[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 124 (Wednesday, July 29, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4301-S4309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
SUPPORTING EARLY-CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS' DEDUCTIONS ACT--Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5334, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 454, H.R. 5334, a bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early
childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Social Security Trust Fund
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a member of
the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social
Security, and to remind everybody--because everybody knows or better
know--that the Social Security primary trust fund will be depleted in
just 6 years. As a result, come late 2032, the program will only have
enough income from the payroll taxes to pay 78 percent of benefits due.
That surplus was built up since a Republican, President Reagan, and a
Democrat, then-Speaker Tip O'Neill, sat down and said: We can't let
anything bad happen to Social Security. So they put a plan together
that passed almost unanimously in this U.S. Senate.
I presume those two gentlemen--bipartisan they were--they thought it
may only extend the program for 20 years or something. But as we see
now, they had a plan that built up the surplus for the next 50 years,
and that runs out in 2032. In other words, to emphasize, unless
Congress acts quickly, retirees will see a 22-percent cut in their
benefits, about the same as what Reagan and O'Neill saw happening in
1983.
So this statistic alone should motivate the Congress to act
expeditiously to ensure no disruption of benefits occur. Unfortunately,
Congress has a tendency to put off action until too late and at the
last moment. This is never the best approach.
But with respect to addressing the Social Security funding shortfall,
it poses a serious risk not only to the tens of millions of retirees
but also a risk to the national economy.
As a recent Mercatus Center paper documents, waiting until the last
minute to act on Social Security puts this vital program on a collision
course with the Nation's growing fiscal crisis. The longer Congress
waits to act, the more likely it is that any solution to Social
Security will lean heavily on debt financing to bridge the funding gap.
And that is how it is tied to the entire national economy.
So come 2032, the Nation will already have outstanding debt larger
than at
[[Page S4302]]
any time in the Nation's history relative to the size of our economy.
Flooding the bond market with trillions of dollars in new debt, in
short order, then risks setting off a chain of events leading to a
fiscal crisis. Bond markets are likely to demand higher interest rates
to absorb all the national debt.
In other words, Congress needs to act in the same way that Reagan and
Tip O'Neill acted in a bipartisan fashion, in 1983, to preserve Social
Security. A bigger problem faces us today, and we should have a
bipartisan agreement in this town, including a President who wants to
get Social Security on a financially sound basis.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Sanctions
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, we said goodbye to our friend
and colleague Lindsey Graham. But though we said farewell, Lindsey's
work continues.
Last night, we began consideration of the bill to which he devoted so
much of his time and energy over the last year. He had worked on it
with world leaders and Members of both parties here in Congress, and he
was working on it on the day he died.
That bill is now known as the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia
and Iran Act. It will give the President important tools to hopefully
end the war between Russia and Ukraine and bring peace where there has
been war for too long.
Russia invaded Ukraine 4\1/2\ years ago. Back then, many believed
Ukraine would fall in less than a week. But Ukraine has denied the
Russians the quick victory that they had expected. This war continues
because Vladimir Putin wants it to continue.
Over the course of the war, Russia has suffered 1.4 million
casualties. By one estimate, Russian casualties are now 30,000 per
month.
Ukraine has slowed Russia's advance. They have gone on the offensive
within Russia's borders. And with the war reportedly taking up a
significant share of Russia's budget, Putin is seeking to quash the
opposition to it in his own country.
But the war continues, as I said, because Putin wants it to continue
and because he is able to keep it going.
Russia funds its war effort in no small part through oil and gas
sales facilitated by its so-called shadow fleet of ships flying under
false flags. What the Graham Russia sanctions bill does is go after
that source of funding. It gives the President authority to levy
tariffs of up to 100 percent against the largest purchasers of Russian
energy, of which China is the largest.
You might recall that before the Russian invasion in 2022, the
leaders of China and Russia declared a ``no limits'' partnership
between their two countries. Today, that partnership is most evident in
China's financing of the war by purchasing Russian oil and gas.
This bill doesn't stop with the purchasers of Russian energy,
however; it also sanctions the government officials, private
individuals, and banks and other enterprises that facilitate the sale
of Russian gas and oil.
In short, it takes direct aim at a key source of funding for Russia's
war effort because this war will not end until Putin is forced to come
to the negotiating table in a real way. This bill is about denying
Putin the ability to continue to prolong this war.
President Trump has made his commitment to ending this war and
bringing peace to Ukraine very clear. This bill will help him do that.
They say you can know a man by the enemies he has made. Lindsey
Graham didn't have many fans in the Kremlin, nor was he liked in Tehran
or Beijing, for that matter. I don't think this bill has many
supporters in those places either. This is a bill that aims to shut off
a key source of strength for Russia's war effort. It targets China's
source of cheap energy. It ensures the President can continue putting
maximum economic pressure on Iran as well by extending for another 5
years the legislation that underpins many of the sanctions that are in
place against the Iranian regime.
We may have said farewell to Lindsey yesterday, but his work goes on.
He believed in America, and he saw its promise in the hopes of men and
women around the world who want their own democracies and freedom in
their homelands. There was no greater friend to freedom-loving people
than Lindsey Graham, and this bill is a part of that legacy--a legacy
that will echo for many years to come.
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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Sanctions
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate honored the life of
our dear friend Lindsey Graham. It was a remarkable gathering of people
from around the world, people who came to honor a man who really has
done so very much for this body, for his home State of South Carolina,
and for the Nation.
I believe that today it is time to honor his tremendous legacy as
well right here with a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think
the way to do that is to pass the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia
Act. It truly is a ``peace through strength'' bill. No tribute I think
would be more fitting to our friend Lindsey or be more forceful.
This bill strengthens America's national security while pressuring
our adversaries to pursue peace; and that is what Lindsey was doing--
pursuing peace.
