[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 20, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2398-S2407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERMINATING RESTRICTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF YOUTH SETTLEMENTS LAW
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to share the story of a young
man who didn't have the opportunity to share his own story.
His name was Trey Carlock, and for years, he struggled in silence
with the trauma and the wounds inflicted by someone he once trusted at
a summer camp he attended for many years. So let me share Trey's story.
Trey was a young man who loved the Lord. He loved his family. He
loved his friends. And he proudly resided in my home State of Texas. As
a young boy, Trey attended summer camp in Branson, MO, where he and
dozens of other campers were sexually assaulted by the camp director.
And as an adult, Trey sought accountability. He filed a lawsuit
against the camp he attended in an effort to hold the camp responsible
and to seek justice, not only for himself but for others.
But instead of justice, Trey was offered a settlement, and that
settlement came with a nondisclosure agreement which mandated Trey's
silence. After years of fighting to recover from abuse, Trey's
settlement reminded him that his voice could be bought, that his story
could be buried, that the price of compensation was silence.
Trey once told his therapist ``They will always control me, and I'll
never be free.'' Not long after, Trey died by suicide. He was only 28
years old. No child who has endured sexual abuse should be forced to
carry that horror in silence. No child should be forced to walk alone
in that pain. And no child should be forced to accept agreements that
protect the abuser.
In Trey's case, and, tragically many others, nondisclosure agreements
are used to shield the abuser. Children are the most vulnerable and
most precious members of our society. As legislators, as parents, as
human beings, we have a moral obligation to stand between children and
those who would harm them. That is why I have introduced TREY'S Law.
TREY'S Law will protect, defend, and support children who are the
victims of sexual assault. It ensures that nondisclosure agreements
cannot be used to silence minors who have endured abuse. At the same
time, the bill preserves the confidentiality of settlement amounts and
allows victims themselves to insist on privacy if they so choose. What
it does not allow is the forced silencing of victims in order to
protect abusers.
TREY'S Law establishes a clear national baseline: no NDA may be used
to silence the disclosure of child sexual abuse. And importantly, this
legislation does not prevent the States from going further. Versions of
TREY'S Law have already passed in Texas, in Alabama, in Missouri,
Tennessee, California, and other States have also taken steps to
prohibit the use of NDAs in cases of child sexual abuse. These are
meaningful steps in the right direction, but we owe it to Trey and
every victim to ensure that they have the right to speak about their
experiences, they have the right to rely on those around them, that
they know their stories will not be silenced, and, most importantly,
that they are not alone.
In just a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request to take
up and pass TREY'S Law to make sure that no other children feel
controlled or defeated by the system that is supposed to deliver them
justice.
TREY'S Law has already passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously,
and I want to thank Senators Gillibrand and Britt and my colleagues on
the entire Judiciary Committee for working on this legislation and
helping us push this across the finish line.
And with that, I yield the floor to Senator Britt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I rise today to stand with Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz's leadership on this important issue has led us to today
where I am hopeful that the Senate will provide a unanimous vote for
TREY'S Law.
You heard Senator Cruz tell the story that tugs at your heartstrings;
it is unimaginable. As a parent, I cannot imagine my child enduring
that and then that child being forced into silence. It should never
happen again.
[[Page S2399]]
Victims should be in control of when and where and if they tell their
story. They should never be silenced or sidelined.
TREY'S Law has built momentum across the country. That is because, as
Senator Cruz will tell you, Elizabeth Carlock, Trey's sister, has
fought tirelessly to ensure that this never happens to another
individual and another family ever has to endure this pain.
When we are looking at this, I am very proud that Alabama has led the
way. Alabama passed TREY'S Law, along with a number of other States.
And in our State, Representative David Faulkner and State Senator Matt
Woods ensured that TREY'S Law was signed by Governor Ivey into law.
Today, we ask our colleagues to join us in this commonsense and
bipartisan piece of legislation that will ensure that no victim of
child sexual abuse will ever be silenced.
I urge the House to pass this bill and to send it to President
Trump's desk.
Look, there are a lot of times that we are out and talking to people
in our States. We hear from constituents. We hear stories that tug at
our heartstrings. I commend Senator Cruz and the Senate Judiciary
Committee--and I am certainly proud to be a part of that--for actually
doing something about the tragedies that are facing everyday Americans.
Today, let's honor Trey's memory. Let's ensure that abusers are not
protected. Let's ensure that victims have a voice, and let's prevent
tragedies like this from ever happening again.
I yield back to my distinguished colleague from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank Senator Britt for her kind remarks
and for her passionate leadership fighting alongside me to get this
passed.
If and when the Senate passes this, it will be a victory for Trey, a
victory for his sister Elizabeth, who has been tirelessly fighting to
honor the memory and legacy of her brother, a victory for the entire
Carlock family, and a victory for kids who tragically have been the
victims of sexual assault across the country.
After the Senate passes this, I hope the House takes this legislation
up quickly, passes it, and puts it on the President's desk to be signed
into law.
Mr. President, therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 413, S. 3966.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3966) to prohibit the enforcement of certain
contractual clauses that restrict disclosure of sexual abuse
of minors, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which was reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CRUZ. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a
third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3966) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed as follows:
S. 3966
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Terminating Restrictive
Enforcement of Youth Settlements Law'' or ``TREY'S Law''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--
(1) Instrumentalities of interstate commerce.--Congress
finds the following:
(A) Sexual abuse of minors, including abuse facilitated
through instrumentalities of interstate commerce, is a matter
of national concern.
(B) Agreements containing nondisclosure and confidentiality
provisions, frequently concluded through the
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, have been used to
silence survivors of sexual abuse and conceal ongoing or
repeated abuse.
(C) The enforcement of such provisions interferes with
reporting to law enforcement agencies, child protection
authorities, Federal regulators, Members of Congress, and the
courts, and frustrates the enforcement of Federal criminal
and civil law.
(2) Necessary and proper clause and enforcement of federal
criminal law.--Congress further finds the following:
(A) Sexual abuse and trafficking of minors are prohibited
under Federal criminal law, including chapter 110 of title
18, United States Code, and section 1591 of title 18, United
States Code.
(B) Nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements that
prohibit or restrict disclosure of sexual abuse of a minor
interfere with reporting to law enforcement, child protection
authorities, courts, Federal regulators, and Members of
Congress.
(C) Such agreements frustrate the investigation and
prosecution of Federal crimes, chill cooperation with law
enforcement, and function as private mechanisms to obstruct
justice.
(D) Congress has authority under clause 18 of section 8 of
article I of the Constitution of the United States (commonly
known as the ``Necessary and Proper Clause'') to ensure that
private agreements are not used to impede the enforcement of
Federal criminal and civil law protecting minors from sexual
exploitation and abuse.
