this fall, in order to
suppress the vote of the American people. And it is all to protect this
assault upon affordability, assault upon the budgets of ordinary
American families.
And at the heart of it all is a failed energy policy, because every
American driver is going to have to spend $500 to $600 more this year
just to drive their car. And the same thing is true for home heating
oil users and natural gas users, and that price is built into that
family budget that they are seeking to figure out how to pay right now
in every home across our country.
So this little detour that Donald Trump is taking has put a spotlight
on his energy policy in a way that, in my opinion, requires us now to
take this movement, to create the momentum, to create the moment where,
next year, once again, we have a vote out here on the Senate floor; and
that vote will be to restore all the tax breaks for wind, all of the
tax breaks for solar, all of the tax breaks for all-electric vehicles,
all of the tax breaks for all of those technologies which were
flourishing and were reducing costs and greenhouse gas emissions, while
employing hard-working union employees all across our country.
That is what is about to unfold over the next 7 months in our
country--this battle for the soul of our Nation, which, at its heart
is: How do we protect ordinary American families? And included in that
is the protection against the absolute exploitation of them by the most
powerful interest in our Nation: the oil and the gas industry.
So with that, I yield the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand
in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________