This sanctions bill is a historic piece of legislation. They target
Russia's largest oil importers, target Russia's leadership, target
Russia's so-called shadow fleet. Russia uses that shadow fleet to evade
sanctions on its illegal oil.
Most importantly, it targets other nations that buy Russian oil, that
buy Russian natural gas, that buy Russian uranium. This is the way
Russia is financing its brutal killing war in Ukraine.
The penalties are swift; the penalties are severe.
We know that energy is a cash cow of Putin's war machine. It is also
Russia's Achilles' heel. You cut it off, and Russia cannot continue to
fight.
Russia's biggest customer, we know, is communist China. Next is
India, and they are going to be hit hard by this. This is the way to
cripple Russia's war machine.
Allies of Ukraine can qualify for exemptions. Those exemptions come
from taking serious steps to end their own dependency on Russian energy
products.
For many years--and you and I have talked about this--Europe has
spent more money on Russian energy than it has sent in aid to Ukraine.
Mr. President, you are a warrior. You know this. You are from an energy
State. You know these things are critically important, and they are
true. This needs to change.
Of course, Russia isn't fighting Ukraine alone. In Putin's war of
aggression, it is Iran partnering with Russia. Iran has supplied Russia
with drones, with missiles, with munitions. Russia has used these
weapons to kill Ukrainian civilians and to destroy Ukrainian
infrastructure.
In return, Russia has shared with Iran--we know what they have shared
with their regime: technology, intelligence, military support, all of
those things. Iran has used this support to attack American troops.
And you have worn the uniform; you have borne the battle. And we have
seen the attacks on the American troops that hold the area in terms of
how Iran holds the Strait of Hormuz hostage. It is continuing today.
There were attacks yesterday.
Russia and Iran both employ a shadow fleet of illegal oil tankers.
They share sanctions-evading networks. They sell oil to many of the
same buyers. They are all working together
[[Page S4303]]
against us, against freedom-loving people. They both fund murder; they
fund terrorism; and they do it with revenue from their energy products.
That is why Iran has rightfully been added to this sanctions bill.
Lindsey started it about Russia, and now we have added Iran with
President Trump's guidance.
Together, Russia and Iran have built an ``axis of aggression,'' and
we know where the aggression is headed. Sanctioning those who buy oil
from Russia and Iran disrupts this entire axis all at once.
Passing this bill will make our country safer, and it makes our
adversaries weaker.
Senator Graham visited Ukraine shortly before he died. Lindsey was a
friend of freedom in Ukraine. He never stopped working to build support
for their cause.
Lindsey succeeded. This is a bill that has united a broad coalition
of U.S. Senators. The motion yesterday to proceed to the bill, over 80
Senators voted positively, voted for this motion. And I am one of the
many cosponsors.
Now it is time to pass this bill. Now it is time to push for peace.
Today, Russia is at the point of maximum weakness, and so is Iran.
Critical pieces of Russia's energy infrastructure are today in
shambles. A significant portion of its oil refinery capacity is no
longer operable.
Energy shortages are being felt all across Russia today. At the same
time, Iran's military has been severely degraded.
Both Russia and Iran still refuse to accept plans for lasting peace.
Russia and Iran respond only to strength, not to statements.
It is time for the Senate to act and act decisively and to work
toward lasting peace. Today is the day to pass the Lindsey Graham
sanctions bill.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sanctions
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would like to echo and reinforce the
words of my good friend Senator Barrasso, the majority whip, Senator
from Wyoming, who was doing a great job yesterday and the beautiful
service that we had here in the Capitol and at the National Cathedral
in honor of my very good friend and Senate colleague, Senator Lindsey
Graham. And, you know, the eulogies were great. It was a beautiful
service.
He was, as I mentioned, a dear friend, colleague, a patriot, a
veteran, a staunch advocate for his State South Carolina, staunch
advocate for the Senate, and a staunch advocate for a strong America.
As Senator Barrasso just said, peace through strength in the sense of
American freedom, not just at home but abroad.
He was one of a kind--witty, brilliant. Certainly, Mr. President, as
you know, one of our Nation's most important and influential Senators.
He had a great sense of humor. He loved to laugh.
And a lot of us here on the Senate floor are talking about his legacy
and what we should be doing to honor that legacy.
Well, I think one of the things we should be doing--and we are doing
it right now, and it is great--is this sanctions bill against Russia,
against Iran. And Senator Graham had been leading the efforts on this
sanctions bill for a couple years now, and we are passing it here in
the Senate in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion. Over 80 Senators
voted to get on the bill last night. I know Lindsey is looking down
from Heaven very proud he made this happen.
I was honored to be an original cosponsor of this bill from the very,
very beginning working with him on these issues.
And we have got more to do. I have a very analogous sanctions bill
with regard to China and Taiwan that Senator Graham was a lead
cosponsor of my bill. That is coming next.
But it is about honoring him, and this is a bipartisan win.
Government Funding
Mr. President, I think there is another way we need to honor Senator
Graham, and it is not happening. It is kind of a new thing. We have got
the minority whip coming to the floor, and I hope he can maybe respond
to this. But it is a new thing that I have seen--I have never seen,
actually, in my career, and we need to change it. And what that is, is
getting on the National Defense Authorization Act to start debating it
and working on a defense supplemental because we need it. Now, we are
talking about honoring Lindsey Graham. I knew Lindsey Graham really,
really well. I guarantee you Lindsey Graham would be on the Senate
floor right now saying: Wait. We are moving our sanctions bill forward?
Great. Bipartisan? Great. What about the NDAA--the National Defense
Authorization Act--that funds our military, pay raises for our troops.
It came out of the Armed Services Committee in a big bipartisan vote
and then came to the Senate floor--screeching halt because the minority
leader blocked it.
By the way, I have been in the Senate almost 12 years. I have never
seen that happen in my entire career. The bill that funds our military,
that lays out the strategy and top-line number for our military during
a dangerous time, is blocked by the Senate Democrats. Lindsey Graham
would be on the floor raising hell about that.