(3) State action and section 5 of the 14th amendment.--
Congress further finds the following:
(A) Survivors of child sexual abuse possess fundamental
constitutional interests, secured by provisions of the Bill
of Rights as incorporated against the States through the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in
reporting crimes, seeking redress through the courts,
cooperating with law enforcement, and petitioning the
government for protection and enforcement.
(B) When State courts or other governmental authorities
enforce nondisclosure or confidentiality provisions that
prohibit or restrict disclosure of sexual abuse of a minor,
such enforcement constitutes State action for purposes of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(C) Judicial enforcement of such provisions may deprive
survivors of due process of law, equal protection of the
laws, and meaningful access to courts, including rights
derived from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States and incorporated against the States, in
violation of the 14th Amendment.
(D) Agreements that obstruct justice, suppress the
reporting of crimes, or conceal criminal conduct have long
been regarded at common law, including at the time of the
founding of the United States, as void and unenforceable as
against public policy, and fall outside the traditional scope
of protected contractual liberty.
(E) At the time of the founding of the United States,
private agreements purporting to suppress prosecution,
conceal felonies, or restrain the reporting of crimes were
not recognized as valid or enforceable contracts, and no
party possessed a vested right in their judicial enforcement.
(F) Congress has authority under section 5 of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enact
appropriate remedial and preventive legislation to prevent
and remedy constitutional violations arising from State
judicial enforcement of private agreements that suppress
disclosure of criminal conduct involving minors.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is--
(1) to enforce the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, including the right to
petition the government for redress of grievances and the
right of access to courts, by preventing State courts and
other governmental authorities from enforcing nondisclosure
or confidentiality provisions that suppress disclosure of
sexual abuse of minors;
(2) to ensure, pursuant to the authority of Congress under
article I of the Constitution of the United States, including
the Necessary and Proper Clause, that private agreements are
not used to obstruct the investigation or prosecution of
Federal crimes involving the sexual abuse or trafficking of
minors;
(3) to preserve access to courts and the right to petition
the government for redress of grievances; and
(4) to ensure that survivors of sexual abuse of minors, and
persons with knowledge of such abuse, may disclose such abuse
freely and without fear of civil liability.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Minor person.--The term ``minor person'' means an
individual who has not attained 18 years of age.
(2) Nondisclosure clause.--The term ``nondisclosure
clause'' means a provision in a contract or agreement that
prohibits 1 or more parties to the contract or agreement from
disclosing conduct or information covered by the terms and
conditions of the contract or agreement.
(3) Sexual abuse against a minor person.--The term ``sexual
abuse against a minor person'' means--
(A) conduct that constitutes or allegedly constitutes--
(i) an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States
Code; or
(ii) sex trafficking of a minor person under section 1591
of title 18, United States Code; or
(B) any sexual act or sexual contact involving a minor
person that constitutes a criminal offense under Federal law
or the law of the State in which the act or contact occurs.
SEC. 4. NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.
(a) In General.--A nondisclosure clause shall be void and
unenforceable as against public policy only to the extent
that the nondisclosure clause prohibits--
[[Page S2400]]
(1) a victim or alleged victim of sexual abuse against a
minor person from disclosing--
(A) that act of sexual abuse against a minor person; or
(B) facts related to that act of sexual abuse against a
minor person; or
(2) any other person from disclosing facts related to
sexual abuse against a minor person described in paragraph
(1) in support of, in furtherance of, or consistent with the
right of a victim or alleged victim to disclose under that
paragraph.
(b) Permissible Confidentiality.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit a person, including a victim
or alleged victim of sexual abuse against a minor person,
from entering into a contract or agreement that restricts the
disclosure of information, including the amount or payment
terms of a settlement, by another party to the contract or
agreement, including an alleged perpetrator, so long as such
restriction does not prevent disclosure protected under
subsection (a).
SEC. 5. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--This Act shall apply to any nondisclosure
clause in a contract or agreement entered into before, on, or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) No Enforcement Actions.--No person may enforce or
attempt to enforce a nondisclosure clause described in
section 4(a), regardless of the date on which the contract or
agreement containing the nondisclosure clause was entered
into.
(c) Preemption.--
(1) In general.--This Act supersedes any State law to the
extent that such law permits enforcement of a provision, the
enforcement of which is prohibited under this Act.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit a State or locality from enacting
legislation that--
(A) is consistent with this Act; or
(B) provides greater protection to a victim of sexual abuse
against a minor person than is provided under this Act.
Mr. CRUZ. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, when Lisa Smith was just 3 years old, she
was trafficked--just a sweet little toddler, blond hair, the cutest
little thing, not much younger than my daughter is now. When she should
have been outside, kicking a soccer ball, playing with dollies, on a
playground, with little friends, she was, instead, being abused--and in
the most brutal, brutal fashion.
Her predator abused her and mutilated her and took pictures of it and
videos and posted them to the internet, to the dark corners of the web,
for the sick adulation of other predators.
This went on for months and then for years. And that is where Federal
investigators first found Lisa, first noticed her, first saw the
images. They could see this beautiful little girl. They could see the
sick torture that she was being forced to endure. They could see the
pain in her face. But they had no idea where she was.
They had all of the images. They saw all of what she was suffering
through. They knew that she was out there. They knew that somebody was
posting this over and over and over again. She knew that other
predators were looking at it, and they were responding to it, but they
didn't know where to find her. They didn't know how to rescue her.
I wish I could say that Lisa's case is unique. I wish I could say
that there were no other children like her in America. But the sad fact
of the matter is that Lisa's case is increasingly common in the United
States of America today.
I want you to take a look at this poster. This is the United States,
and these red dots represent the IP addresses of individuals who have
shared child rape images in just the last 6 months. There are 338,000
dots on that map. Let me say that again: 338,000 dots of known
instances where a predator has shared, posted to the internet, images
of child rape, child abuse, child sexual exploitation.
The number of child exploitation reports last year increased to 20.5
million in this country--20 million reports of child exploitation, the
vast majority of those tied to online child exploitation.
Interpol estimates that there are 90,000 images that the government
has of child rape, child exploitation, child sexual abuse. But what we
don't know is who the child is or where she is--90,000 of these images
but we don't know where they are. We don't know how to rescue them.
This is the crisis that is increasingly confronting every American
family. Every family with children faces the risk that their child--
when they log on, when they post something on the web, when they get a
phone--that they will be solicited by a predator, that they will be
lured into a dangerous situation by a predator, that they will
themselves be trafficked--children taken from their homes, children
lured away and kidnapped, children forced into sex slavery all across
this country.
We know they are out there. We can see the images, but we don't know
how to find them. And the internet has made this a crisis all across
the country. It has made it a pressing crisis for every family in
America.
The truth is, while child abuse is, sadly, a longstanding phenomenon,
child predation and child trafficking now are fed and nourished and
nurtured by social media, by companies that know that these images are
being posted and don't do anything about it, by the purveyors of online
platforms that allow their entire platform to be taken over and
essentially run as a child trafficking ring.