I have never seen it happen, and I have never had anyone on the other
side of the aisle explain to me: Why are you blocking the bill that
came out of committee in a strong bipartisan way during these dangerous
times? You are blocking the bill to fund our military to take care of
our troops? Unprecedented.
So if we want to honor Lindsey Graham, which we all do, let's not
just vote for the sanctions bill, but let's get on the NDAA and start
debating it. I haven't heard one Democrat Senator give a reason why
they are blocking it. I have never seen this happen. This is new
territory.
Let me give you another one that I know Lindsey Graham would be on
the floor right now advocating with me on. We need a defense
supplemental, OK?
When President Biden was President and Senator Schumer was majority
leader, the Biden White House sent over a defense supplemental on
Ukraine. Now, Senators like myself, Senator Graham, others, we said:
All right. We will look at that. We will work on that. We will improve
it. We will make it better. We think it is important for the national
defense of our Nation--which it was.
We put a lot in there for the defense industrial base, which we did.
We beefed up stuff relating to China and Taiwan, which made it a better
bill. We beefed up elements of that bill to make it stronger with
regard to Israel and Iran--made it a better bill and then worked on it
together.
We made it a stronger bill and then Senators like myself and Senator
Graham whipped other Republicans to get it passed, and we got it
passed. It was a bipartisan defense supplemental, primarily for
Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and our defense industrial base.
Now we need a defense industrial base supplemental for us--for
America, for our troops, for our munitions.
A couple years ago when the Biden administration with Senator Schumer
in the majority, that happened, and a number of us--myself and Senator
Graham--were like: All right. We will roll up our sleeves and work with
you guys.
What is happening on the defense supplemental now? No cooperation. No
one on the other side of the aisle wants to help our troops, wants to
help our munitions.
This is new territory. I have been here two terms and on defense
issues with Senator Graham--and, by the way, many other great Senators
on the other side of the aisle. We have always locked arms and said: We
are going to move forward on the NDAA; we are going to move forward on
the defense supplemental, if our troops need it. And what is happening
right now is new; it is different; and I think it is really bad for the
country.
And do you know who would be down on the Senate floor right now with
me making the same arguments that I am? Senator Graham would be. So
let's keep talking about honoring Senator Graham. I love that guy. I am
going to miss him every day. Such a great leader. So important to the
Senate. Mind
[[Page S4304]]
you, probably most the important Senator here given his work, given his
relationship with the President.
But let's not say we are going to honor Senator Graham--and then we
are going to block the NDAA? Lindsey Graham wouldn't be doing that.
We are going to not engage at all with the Trump administration on a
defense supplemental that our Department of Defense needs? We didn't do
that when you guys were in the majority and President Biden was
President. We rolled up our sleeves and got to work to benefit the
national security of our Nation, which is what Lindsey Graham was
always about.
So let's honor Lindsey Graham. Let's have a strong vote on the
sanctions bill that is named after him. But to my Democratic
colleagues: You want to honor Lindsey Graham? Then let's start debating
the NDAA. Quit blocking it. I have never seen that before in my entire
time here. That doesn't help anything. All it does is undermine our
national security and our troops. You are doing it. Lindsey wouldn't be
for that.
And let's start engaging on a defense supplemental. We need it. We
did it when you were in the majority. We did it when Biden was in the
White House.
A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that what
they are doing is wrong, and I still haven't heard a good explanation.
I know the far left is driving the energy of the party on the
Democratic side right now and they don't like the military and they
don't like supporting our troops. I know that. But the vast majority of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know them. Let's get
going on the NDAA. Let's get going on the defense supplemental bill.
That is exactly what Senator Graham would be arguing today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we start with this little document called
the U.S. Constitution. Every one of us has sworn to uphold and defend
this document. And we go to article I, the first article in the
Constitution, section 8, and it spells out with clarity who declares
war under this Constitution: The Congress of the United States.
We are now engaged in a war in Iran. Did the Congress declare war on
Iran? No.
Did the President even ask Congress to declare war on Iran? No.
Well, were there public hearings in Congress about this decision to
invade Iran, to attack Iran? No.
Did this President of the United States go to the allies of the
United States, like the NATO allies, to discuss the invasion of Iran?
No.
This President decided that we would go to war on his own--strictly
on his own--without regard for what the Constitution requires.
Now, I am glad to concede that there have been many Presidents that
have gone to war under similar circumstances, but almost without
exception they at least took the case to the American people directly
or through Congress. This President did not.
So where are we today? Mr. President, $88 billion--that is how much
has been spent so far in Iran. We are in the fifth month of the first
year of a never-ending war that this President promised over and over
again at his rallies would never, ever, ever happen under his watch.
Now we have the Senator from Alaska coming to the floor raising
questions about why we aren't moving on certain items. It is because
there has been no involvement in the decision process that led up to
this.
Do you know what the increase is in defense spending for next year:
40 percent of the Department of Defense budget--40 percent. Why? We
have an $88 billion war going on in Iran. There are those of us who
have serious doubts that that is the right thing to do.
We look at the Strait of Hormuz. Before we invaded Iran, they were
open for the transport of energy, oil, and fertilizers. Now, they are
virtually closed because of President Trump's decision to invade Iran.
Does it have any impact on you personally? Filled your gas tank
lately? Do you know what is going on there? The cost of gasoline is
going through the roof because of the invasion of Iran and the decision
to move forward.
So you can tell from my comments here that I have serious doubts that
we are doing the right thing in Iran. I am not going to be a defender
of Iran. I have called for sanctions on that country over and over
again for their misconduct. But to sit here and argue that we are
somehow shirking our constitutional and congressional responsibility by
not funding this war is to ignore the obvious.
This was the President's decision to go forward with this war. My
advice to him over many years that I have served in Congress: It is
easier to start a war than it is to end it. And we are learning that
right now.