The internet has made it much, much worse. It has made it a crisis.
It has brought this problem to the doorstep of every family in this
country.
And the question that I want to ask today is: What are we going to do
about it? What are we going to do for the tens of thousands of
children, like Lisa, who are out there, who are in need, who are being
abused, who are being brutalized? Even as we stand here on this floor,
for those children who need rescue, what will we do for them today?
Because the time has come to do something. The time for merely
standing by and sitting back and hoping for the best has passed. There
are too many children whose lives are being destroyed, even as we
speak.
We have terrific Federal investigators whose job is, whose work is to
identify and find these children. At the Department of Homeland
Security, there is an entire unit called the cyber crimes unit that
contains and includes forensic investigators who analyze the sorts of
images that were posted here, that you see reflected on this map, who
analyze them and try to find where the children are.
Here is the only problem with that. There are only seven of them.
That is right. There are seven forensic analysts, seven experts who can
analyze these images--90,000 images, at least, that the Government
knows of, with these lost children; 20 million reports of sexual
exploitation; and yet only seven analysts who are able to identify and
rescue these children.
If you look at this map again, there is a sea of red dots. If you
look closely, there are also blue dots, but you would be hard-pressed
to find them. The blue dots represent the number of active
investigations of child sexual abuse, of child online predation. They
are completely lost in the sea of red.
Our children are increasingly lost to predators, to traffickers, to
abusers. And, yet, our government is not doing nearly enough about it.
The investigators are there. They are capable. They are ready. They
need help.
What can they do? What could the Department of Homeland Security,
what could law enforcement do if they had the resources, if they had
the support that they needed?
Well, I will give you a sense of it. They could do what they did for
Lisa. What happened was Lisa's predator posted images of her online,
and an investigator in the cyber crimes unit at Homeland saw the
pictures and started drilling down on them.
He started analyzing every frame, every second of the videos, every
little detail of the photos, everything he could get his hands on. And
he started noticing a few telling signs, a few clues that maybe Lisa
was somewhere in the southern part of the United States.
And then, one day, he was able to make out a playground and able to
drill down, to zoom in on the playground equipment with enough
specificity that he could begin to run it across other images of
playgrounds in cities across the South. And, sure enough, in time, he
was able to isolate which playground this was in the particular city in
the South.
And after that, Homeland sent a team of investigators to start
walking blocks--that is right; get out on the streets and walk them--to
start walking up and down to see where exactly is that playground.
Would Lisa come back to it? Where else might she be?
[[Page S2401]]
Are there other children in the region who might know, to interview, to
talk, to see?
And here is what happened. They found her. They found her. As it
turns out, she had never left home. You see, her predator--her abuser--
was her father, who from the time that she was an infant serially raped
and brutalized her and posted all those images.
And, you know, he thought he was really clever about it. He took a
lot of careful steps to keep his identity a secret. But these
investigators, these great law enforcement, these cops--that is really
what they are at Homeland Security--they were better. Oh, they are
good. They are very good. They found her. They got him. They rescued
her.
There are tens of thousands of other children just like Lisa. It is
time to rescue them. We can do it. We can help them today. We can send
more investigators into the streets. We can put more cops onto the
beat. We can stand up a program to train State and local and Federal
law enforcement agents together, to combine their efforts, to work
together to bring home children like Lisa. We can do it. The time has
come to do it.
And I am here to say we will do it because in the Homeland funding
bill that this body will take up in short order, there is the largest
investment in anti-child trafficking in the history of this body. This
bill contains funding and directives for 200 new agents and
investigators to go after child traffickers--from 7 to 200--200 new
cops who can analyze those images, who can go after the traffickers,
and who can go rescue children like Lisa.
It also contains new funds for programs to bring together State and
local and Federal law enforcement to coordinate their efforts and to
deploy them together into the field to rescue our children.
It was an incredible privilege to work on this legislation and to get
it into this bill. And I particularly want to thank my dear friend and
a terrific advocate for children across this country, Tim Tebow.
Yes, you heard me right: the Heisman Trophy winner and NFL
quarterback, who I think will be known, when it is all said and done,
for something other than sports. I think what Tim will be best known
for is his love and compassion for the poor, the weak, and the
vulnerable.
Tim has been working on this for years. He has been to Homeland. He
has seen the cyber crimes unit. And, together, he and I worked on this
legislation to create these 200 new investigators--200 new cops--to get
out there and go rescue kids--new programs for State and local law
enforcement. And with his support and the support of my colleagues, it
is now in this legislation.
I hope, in 48 hours' time or less, we will be able to say we have
voted to send these rescuers out onto the streets; we have voted to
save these children.
The time is now. This is a moral challenge for this body to stand and
protect the most vulnerable among us, our children--to stand and
protect those who need it most, to say that we will no longer sit back
and make excuses, but we will act to save. We will act to rescue. We
will act to help the weak. We will act to save these children.
Let's do it. Let's do it now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Illinois.
Immigration Enforcement
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last year, the city of Chicago, which I am
honored to represent, lived under President Trump's mass deportation
operation, which was dubbed by the administration as ``Operation Midway
Blitz.''
While instances of ICE agents tear-gassing neighborhoods, firing
rubber bullets at protesters, and using violent force to detain
individuals have slowed since that monthslong campaign, arbitrary
immigration enforcement continues to grip the city. There is fear in
the neighborhoods as to what is next with ICE.
I would like to share one story with you. Two months ago, a high
school student named Ricardo Hernandez-Navarrete and his mother were
arrested in Chicago by ICE while they were at a routine check-in for
their family's pending asylum case.
Do you remember what President Trump told us about ICE, what he
promised us with ICE? They were going after the rapists, the murderers,
the terrorists, the criminally insane, the child predators, and those
who would kill you and should never have crossed our border--the
``worst of the worst'' in the words of Donald Trump.
Well, let me tell you about this mother and son. They have no
criminal record whatsoever--none. Ricardo is a student at Mather High
School in West Ridge, IL, who also plays soccer with the iProSkills
Academy. He has committed to play for Truman College in the fall after
his graduation. He describes it as the answer to his prayer.
The good news is that yesterday, a Federal judge ruled that Ricardo's
mother must be released from ICE custody. Unfortunately, Ricardo, who
is only 18 years old, remains in detention.
Does Ricardo sound like one of the worst of the worst that the
President promised would be his target--the murderer? the rapist? the
terrorist? Not to me.
After being detained, the two were taken to Kentucky from Chicago,
put in jail for detention, and separated by the Trump administration.
They have not seen each other for 2 months. Ricardo said being in
detention ``plays tricks on your mind'' and that the bathrooms are
``filthy'' with practically no privacy.
He continued, saying:
I miss my mother, [and] I miss playing soccer.
Ricardo and his mother followed the rules. His mother came to the
United States in 2022 when Ricardo was 15. She filed for asylum, and
that petition remains pending according to court documents. Both have
been model neighbors ever since they arrived.
I will also note that a case like Ricardo's is one of the many
reasons Senate Democrats continue to fight to rein in lawless, rogue
ICE agents, including by making sure Federal agents follow the same
standards of law, in compliance with the Constitution, as State police
departments already do. That is not too much to ask. Unfortunately,
many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are continuing to
muscle through a partisan spending bill which would give to the ICE
agents a blank check.
The memory of what happened with the ICE agents in Chicago and
certainly what happened in Minneapolis is not gone. We still remember
that when wearing their masks, they were harassing people and killing
innocent American citizens. It happened twice in quick succession.
Giving ICE a blank check is a mistake--to the tune of tens of
billions of dollars--to continue this campaign of terror unchecked. I
am going to vote no on that bill.
I urge ICE to release Ricardo and reunite him with his mother as soon
as possible.
(The remarks of Mr. DURBIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 4608
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Reconciliation
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, like citizens in Ohio, Vermonters like to
work hard. They get up each day and face the day, and they don't fear
hard work. They are glad to do that to protect their families and to
improve their communities. But, you know, they work hard, but they
don't like paying for wasteful things, and right now, President Trump
is demanding--demanding--$1 billion to build an East Wing, which, by
the way, is an East Wing that he destroyed. He tore it down. Now he has
promised Americans that he will rebuild it and that it will be through
private contributions, but he is asking--demanding, really--the U.S.
Congress to spend $1 billion to rebuild what he destroyed. Vermonters
don't like that at all.
It has been said that a budget does reflect our shared values, not
the personal preferences of any one individual, including the President
of the United States.
So let's just talk about some of the other ways $1 billion could be
spent that would have a significant benefit to Vermonters who are
working hard, who
[[Page S2402]]
are paying their bills, and who care about their community.
With $1 billion, we could extend the ACA premium tax credits--that
you and I worked on, by the way--to make healthcare more affordable for
30,000 Vermonters.
With $1 billion, we could provide really important title I funding,
which helps rural and underserved schools in Vermont, for 23 years.
With $1 billion, we could provide $153,000 in relief for every single
one of our 6,537 farms, which are all struggling.
With $1 billion, we could provide a $12,000 small business loan--
small businesses being really essential to Vermont--to all 82,000
Vermont small businesses.
With $1 billion, we could restore the SNAP Program for every
Vermonter who has been kicked off nutrition assistance because of the
Trump tax bill. Mr. President, 4,547 Vermonters have lost what we call
3Squares. Terrible.
With $1 billion, we could fund the Women, Infants, and Children
benefits for Vermonters for 147 years.
With $1 billion, we could provide childcare for every child under 5
in Vermont for a year and a half.
With $1 billion, we could fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, LIHEAP, in Vermont for 50 years. This vital program provides
home heating and cooling aid for more than 26,000 Vermonters.
With $1 billion, we could help provide $50,000 loans to 20,000
Vermonters who have been impacted by flooding or other natural
disasters in the past 3 years.
With $1 billion, we could support FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which
is operating in immediate-needs-funding status, meaning everything is
precarious.
As I mentioned, if you want to show me your values, show me your
budget. This reconciliation budget bill, which adds billions of dollars
to an already bloated ICE budget and CBP budget with absolutely no
reforms and no oversight and gives hundreds of millions of dollars--
potentially $1 billion--to President Trump's ballroom, is a statement
of values. This $1 billion won't help communities or families from
Barre, VT, to Biloxi, MS.
You know, I want to give just a straightforward, rhetoric-free
reading of just a few headlines we saw this week alone. This is the
world we are in, and it reflects how the administration is spending its
time and resources.
The Washington Post: ``Millions expected to lose Affordable Care Act
coverage as costs spike.''
Associated Press: ``Under Congressional Scrutiny, Blanche Defends
Nearly $1.8 [Billion] Fund to Pay Trump Allies.''
The Washington Post: ``EPA wants to repeal limits on `forever
chemicals' in drinking water.''
The Associated Press: ``Trump distorts recent revisions of scientific
projections of global warming.''
The Washington Post: ``Health worker shortage will worsen with
federal loan limit.''
NOTUS: ``Trump's Latest White House Makeover Includes a Helipad.''
The New York Times: ``Deported Despite DACA: Dreamers Face
Uncertainty Under Trump.''
The President of the United States has been clear: He is choosing a
go-it-alone approach on his ballroom, he wants to fund ICE and CBP on a
partisan basis with none of the reforms so many Americans are
demanding, and he is going to totally bypass regular order and any hope
of a bipartisan budget.
It is really a waste of taxpayer dollars. The folks that you
represent and I represent, who are willing to work hard, who are
willing to pay their fair share, really wonder: Why are we spending $1
billion on a ballroom?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
E15
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the month of May is a very busy time of
year: graduation season, recital season, and, of course, planting
season for American farmers. Here in the Senate, lawmakers will burn
the midnight oil this week to pass a reconciliation bill that delivers
essential funding for national security and public safety.
Well, I want to assure my colleagues that this Senator is never too
busy to set the record straight, and today, I come to the floor to set
the record straight on E15.
E15 is a higher blend, higher octane fuel that is 85 percent gasoline
and 15 percent homegrown American ethanol.
Last week, the House approved landmark legislation to make year-round
E15 the law of the land and lower gas prices for Americans from coast
to coast. The driving force behind the House victory was Iowa's House
delegation. That shouldn't surprise you because Iowa is the leading
producer of ethanol. That victory was led by Congressman Randy
Feenstra, Congressman Zach Nunn, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, and
Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks. I applaud all four of these
House Members for their effort and for supporting a major industry in
Iowa and probably about 40,000 jobs in Iowa, and I am glad to take up
the baton with a bipartisan coalition here in the U.S. Senate.
With those generalizations, I would like to shed some light on what
year-round E15 would do. E15 would offer Americans a lower price fuel
option when they fill up at the pump, giving families somewhere between
10 and 30 cents per gallon. That is a big savings. Making E15 permanent
delivers more choices for the consumer and year-round savings for
families who are facing these higher gas prices that we have seen since
the war in Iran started. So it is very simple: A vote for E15 is a vote
for lower gas prices.
Year-round, nationwide E15 would bring certainty to fuel refineries,
to the marketers, to the retailers, and the renewable fuel producers.
No more costly switchovers in the summer when, under law, ethanol
cannot be sold in certain parts of the country. It would end a
patchwork of regulations from one year to the next, boost the domestic
gas supply chain, and it would surely unleash America's domestic energy
dominance. Unleashing E15 stops Americans from being held hostage to
foreign crude oil. It reduces carbon emissions and tailpipe pollutants
and would pump $14 billion into the U.S. farm economy. On top of all
those advantages, E15 is pro-environmental. At a time when farmers are
looking for expanded markets, E15 would deliver for corn farmers and
create more jobs in rural America. E15 puts American families, our
farmers, and our biofuel producers in the driver's seat to power
forward clean, affordable, homegrown fuel.