The Strait of Hormuz are still at risk, and other parts of the world
are at risk because of that decision. It is not the right decision.
Remembering Lindsey Graham
Mr. President, let me also say a word about Lindsey Graham. Lindsey
was my friend. On some issues, my ally. He did things for me which I
thought were politically risky but to help, for example, to pass the
Dream Act. It was Lindsey Graham who was the sole Republican who would
cosponsor my bipartisan Dream Act each year.
I respect him so much for doing it. It was a political risk for him
to do it. But either for me personally--God bless him--or for the
thousands of young people who were facing deportation, he stuck his
neck out for me. That is why I went to the service yesterday in respect
for this man. I do respect him.
We didn't agree on everything. Particularly when it came to issues of
war, there were serious differences. But there are many things that
united us.
The gentleman from Alaska raises the question of: What would Lindsey
do? I'm sure we can come up with our own interpretation.
Government Funding
Now, here is the bottom line moving forward: We have got to reach a
bipartisan agreement on how to fund this government after September 30
when this particular budget ends and a new budget starts. I want to do
that. Senator Murray wants to do it. I think Senator Collins would like
to do it. But now we have to do it together on a bipartisan basis. We
come to an agreement on the top line about how to reach a budget and
then we start setting out on appropriations bills.
I have been fortunate enough to serve in the Appropriations Committee
in the House and the Senate. I have seen some extraordinary bipartisan
good work. We can have it again, but we have got to sit down and, in
good faith, start working toward a conclusion.
A conclusion that gives 40 percent increase to the Department of
Defense and zero increase to the rest of the government is a mistake.
It is a serious mistake. We have important things that need to be done
to help families that are struggling with the cost of living.
And so to the Senator from Alaska: I just disagree with you on the
premise. We can and should work on a bipartisan basis, and it needs to
start with next year's budget.
Temporary Protected Status Designation
Mr. President, last month the Supreme Court paved the way for the
Trump administration to end a program called temporary protected status
designation without any judicial review.
The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has supercharged
President Trump's mass deportation campaign, with devastating
consequences for temporary protected status holders and the American
communities who rely on them.
Temporary protected status under American law was intended to prevent
the deportation of immigrants to countries where it is not safe to
return. By law, a TPS designation can only be made or extended in
increments of 6, 12, or 18 months. It is truly temporary in nature.
Ahead of every TPS expiration, the Secretary of State must reassess
the conditions in the countries and decide whether to renew the
designation or let it end.
To take one example, there is no question that Haiti is unsafe. Our
Department of State has issued a Level 4 travel advisory telling
Americans it is unsafe to travel to Haiti due to the risk of crime,
kidnapping, terrorism, and civil unrest. That is the official statement
of the Department of State of the Trump administration.
[[Page S4305]]
So why has the Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti and many
other countries where it is not safe to return? Some of my Republican
colleagues have claimed that TPS for countries like Haiti must end
simply because it is the nature of the program--that it is temporary.
Here is the thing: Since 1990, 36 years ago, when TPS was
established, there have been 30--30--TPS designations. Even before the
Trump administration, at least 10 of them--countries like Angola,
Rwanda, and Sierra Leone had their designations made and then
officially terminated. They were temporary.
In some cases, like Haiti, conditions have never been safe enough to
justify a termination.
Haitian TPS holders have bought homes in the United States, started
American families, and become part of our communities.
Members on both sides of the aisle oppose deporting these Haitian
immigrants. In fact, our former Senate colleague and my friend
Republican Mike DeWine, now the Republican Governor of Ohio, called the
Trump administration's decision to terminate Haiti's TPS ``a mistake''
and a ``job killer'' that is ``not in the best interest of the United
States nor Ohio.''
Let me say parenthetically: Mike DeWine is my friend. We are opposite
political parties. We served together in the Senate. It was Mike who
encouraged me to join him and his wife when they visited Haiti, and I
saw it for the first time. It opened my eyes to the poverty and danger
of that island country.
The Trump-Mullin administration has ignored the comments of Governor
DeWine and others. Instead, ICE is preparing to target Haitian
immigrants for arrest and deportation as early as this week. Immigrants
who have been lawfully present in the United States for years now risk
being deported.
This is all so that Trump and his trusted adviser Stephen Miller can
meet their 2,000-arrests-a-day quota. They are not looking for the
worst of the worst with these Haitians. They are not looking for
terrorists, murderers, sexual predators, human traffickers. It is just
whether they are Haitian or not Haitian.
It is time for Congress to give these long-term residents the
security that they deserve. That is why I am calling for the passage of
the SECURE Act, legislation that will provide certainty for these
individuals and their communities by giving them the ability to apply
for legal permanent residency.
Later today, my friend and colleague Senator Van Hollen of Maryland
will ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill. I join him and appeal
to my colleagues: In the name of humanity, for God's sake, don't send
these people back to an island which we have already declared is too
dangerous for any American to visit. Let them stay safe with their
children and families here in the United States until things have
improved in Haiti. If they are a threat in any way to any person in
America, they need to leave; but if they are leading good lives, doing
the best they can for them and their families, give them a chance. It
is not too much to ask, and to deport them into this dangerous
situation is not consistent with the basic values of America.
Confirmation of Walter Clayton
Mr. President, on a separate subject, yesterday the Senate voted to
confirm Jay Clayton to be the next Director of National Intelligence.
He replaces Acting DNI Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist who purged career
intelligence employees and who launched investigations into the
President's political enemies as Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency.
Similarly, anyone hoping Clayton will show loyalty to the
Constitution over the President who appointed him is sorely mistaken.
Much like his predecessor, Jay Clayton has peddled the Big Lie and
worked to do the President's bidding, using the levers of government to
target Trump's perceived enemies.
Don't believe me? I will show you.