Here is what year-round E15 does not do, and I emphasize this part of
my remarks because there is a lot of lack of knowledge about E15 and
maybe a lot of lack of knowledge about ethanol generally. And this is
from what I have been hearing from my colleagues. It would not force
Americans to fill up their gas tank with E15. It would not force fuel
retailers to even sell E15. In short, it would not create a mandate.
And how many times have I heard from my colleagues that it would be a
mandate? In fact, EPA Administrator Zeldin confirmed this very fact to
my colleague from Nebraska just last week. E15 is not a mandate, and
that is from EPA Administrator Zeldin.
President Trump delivered his seal of approval for year-round E15
during a visit to my home State in January. He called on Congress to
pass E15 without delay and said he would sign it as soon as it reached
his desk.
Vice President Vance and Secretary Rollins have also traveled to Iowa
to endorse E15 because they know what I know: Ethanol is good for
national security, good for the farm economy, and good for U.S. energy
independence.
My efforts to help get homegrown fuels from the field to the pump
started five decades ago during the energy crisis of the 1970s. That
energy crisis was called that because--it was referred to as an oil
embargo, and it was something that OPEC forced upon the entire world.
Two decades ago, I worked with President George W. Bush to create and
expand the renewable fuel standard, known here in Washington among
energy people as RFS. Last year, the RFS celebrated 20 years of
success, paving a cleaner, more energy independent future for
Americans. Within those 20 years, I have worked with the Obama, the
Trump, and the Biden administrations to expand E15 into our domestic
fuel supply.
Having said all that, guess what happened. The sky didn't fall. No
refineries shut down.
[[Page S2403]]
So that brings me to the Chicken Littles inserting themselves into
today's debate, and I am talking about the so-called midsize refiners.
They are running around this town trying to gut the hard-fought year-
round E15 victory that passed with bipartisan support in the House of
Representatives. It is interesting this coop of Chicken Littles is now
crowing.
After 8 years of Presidential waivers that allowed for E15 summertime
sales, the refineries are now trying to convince people in Washington--
including some of my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate--that the sky
will fall if we pass permanent year-round, nationwide E15.
So let's get back to the facts. We have had E15 by Presidential
waiver since 2019. Ambassador Zeldin has confirmed that in these 8
years, not one refinery closed because consumers had the choice to
purchase E15.
For those saying that refineries have been ignored in the E15 debate,
that is surely not the case--and after 16 years of working on this
issue, I would know. Refineries have been deeply involved in
negotiations for years. There have been very high-level talks on the
topic of E15, and the Rural Domestic Council in the House was
specifically created to hear from people with these refineries.
In her remarks here on the Senate floor last week, my colleague from
Iowa mentioned that the annual earnings of the Nation's six midsized
refineries are more than all of America's family farmers combined.
Now, there is nothing wrong with making money--that is the beauty of
the free economic system that we have in America. It has powered our
economy and fueled innovations for the last 250 years.
However, we shouldn't let this bill's opponents talk out of both
sides of their mouth. You can't take in record profits on the one hand
and claim you are a step away from bankruptcy because of E15 on the
other hand.
Homegrown E15 is an example of the entrepreneurial spirit and
discovery that makes America great. E15 powers up American domestic
energy, lowers prices at the pump, and boosts the farm economy.
You add all that up, and E15 is a win for America and for Americans.
America's farmers and families are counting on this.
The commonsense choice is very clear--America needs permanent year-
round E15 from sea to shining sea.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 Rhode Island.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 553
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate this afternoon
with a simple proposition and a resolution that recognizes that simple
truth, and that is that: Climate change is real.
Earlier this year, I came to the floor, and I asked my colleagues if
they could all agree on this simple scientific fact.
On this occasion, I also asked my colleagues to acknowledge what the
fossil fuel industry has known for nearly 60 years, which is not only
that climate change is real but also that they are the primary cause of
climate change--their emissions. Unfortunately, Republicans refused to
acknowledge those facts.
So I came back and asked for a simple recognition that sea levels
were rising as a result of climate change, and Republicans refused to
acknowledge that.
I came back and asked that we recognize, very simply, that oceans are
warming because of climate change, and Republicans refused to
acknowledge that fact.
So let's try this. It is super simple.
Resolved, That the Senate recognizes that climate change is
real.
That is the text of this resolution. It is a simple, four-word
proposition that I hope we can agree on.
But just to show the fact base that this simple fact stands on, we
can start with NASA. NASA has pretty good scientists. They are actually
driving rovers around on Mars. They are pretty good at what they do.
And here is what NASA maintains:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an
unprecedented rate. [And that] human activity is the
principal cause.
And if you don't trust NASA, if you don't want to take their word for
it, you can just take a look at the data. It is pretty straightforward.
This graph reflects the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. It is a known thing. It is done by measurement. I hope we
still believe, in the Senate, in measurement. This chart shows what is
called the Keeling curve--daily atmospheric CO2
concentrations measured at scientific observatories. The historic data
going back is actually collected from testing air bubbles frozen in ice
sheets. And I have been to the Ohio State lab where some of those ice
cores from old glaciers are maintained, from where they take those
measurements. The Ohio State scientists know what they are doing. The
measurement is not that complicated. So that is the track of
CO2 in the atmosphere according to the Keeling curve.
Here is the next fact: Global average temperature is increasing at an
accompanying rate as the CO2 emissions climb. You can see
how well it tracks. Global temperature is not that hard to measure.
Again, we are dealing with measurement--in effect, thermometers. It is
not that hard.
And if you look, as I said before, at what is going on with the heat
in the oceans, here is how that tracks. And the reason that the ocean
heat tracks the CO2 concentration and the land heat measures
is because most of the excess heat that fossil fuel emission causes
gets absorbed by the oceans. We would already be on an unlivable planet
if it weren't for the oceans absorbing 90 percent of that excess heat.
And the amount of heat that the oceans absorb is pretty astounding.
You have to measure it in zettajoules.
Last week, I explained that we are now warming the oceans by 23
zettajoules a year, breaking the ocean heat content record for the
ninth consecutive year.
As I said before, what is a zettajoule? A zettajoule is the unit of
heat measure--the joule--with 21 zeroes behind it. That makes it a very
big number. That is actually a billion trillions or, to put it the
other way, a trillion billions. It is an enormous amount of heat. It is
more than 40 times the total amount of energy that human beings
generate on all of planet Earth to warm ourselves, cool ourselves,
drive our cars, run our motors, push refrigerators--whatever it is we
are trying to do. The whole energy footprint of humankind on planet
Earth is half a zettajoule. And the oceans, because of that excess
fossil fuel emission, are absorbing more than 40 times that much. It
has a huge magnifier effect.
And that does things like drop the Antarctic ice shelf. And when the
Antarctic ice mass shrinks, the ice that is on the land that goes into
the water does what? Raises the sea level.
You can test that proposition for yourself by putting ice in a cup
and letting it pour into another cup as it melts, and you will see the
level of the cup rise.
So here is where global sea level has been going. Again, we are not
dealing with complicated stuff here. We measure heat with thermometers.
We measure sea level rise with tide monitors. It is basically a
yardstick, and you go and look at the time of day when the tide is the
same, and you measure where on the yardstick the sea level is. This is
not something that is complex or amenable to much legitimate confusion
or dissent.
Here we can look at the areas burned by wildfires. It is not just
coasts and oceans that are getting clobbered by our emissions, but the
area in the United States burned by wildfires keeps climbing and
climbing. And the harm that this causes goes on and on. Hurricanes
driven by warmer seas are becoming stronger and wetter. Wildfires
driven by drought and wind are burning far more land.
And it is not just scientists who are reporting what they measure.
You can actually go back to a very interesting and somewhat unique
dataset. In Japan, in Kyoto, believe it or not, the Japanese people
have been measuring the peak bloom of their cherry trees for 1,200
years. It is one of the longest datasets on the planet: 1,200 years of
when Kyoto's cherry trees hit peak bloom.
And you can see, going back to the year 800, it moves fairly steadily
along
[[Page S2404]]
until you get to the Industrial Revolution, until you get to the fossil
fuel emissions barrage that drove the CO2 concentrations so
high. As CO2 went up and as the planet heated, spring came
sooner. And so you see here, earlier and earlier and earlier and
earlier comes the day of peak bloom. I thought that was interesting
because I thought a 1,200-year dataset kept by the Japanese people was
interesting.
So that is where we are. We have more violent storms. We have more
ferocious and damaging wildfires. We have hotter temperatures. We have
a dramatically warming ocean.
And as I have said, climate change has moved from the science
department to the economics department because all of those science
measures bring costs onto the American public. Droughts, wildfires, and
hurricanes disrupt agriculture and the transit of groceries, and they
make food more expensive for Americans.
These climate impacts drive up homeowners insurance in regions where
the climate risk becomes unmanageable. And they drive down property
values, because when your homeowners insurance cost doubles or triples
and threatens to double or triple again, that cost knocks down the
value of your home. And we are seeing that right now in Florida.
And then, of course, all of this drives up energy bills at a time
when oil prices are already extremely high because of Trump's mad war
in Iran.
All of this is real in family budgets today, and it is a big deal. It
is a big cost when homeowners insurance, which starts as a big number,
doubles, as it has in Iowa in recent years. It is a big deal when you
get told by your insurance company that you are fired, they are not
going to insure your property any longer, and now you have to scramble
to find insurance. And when you do, it is worse. It is more expensive,
provides less coverage. There is a huge cost factor, and there is a
huge hassle factor for real Americans right now.
That is our reality. Climate change is real. Can we agree on that
simple truth? That is my question today.
Mr. President, therefore, I ask, as if in legislative session,
unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be
discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S.
Res. 553; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be
agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). Is there objection?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am down
here now for the third time with a smile on my face. This is humorous.
It would be humorous if it weren't so tragic.
The good Senator from Rhode Island, when he was chairing the Budget
Committee, held hearing after hearing about these enormous costs caused
by manmade climate change. But what he refuses to acknowledge is the
fact that the reaction of the scaremongering, of this alarmism, has
been that somewhere between $6 to $10 trillion is what we have spent
globally trying to hold back the tides--$6 trillion to $10 trillion.
The costs he is talking about pale in comparison to that massive--the
largest malinvestment in human history.
So make no mistakes. The simple resolution--by the way, I don't deny
climate change. Climate change is real. It has always changed; it
always will. The debate is to what extent does man cause it, and I
would argue that an even greater debate would be: What can we do about
it?
I mean, he is down here, again, scaremongering and--in an alarmist
fashion--obviously acknowledging that the $6 trillion to $10 trillion
we have already wasted in this greatest malinvestment in human history
hasn't even made a dent.
But I want to point out--I am glad he talked about measurements,
about science, about a long dataset. Here is a long dataset. These are
charts of the Vostok ice core sample. This is about 400-some-thousand
years of climate history. I don't know how they do it, but they know
how to measure different gas percentages in the atmosphere. They can
calculate temperature going back actually more than 800,000 years. This
one is 400,000.
The most famous dataset from this occurred in 1999--Petit, et al.
But as you can see--this is in Celsius. But these--it is hard to call
them cycles, but we will call them cycles of temperature variation. We
have had one, two, three, four of them in 400,000 years. They are
approximately 100,000-year cycles. Almost a 23-degree Fahrenheit change
in temperature.
Now, what the Senator from Rhode Island is all concerned about is a
little moment in time here. Take a look at charts and blowing them up
and doing the hockey stick effect and then freaking out about little,
minute movements over geologic time.
Now--then he--then he--and all the climate alarmists do this, they
blame it on us, fossil fuels. We weren't burning fossil fuels 400,000
years ago. Somehow, temperatures rose and temperatures declined four
times over 400,000 years, almost 23 degrees.
That is why I am not freaked out about this. That is why I am not a
Chicken Little. That is why I oppose this simple resolution that has
all kinds of ideas behind it, all kinds of policy implications, all
kinds of new proposed malinvestment, trillions of dollars' worth to try
and hold back the tide.
You see this red line underneath here. Not only do they measure
temperature over time, they measure CO2 levels over time.
There is no doubt about it, it tracks very closely with temperature.
Within that dataset of Petit, et al., not very well publicized, kind of
understated, they say, well, this doesn't really mean anything is the
fact that CO2 isn't the leading indicator; it is the lagging
indicator.
First, temperature rises or falls, and then CO2 either
rises or falls. There is approximately about an 800- to 1,000-year lag.
So again, they try and--you know, the climate alarmists try and put
this--oh, look, the CO2 is up causing temperatures--no.
Temperatures rose and then CO2 rose.
And there is actually a pretty easy explanation for it. Most
CO2--CO2 is a trace element in our atmosphere, a
trace element--not even a percent, a fraction of a percent.
Most CO2 on Earth is locked up in our oceans. So as the
temperature rises probably because of solar activity, wobble in our
axis, these macrotrends that actually cause climate change, the
massive--the majority of climate change, as those factors cause
temperatures to rise, temperatures of the ocean rise releasing
CO2 and then CO2 raises. It is not the other way
around.
It is not: CO2 went up causing temperature to increase.
Temperature increased to cause CO2 to rise. These are
measurements. This is science. This is a very long dataset. It just
shows why--again, I don't know exactly to what extent man certainly can
impact the environment. We all want a clean environment.