Earlier this month, in a clear threat to freedom of the press, the
Trump administration issued subpoenas targeting several journalists for
the New York Times who reported on security concerns related to the
President's brand-new, Qatari-donated Air Force One. Who issued the
subpoenas? None other than Jay Clayton in his capacity as U.S. attorney
for the Southern District of New York. After sharp questioning by a
Federal judge, prosecutors withdrew the demands.
And 2 weeks ago, while appearing before the Senate Intelligence
Committee for his nomination, Clayton refused--time and time again--to
say who won the 2020 Presidential election.
We have seen this play out in the Judiciary Committee as the
President's nominees for the Federal bench bend over backwards to avoid
stating a simple fact: that Joe Biden won in 2020. And Donald Trump
lost.
Why? Because these people are loyal to the President above all. And
that has been his guiding light when picking nominees for appointments.
Most importantly, Clayton lacks the basic qualifications necessary
for the job of overseeing and coordinating our Nation's 18 intelligence
agencies. By law, the Director of National Intelligence is required to
have ``extensive national security expertise.'' Not only does he lack
extensive national security expertise, he lacks any.
The Trump administration has already spent the past 18 months
politicizing and denigrating our intelligence community. In fact, both
of Clayton's predecessors, Pulte and former DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who took
the unprecedented step of meddling in a domestic law enforcement action
on election interference, laid bare just how important it is to
separate politics from the work of the IC.
I voted no on Jay Clayton's nomination to be DNI. Despite this, I
hope Mr. Clayton will show fidelity to the rule of law and be an
independent voice to safeguard our IC.
His track record does not inspire confidence, but time will tell.
Todd Blanche
Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled
to hold a key vote on Todd Blanche's nomination to be Attorney General.
The Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice--our Nation's
premier law enforcement agency--as well as the FBI, DEA, and many other
essential Agencies. The position demands that the Attorney General be
someone committed to the rule of law and the Constitution more than any
one person or political party. This principle is exactly why Todd
Blanche is the wrong person for this role.
In his 16 months at DOJ, Blanche has shown that he is more concerned
with serving Donald Trump than the American people. Pardoning January 6
rioters and cop-beaters wasn't enough for President Trump, so 2 months
ago, Blanche colluded with President Trump's private lawyers to create
a nearly $2 billion slush fund to benefit the January 6 mob that
attacked the Capitol. When I met with Blanche earlier this month, he
told me he recognized this decision for what it was: a ``mistake.''
But when I asked him under oath, Blanche insisted that he never made
this statement, displaying either a short memory or a dangerous
willingness to lie for President Trump. When pressed during his
hearing, Blanche even refused to directly condemn those who assaulted
law enforcement officers on January 6 and would not commit to
permanently ending this slush fund.
Blanche has done more than just support the President's allies; he
has also used his position to directly enrich the President himself.
Earlier this year, Blanche personally signed a document to provide
President Trump, his family, and his businesses with immunity for any
past Federal tax law violations.
And last year, he dismantled DOJ's crypto enforcement team and shut
down ongoing investigations of the crypto industry, an industry that
has made President Trump more than $1 billion since returning to the
White House. Blanche himself held crypto assets worth more than
$150,000 at the time--and when he finally did divest himself of these
assets, he did so by transferring them to his adult children and
grandchild.
It is hard to believe how Blanche could possibly be an honest broker
as Attorney General, especially when he refuses to even admit that the
Department of Justice should decide who to prosecute without political
interference from the President.
During his nomination hearing, one of my Republican colleagues asked
Blanche if he and President Trump are friends. Blanche responded, ``I'm
his
[[Page S4306]]
lawyer.'' That Freudian slip sums up why he has been nominated. The
Attorney General should be the people's lawyer. The Department of
Justice should work on behalf of the people. But President Trump still
views Blanche as his personal lawyer, a role he held up until he was
confirmed to be Deputy Attorney General. And it is clear that Blanche
still views himself as the President's lawyer.
Todd Blanche's DOJ has become one where the President and his allies
are protected while ordinary Americans suffer and his perceived enemies
are baselessly prosecuted. The position of Attorney General is too
important to be held by someone unwilling to say no to the President,
which is exactly why I will be voting no on his nomination.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2106
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask
unanimous consent to pass the SECURE Act to ensure that we don't force
individuals who have been legally residing in the United States under
temporary protected status--some for as many as 27 years--to return to
countries where they will face danger and, instead, to provide them
with a secure path toward lawful permanent residency.
The need for Congress to do this, to take this step, has never been
more urgent because, just over a month ago, the Trump-packed Supreme
Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, allowed the administration to move forward
with terminating temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands
of individuals who originally came to the United States from Haiti and
Syria and to force them back--force them back--to countries where their
lives would be at risk. That decision puts them and other TPS holders
at risk of deportation to countries where violence, instability, and
humanitarian crises continue to threaten their lives.
There are already reports that ICE is planning to target Haitian TPS
holders for deportation as soon as this week, which would force
hundreds of thousands of people to return to a country that our State
Department warns is unsafe for travel. In other words, the Trump
administration would force people back to a country where the State
Department says: Don't go there because it is unsafe.
The Trump administration has also moved to lift lower court orders
preventing the termination of TPS for other countries as well, putting
thousands more lives at risk. In other words, these lower courts have
said they have paused the ability for the administration to deport
people on TPS, but the administration is moving to deport them anyway.
In 1990--in 1990--Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle,
Republicans and Democrats, came together to create the TPS program
because we all agreed that keeping our neighbors safe should not be a
partisan issue. When conditions in another country make it unsafe for
people to return, America should not force those people back into
harm's way. And for over three decades that bipartisan principle has
guided the TPS program.
I think we all recall the Trump administration--at least the
President--promised that they were going to target the ``worst of the
worst.'' But that is not what they have been doing. Instead, it has
targeted people, in the case of TPS recipients, with lawful status,
targeting people who are here legally.