But the extent that man has caused climate change, obviously we
weren't around back here to cause this climate change. Something else
was doing it.
So again, I just don't freak out about it, and I certainly am not
going to subscribe to any resolution that would cause policy here to
spend trillions--misspend, waste, trillions of dollars on a fool's
errand trying to hold back the tides.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I just want to make sure it is
absolutely clear that that argument is what Republicans have sent to
the floor of the U.S. Senate to question the measurements and the facts
of climate change. That is what they sent to the floor.
The questions are the talking points of the fossil fuel industry. To
what extent does man cause it? Here is what NASA says:
There is unequivocal evidence that the Earth is warming at
an unprecedented rate. [With] human activity . . . the
principal cause.
And lest it be not clear that human activity is fossil fuel burning
and emissions. That is not a question. That is a known thing, just ask
NASA.
And what to do about it? Well, one good thing to do about it would be
to bring more clean energy onto the grid, and that doesn't cost
trillions. Over time, that will save trillions.
Just in my State of Rhode Island, we tried to bring clean energy onto
our
[[Page S2405]]
grid at a contract price of 9 cents per kilowatt hour from an offshore
wind farm. Our average grid price is 18 cents per kilowatt hour. So the
offshore wind would literally be half-price energy for our grid.
And the Trump administration tried twice illegally to stop it. We
would have saved a lot of money had we gone to clean energy.
Look at any one of America's grids and look at what power sources run
first. It is the clean stuff. Why? Because they operate by the rule of
running the less expensive power first. Wherever you go in the country,
clean energy is the least expensive power. It lowers costs for people.
If you want a solution, there is an easy one that protects against the
dangers of climate change, and that lowers costs for consumers.
I would only advise my friend from Wisconsin that he just might want
to consider running his argument by the University of Wisconsin before
trotting it out on the Senate floor.
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. KAINE. 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 Virginia.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a CRA resolution that we
will be voting on soon, and it is a CRA resolution to challenge a
regulation of the Trump administration concerning the Public Service
Loan Forgiveness Program.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program is a venerable and
bipartisan program that was first included in the College Cost
Reduction Act of 2007, supported in a very bipartisan way during the
Presidency of President George W. Bush.
The conference report including this program passed the Senate with a
79-to-12 vote, and many of my Republican colleagues, for example, who
were there at the time--Senators Grassley, Barrasso, Collins,
Murkowski--are still here in the Chamber strongly supporting this
program. It has been very bipartisan.
The program is pretty straightforward. It does what it says. It
provides loan forgiveness for college and even some graduate loans for
students who decide to go into public service careers. The longer you
stay in that career, the more you get your loan forgiven. So it was
bipartisan recognition that we want people to pursue public service
careers.
The administration of public service loan forgiveness was put in the
Department of Education, and during the first Trump administration, his
first Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, and officials at the
Department dramatically reduced the number of public service loans they
would forgive. At one point, Secretary DeVos made a comment along the
lines of, why is it important to go into public service rather than go
into the private sector? They were not approving the forgiveness of
loans for those who had gone into public service careers because they
didn't fundamentally believe in the program that Congress had in a
bipartisan way put into law.
President Biden restored the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
to what it was intended and forgave the loans of many people who are
pursuing public service careers.
Just, you know, doing what Senators do, what the Presiding Officer
and I do, traveling around the State, it has been pretty heartening to
meet people and be told, the forgiveness of my student loan at age 35
or at age 45 after a long career as a teacher or another public service
or healthcare professional has meant so much to my family and so much
to my ability to move ahead.
So that is what the program is--an important one, a bipartisan one,
still in law.
The Trump administration has decided--in the midst of dismantling the
Department of Education--Secretary McMahon and the President have said
they want to dismantle the entire Department. And they are taking
pieces of it--career and technical education, for example--and trying
to give it to the Department of Labor, which doesn't even want it and
isn't really suited to managing it.
Or they are taking the administration of student loans and trying to
hand it first to the Small Business Administration, who didn't want to
administer it, and then maybe to the Department of Treasury.
In the midst of dismantling or handing off or divesting many
programs, the Department has also decided it wants to go after Public
Service Loan Forgiveness. But they are doing it in a fairly pernicious
way that has earned the objection, not only of folks on my side of the
aisle but also the objection of groups like the Cato Institute that are
traditionally conservative policy organizations.
What is the regulation that we are challenging? The Trump
administration proposes to allow the Secretary--in this case, Secretary
McMahon--to individually determine whether or not an individual's job
is, in fact, public service and to make that determination based on the
Secretary's view of the political viewpoint of the organization for
which the individual works and whether that organization is doing
something that the administration doesn't like.
Now, this is a pretty dramatic and radical power to put in the hands
of the Secretary of Education. Imagine if there was a Democratic
President and we said we would give to the Democratic Secretary of
Education the ability to determine whether or not a particular student
or particular public service worker would receive loan forgiveness
after they have chosen their profession to go into.
Now the administration has sort of marketed this as: We don't want to
consider for public service jobs that may be doing things that are
illegal.
So they said, for example: We would not want to forgive the loan of a
person working for an organization that aids and abets people who are
here without legal immigration status.
Well, I will give you an example. Public school systems in the United
States are required to serve all who register, regardless of
immigration status, pursuant to a Supreme Court decision that is about
50 years old. A teacher who works in one of those schools is assisting
an undocumented person, a young student who is required by law to
serve.
Is that teacher, because the teacher teaches English as a second
language or the teacher teaches in a school and offers services to
students who do not have lawful immigration status--is that abetting
illegal immigration?
The Trump-era regulation would allow the Secretary of Education to
say: Yeah, you don't get your loan forgiven because of the particular
students you work with because of the particular class you teach--
English is a second language class--because of the percentage of your
students who might be here without legal documentation.
So get this. The teacher is required to offer services to those
students by a binding Supreme Court precedent, but the Trump-era
regulation could allow the Secretary of Education to take that teacher,
who has been in that classroom for 10 years or 20 years, and suddenly
say: But you don't get Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and the
regulation vests that sole decisionmaking authority in the hands of the
Secretary of Education.
Give you another example. Part of the healthcare safety net in this
country is free clinics. Free clinics provide medical services through
physicians and other allied health professionals to all comers, and
they generally don't inquire about someone's immigration status.
We need healthcare workers, nurses, doctors, and others to work in
free clinics. Someone could say to one of these healthcare
professionals, who don't make great salaries in these institutions:
Wait a minute. Your clinic provides services to people who are not here
with legal documented status. Therefore, we are not going to forgive
your loan.
After you have chosen a path and done a job and done it for years and
now you feel like you are entitled to have your loans forgiven,
suddenly the Secretary of Education could just say: We don't want to
forgive your loan.
There is another provision in the regulation that I found
challenging. It said loans could not be forgiven for any
[[Page S2406]]
organization that illegally discriminates. Now, I am against illegal
discrimination, and I know every Member of this body is against illegal
discrimination.
But the Trump administration has been pushing universities and
threatening to cut off their funding if they have diversity programs,
arguing that those programs are illegal discrimination, without any
court ruling saying that they are illegal discrimination, without other
legal justification for their illegal discrimination.
And they have even gone so far as to pressure the president of my
flagship university, the University of Virginia, to resign because of
diversity programming on the campus. And they threatened to force out
the president of another university in Virginia, George Mason
University--that president refused to resign--because of the completely
unsubstantiated allegation that diversity programming on campus is
illegal discrimination.
Now the Trump administration has not been able to get a court to say
this is illegal discrimination, but they are forcing universities to
even push for the firing of the presidents on their view that diversity
programming is illegal discrimination.
So say you have worked and now you are a faculty member or say you
have worked and now you work at the university health clinic or say you
have worked and now you work for a university custodial service or the
university campus police--and you are providing a public service in
that way--but the Secretary of Education says: Yeah, but I don't like
George Mason's diversity programming. I don't like UVA's diversity
programming. So because I don't like the institution you work for, I am
going to deny you Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
The administration says it wants to go against those who might be
working for sanctuary jurisdictions. This is not a label that I have a
lot of firsthand experience with in Virginia because I don't believe
there are any sanctuary jurisdictions in Virginia, but there are
communities in the United States that have declared themselves
sanctuary jurisdictions. There are cities and counties. I don't believe
any States have.
So what if you are a hardworking police officer and you had a career
for a community and after a city council election, there is a new city
council that suddenly says we want to be a sanctuary jurisdiction?
The Secretary of Education could say to the hardworking police
officer, the hardworking firefighter, the hardworking teacher in the
public school system: I don't like what your city council did.
Therefore, you are not entitled to Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
I think the idea of politicizing this and giving the Secretary the
power to deprive individuals of something they should be entitled to by
statute is very, very dangerous.
Let me read some concerns that we have heard expressed. Here was a
comment that was made against the Trump regulation from someone in
Pennsylvania: My husband's military service is qualifying employment
for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The promise of PSLF was, and
continues to be, a significant factor in our family's long-term
financial planning, helping to make the sacrifices inherent in military
service more manageable. We planned our financial future with the
understanding that this program exists. To have the rules change
significantly or become even more complex would feel like having the
rug pulled out from under us. Military life already presents unique
challenges for tracking payments and certifications through the
frequent moves and deployments.
Streamlining must mean making PSLF more transparent, reliable, and
truly manageable for servicemembers and their families with clear
communication and accurate tracking. Putting the rules about PSLF up to
the determination in each individual case of the Secretary worries a
family like this.
Here is another comment submitted for the Record in response to this
regulation: PSLF is a critical background to current military readiness
directly because of medical services. We are only able to partially
fund training of required doctors. We only pay them 20 to 50 percent of
what they can make in the private sector. We retain them because of
their deep patriotism and the ability to make it make sense by having
PSLF after 10 years of public service.
All of these medical specialists and their families give up many
other things in service of our troops, dependents, and country. They
are not seeking to rob an education from a high-dollar school. They are
accepting the lowest-paid medical job because of their passion for the
military.
Taking away PSLF for military members or those providers who serve
them just makes the sacrifices they make so much more difficult.
And here is a submission from a citizen in Alabama who commented on
the proposed regulation: As a physician in Birmingham, AL, I am writing
to urge you to protect the PSLF program and income-driven repayment
plans. We have many poor and underserved patients in America, and many
of these patients are treated by nonprofits who help cover the cost of
their care. Without PSLF, physicians are incentivized to, instead, find
the highest-paying job or even leave direct patient care in order to
find more lucrative positions in the insurance industry or consulting.
PSLF has helped me maintain my values and seek out a job in a
nonprofit, serving patients who need them most. Please maintain this
program to allow physicians like me to serve their patients.
These are the kinds of concerns people have--hardworking public
servants--who would be entitled to loan forgiveness under the
bipartisan program that was enacted in 2007.
And my argument to my colleagues is giving this Secretary of
Education--or any Secretary of Education, including under a Democratic
administration--the ability to cherry-pick this person and that person
and say: No, I don't consider you worthy of loan forgiveness because I
don't like the politics of the city you live in, the State you live in,
or the organization you work for, is a very serious danger.
And I will conclude and just give a related example that is very,
very recent of how giving a Cabinet Secretary this power is likely to
lead to abuses, and it is related to education. It is not Public
Service Loan Forgiveness, but it is related.
In early March, Secretary Hegseth the Secretary of the Department of
Defense said that 13 universities in the United States would no longer
be eligible to have senior service corps fellowships, and that is
senior members of the military assigned to fellowships at the
university.
One of the universities was William & Mary in Virginia, the College
of William & Mary. And the reason cited for removing the eligibility of
these 13 universities was the Secretary decided on his own--as this
regulation would allow Secretary McMahon to make this decision on her
own--Secretary Hegseth said that William & Mary and the other 13
universities were woke and weak. Because of wokeness and weakness, no
longer will we allow senior military service to get fellowships at
these universities.
Woke and weak.
We just had an Armed Services Committee hearing. I got to ask the key
Pentagon official at the Pentagon: What is woke and weak about the
College of William & Mary? It is the Nation's oldest public university.
It educated Thomas Jefferson. Its most--one of its most recent
chancellors--who is kind of the titular head of the university--was Bob
Gates, who was Secretary of Defense under Republican administration.
But according to Pete Hegseth, it is woke and weak.
Three weeks after this declaration was made that William & Mary was
woke and weak and, thus, could not sponsor senior service corps
fellowships, militaryfriendly.com ruled--awarded William & Mary the
label as the most military- and veteran-friendly university in the
United States. And that was based on data--1,600 students at William &
Mary who are active or a veteran--an active ROTC program in the Army;
an active ROTC program in the Navy; a clinic at the law school, the
Lewis Puller clinic, where law students help veterans access VA
benefits; a unique program in the school of education at William & Mary
that--it might be unique in the country--that trains individuals to
provide counseling to members of the military and their families.
[[Page S2407]]
The same publication militaryfriendly.com said that the MBA program
at the College of William & Mary was the best MBA program in the
country for military members and veterans. And yet a Cabinet member
said that is woke and weak.
And so you could easily imagine people who are serving veterans at
William & Mary in the veterans clinic, people who are providing
counseling training in the counseling center, working other programs,
who themselves might feel like they qualified for Public Service Loan
Forgiveness--but now the Secretary of Defense has said the whole
institution is woke and weak--you could easily see them because of that
capricious and arbitrary label, which is against all evidence, you
could see them deprived of the opportunity to have their loans
forgiven.
This regulation just puts too much power in the unaccountable hands
of a single person. We should not allow it to happen under either a
Democratic or a Republican administration. For that reason, I will
bring this motion to the floor presently.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________