TPS recipients are people who have already been determined that it
would be dangerous to force them to return to their countries of
origin. They are here legally, and the TPS eligibility requirements are
very strict. Recipients undergo repeated vetting and background checks.
They work, they pay taxes, raise families, start businesses, and
contribute every day to communities across this country. Many have
lived here for years; others, for decades. They have become part of the
fabric of our communities.
And yet the Trump administration's actions and recent reckless
Supreme Court decisions place all of that at risk. The administration
terminated work permits for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders on Monday.
So people who had been legally here, had work permits, they have been
terminated.
And for those who also apply for asylum, the administration's new
policy announced just this week would funnel their pending asylum
claims directly into deportation proceedings without ever receiving a
hearing. So even people who could show individual cause of certain harm
or danger could be deported under these new procedures. It is all part
of the same effort to strip legal protections from people who have
followed the rules.
Due to our country's broken immigration system, the TPS program is
the only legal pathway for many to remain in the United States and keep
out of harm's way, and the Court's decision is tearing up that pathway
for many TPS holders, even as the facts on the ground are clear.
As I said, if you go to the State Department website, it says: ``Do
Not Travel to Haiti.'' There are warning signs on that website of
violent crime, gang activity, kidnappings, and widespread instability.
In the case of Syria, Syria continues to face armed conflict,
terrorism, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The State Department
warns--this is from our State Department--``Do not travel to Syria for
any reason.'' That is what the State Department says, and yet the
President and the Trump administration want to force people to go to
Syria.
In other words, the same conditions that led the United States to
grant these individuals TPS in the first place remain true, and yet the
Trump administration wants to send them to these countries. So the
State Department warns against travel but wants us to believe that it
is safe for TPS recipients to be forced to return.
What has changed is this administration's determination to dismantle
basic humanitarian protections that have been part of our bipartisan
tradition in order to enact their mass deportation agenda, and now this
Supreme Court has rubberstamped this administration's ongoing reckless
efforts to gut the TPS program so they can terminate countries'
designations across the board to advance that mass deportation agenda.
The Trump ``rubberstamp'' Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 decision, made
the decision that rather than follow the letter of the law as Congress
enacted it, the Department of Homeland Security can do whatever it
wants--and free from judicial scrutiny.
As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent--she was one of three Justices
dissenting from that Supreme Court decision--she said:
After today, a Secretary can announce to the world that she
didn't consult with anyone--more, that she didn't evaluate
country conditions at all--before making, extending, or
terminating a TPS designation. And the courts will be
powerless to intervene, even though Congress loaded up the
TPS statute with requirements about the (altogether
different) way the Secretary is supposed to make her
decision.
In other words, Justice Kagan pointed out that the statute does make
clear there should be a determination about whether or not an action
taken to terminate TPS would, in fact, lead to harm.
And Congress should not just sit back and allow this to happen.
Decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of lives should be based on
careful consideration of conditions on the ground, not political
ideology or predetermined outcomes.
This decision makes one thing unmistakably clear, that we, the
Congress, should act to reaffirm what was clearly our intent when we
passed the TPS statutes to begin with. And, for years, TPS recipients
have lived in constant uncertainty, and every extension brings another
deadline. Every new administration brings another question about
whether the lives they have built here will disappear with the stroke
of a pen. This is no way to treat people who have been here legally and
have contributed much to our country.
That is why we should pass the SECURE Act, legislation that provides
qualified TPS and deferred enforced departure recipients with a pathway
to legal permanent residence after years
[[Page S4307]]
of continuous presence in the United States.
It protects applicants while their cases are pending and shields
eligible individuals from deportation during the application process.
It provides work authorization and travel authorization. It also
protects applicants' information from being used for immigration
enforcement, except in limited circumstances. It increases
transparency--which I would hope we would all support--by requiring the
Department of Homeland Security to explain and justify future decisions
to terminate TPS designations--something they have failed to do. Most
importantly, it provides the certainty these families deserve after
years--in many cases, decades--of living here legally in the United
States.
We have long used TPS to provide refuge to people who would otherwise
face extraordinary danger if forced to return to their countries of
origin. They sought safety and stability here. They have built new
lives in our country and made lasting contributions to our communities,
and the SECURE Act recognizes that reality.
As I said, we should not be forcing these individuals back to
countries where our own State Department has determined it would be
dangerous to go.
The Supreme Court decision does not have to be the end of the story.
We can write the end of the story, and it is our responsibility as a
Congress to preserve that bipartisan congressional intent from back in
1990. We must provide that certainty that these individuals deserve.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2106. I further ask
consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object
to this mass amnesty bill. Last week, Democrats asked the Senate to
extend Haitian temporary protected status. Today, they have dropped the
quotation marks. Instead of extending temporary status, this
legislation would convert temporary status into permanent status--green
cards, permanent settlement. At least the bill last week continued the
same old Washington lie.
Today, Democrats finally admit what this scheme was always designed
to be. Temporary was always meant to be permanent. It is the final
stage of the scam. But that is how Democrats do mass amnesty. First,
they declare an emergency. Then, they import hundreds of thousands of
people. They then extend the program over and over and over. Then, they
unleash activist lawyers against anyone who tries to enforce the
deadline.
When the American people finally elect a President to end this chaos,
to end this abuse, Democrats demand mass amnesty. And when the American
people finally elect a President who enforces the law, Democrats change
the law and hand out green cards.
That is what this bill does. It turns a program created for temporary
emergencies into a pipeline for green cards and citizenship not only
for people who have temporary status--not only for people who once had
TPS; this bill reaches beyond our borders and allows people who were
already removed from this country to apply for permanent residency from
abroad.
Think about how crazy that is. The law was enforced. The alien was
removed. The case was closed. Yet Democrats want to erase the removal,
reopen the border, and bring that person back with a green card. Under
the radical, new Democratic immigration platform, deportation isn't
deportation; it is merely an inconvenience before a green card arrives.
This bill does not merely reward those who broke our laws and
remained in our country; it reaches around the entire globe to reverse
deportations and to restart mass migration.
But even that is not enough. This bill also creates an ICE blackout.
Information provided in these applications can't be used for
immigration enforcement. The bill even threatens penalties against law
enforcement who properly use the information. So Democrats want the
information we have about foreigners to be placed behind a legal shield
so it cannot be used to enforce immigration law.
Republicans want to handcuff illegal criminals; Democrats want to
handcuff law enforcement officers so they can't do their jobs. They are
not hiding the choice anymore. They will punish the officer before they
punish the illegal alien. Why are illegal aliens more important to them
now than protecting American citizens?
Oh, but it doesn't stop there. This bill ensures that any President--
any future President--can't end TPS.
So what is missing from the bill? Americans; American citizens and
the impact mass migration is having on our people. This bill has no
consideration for American wages; no consideration for American
housing; no consideration of schools, hospitals, or communities; no
consideration of whether mass migration serves the national interest of
the American people. Every question is about what the foreign country
needs; no question about what America needs or what American families
need. That tells you everything that you need to know.
To today's Democrat Party, immigration policy is written for foreign
governments, immigration lawyers, activist groups, and leftwing
organizations waiting to file the next lawsuit. The American people are
treated as a logistical obstacle. Their votes--our votes--are an
inconvenience. Their communities--our communities--are an afterthought.
Their country is treated as common property for the rest of the world.
Democrats are becoming more and more radical by the day on this
issue. Yesterday, they insisted that temporary programs must never end.
Today, they demand permanent residency for all--permanent residency for
people who already left, legal shields against law enforcement, and
more ammunition for activist lawsuits. And they will turn around and
call us cruel. You will hear it shortly. It will be said about me
blocking this bill.
Let me speak clearly to my Democrat colleagues: There is nothing
compassionate about betraying your own citizens--the very citizens who
put you in office. There is nothing compassionate about flooding the
labor market with more foreign workers while Americans struggle for a
decent wage. There is nothing compassionate about flooding the housing
market and putting young families behind the eight ball. There is
nothing compassionate about diluting American citizenship.
America is a nation, not a global waiting room, not a refugee camp,
not a lifetime stay at a taxpayer-funded hotel. Our immigration laws
exist to serve the American people. Foreign nationals do not have a
right to permanent settlement here.
Today, I speak on behalf of the American people who have been ripped
off by this scam for far too long. No more. We had an election on this
issue. The Democrats have not gotten the message. They want the United
States of America to be a global refugee camp cloaked behind their
compassion. There is no compassion for the American people--the guy
that swings the hammer, who is working 7 days a week so he can pay for
the benefits of an illegal alien who they don't ever want to leave this
country.
The American people are a sovereign people who have the right to
decide who enters this country, who remains, and who has to leave. This
bill reverses that principle. This Democrat bill tells the American
people that their elections cannot end a temporary program, that the
President cannot enforce the law, that their officers cannot use
information in front of them, that their country belongs to everyone
but them. Only the migrant's claim matters. Only the foreign country
matters. Only the ambulance-chasing immigration lawyer matters.
I reject all of that completely, in public, for the world to see,
because I stand by my brothers and sisters of this country.
Last week, I objected to the Democrats' attempt to give 350,000
Haitians extended TPS. Today, I am objecting to this Democrat attempt
to give millions of illegal aliens mass amnesty, green cards, and work
authorizations.
[[Page S4308]]
I will always object to this mass amnesty. I will always object to
this mass migration. I will always object to putting American workers
last. I will always object to tying the hands of our law enforcement.
So therefore I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, just to make a couple things very
clear, the President has a mass-deportation agenda even though what the
President says is that he is focused on going after the worst of the
worst.
We had a vote on a resolution here in the Senate not that long ago
about going after the worst of the worst, and it passed unanimously. It
was a voice vote. There is no argument there.
The issue with these TPS holders is that they are here legally, with
work permits. In fact, they are among the most vetted people in the
country. Every year, they go through security and background checks in
order to renew their work permits.
The reason we provide them with the opportunity to stay here is
because there has been a determination that their countries of origin
are such dangerous places that their lives would be put at risk--places
like Haiti, places like Syria, where our own government has determined
it is too dangerous to go, and they warn people about going to those
countries. Yet what this Trump administration action would do is force
people back into danger in those countries. That is what the Trump
administration wants to do, and that is what this Supreme Court, on a
6-to-3 vote, allows them to do. It allows them not even to have to make
that determination in any serious way about what the circumstances are
in the country these people would be forced back into.
So there is a whole lot of misinformation that was put out there
about this piece of legislation.
I will just say that in my State of Maryland, many of these folks on
TPS have become very important and valuable members of our community.
As I have said, many have been here for years and years and in some
cases, for decades.
By the way, they are paying taxes. They are paying Federal and State
taxes. They are paying into the Social Security trust fund. In many
cases, they have started small businesses that actually create more
economic opportunities for everybody in the community and the State. Go
look it up. A lot of these TPS holders are small business men and
women. They are hiring people in our communities and our State. Yet
these are the people--some of the most vetted individuals in the
country, people who pay State and local and Federal taxes--that the
Trump administration wants to send back to countries where we say it is
dangerous to go.
So that is why we are here on the floor right now, because the first
wave of this is about to happen, and the Trump administration is about
to deport folks who came here from Haiti who have been here under TPS,
this protected status, and now they want to force them back into harm's
way. We want to uphold what had been a bipartisan position, which is
that we as a country should not do that. We should not send people who
have this legal status now back to countries where they will face
certain danger.
So it is disappointing to hear that our Republican colleagues don't
want to move forward on this piece of legislation, but this debate is
not over--not here in the Senate, not in the House, and not in
communities across the United States.
And with that, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from California,
who has been such an important, strong voice on these issues on the
floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today
in support of Senator Van Hollen's SECURE Act.
Across the country right now, hundreds of thousands of Haitian men,
women, and children are terrified. They are terrified for their
futures, for their children's futures. They are terrified about being
forced back to a country that is gripped by a catastrophic humanitarian
crisis.
Nearly 1.5 million Haitians have been displaced by gang violence.
Food insecurity is widespread. Basic services have collapsed. It is a
country that the State Department--the State Department--warns
Americans not to travel to because of the risk of kidnapping, violent
crime, and civil unrest.
Think about that for a second.
The Trump administration itself is warning Americans not to travel to
Haiti because of how unsafe it is. Yet the same administration wants to
force over 300,000 Haitian nationals--who, until very recently, held
temporary protected status--to go there.
Now, the President has made it very clear for years what he thinks
about immigrants from Haiti. And we received reports in the past few
days that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for a mass
roundup and swift deportation of these families in the coming days.
So now, thanks to the President's hostility toward immigrants, TPS
holders from countries in turmoil--many of whom have lived in the
United States for years, if not decades--are now in danger and at the
mercy of this cruel administration.
But the fact of the matter is, the American people do not support the
President's goal of kicking these men, women, and children out and
forcing them back to a nation steeped in danger and turmoil, because
the American people recognize the fundamental fact that TPS holders--
who are legally granted protection in the United States, who registered
with the Federal Government, who passed background checks and received
authorization to live and to work here--are human beings--human beings
that deserve respect and dignity, and we have a moral obligation to
help when we can.
More than that, most Americans recognize how much TPS holders and
immigrants, more broadly, contribute to our country--the economic,
social, and cultural benefits they have provided us, as they have
worked and lived among us for years, developing strong roots in our
communities.
Yes, over time, TPS holders become our neighbors, our coworkers, and
our friends. The more than 94 percent of TPS holders who participate in
the labor force, as of 2017, are nurses and construction workers--vital
jobs for the people of the United States and for our economy. They are
home health aides, hotel workers, and entrepreneurs. Collectively, they
contribute around $29 billion to the U.S. economy every year and pay
more than $7.8 billion in Federal, payroll, State, and local taxes
annually as well.
That is right. They pay nearly $8 billion in taxes every year.
If more than 300,000 Haitian workers suddenly drop out of the
workforce, the impacts are going to be very real and very sudden.
And we can't forget that many are raising American children, not only
as caregivers for other people's children but as parents to nearly
400,000 U.S. citizen children.
And that impact is only magnified when you pull back and consider the
more than 1 million people who had TPS as of early 2025 and have been
targeted by this administration and its cruel mass detention and mass
deportation agenda.
So, colleagues, I am going to say something that I don't say very
often: I agree with Governor Mike DeWine, the Republican Governor of
Ohio, who has called ending TPS a ``mistake'' that is going to bring a
steep economic toll with it.
Temporary protected status exists exactly for moments like this, when
countries like Haiti--along with Venezuela, South Sudan, Afghanistan,
and others--are experiencing exactly the kind of crisis that Congress
had in mind when it created this program on a bipartisan basis.
But this administration is choosing to turn its back on the people
that this program was meant to help and protect, while hurting our
country in the process. So we need to do more to protect people who
have built their lives here and who have contributed so much to our
country.
So I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for trying to pass the SECURE
Act. He has my support. I urge all of you to support the SECURE Act as
well.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S4309]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Trump Administration
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Mr. President, the Trump Presidency is just a
disaster, and more and more people know it. Just about everyone is
getting to know it now.
This morning's CNN poll--right over my shoulder--is further
confirmation that Trump has completely lost the trust of the American
people.
Americans can see it, smell it, feel it: Trump's priorities are
completely out of whack. He is concerned not with average citizens and
making their lives better, just his own ego.
Just look at some of these numbers:
More than three in every four Americans say that Trump's disastrous
war on Iran hasn't been worth the cost. The same numbers say they have
experienced hardship because of gas prices: 79 percent.
And when asked: Does Trump have the right priorities? Seventy-three
percent say no. A record 73 percent of Americans think Trump hasn't
focused enough on the most pressing issues they face.
Pick any poll. Pick any issue. You will come to the same conclusion:
Trump is totally out of touch. He is hurting America and not listening
to America.
No one likes what you are doing. Are you listening, Donald? No one
likes what you are doing.
Look at those numbers. They should make Donald Trump hang his head in
shame: 72 percent disapprove of how he is conducting the war in Iran;
79 percent disapprove of him on gas prices; 73 percent say you have the
wrong priorities for them.
When the overwhelming majority of Americans say you are taking the
country in the wrong direction, you better change course.
Trump and his party can either take the hint or take a hike when it
comes in November.
Democrats have been clear on appropriations. Democrats have been
clear from the start: We want to fund the government, avoid a shutdown,
pass strong appropriations bills that improve people's lives.
Bipartisan negotiations are ongoing, and Senate Democrats are working
in good faith to reach an agreement to keep the appropriations process
moving forward.
We are fighting for a bipartisan funding package--not partisan bills
that bankroll Donald Trump's war agenda while leaving working families
behind. Any CR must be bipartisan. We must keep the government open
without abandoning the needs of working families or giving Donald Trump
a blank check for his destructive agenda.
There is a responsible path forward. Senate Democrats are ready to
take it. Republicans must meet us to get that done.
Medicare
Mr. President, Trump's crusade against Americans' healthcare costs
continues every single day. Listen to this: Yesterday, Trump doubled
prescription drug costs for millions of seniors by making cuts to
Medicare drug plans. Just 2 days before Medicare's 61st anniversary, no
less, he is cutting the dollars we need and doubling prescription drug
costs for millions of seniors.
Can Trump get any more heartless? We are talking about seniors
splitting pills in half to ration life-saving drugs or skipping meals
to afford their medication at the pharmacy counter. That is despicable.
This is just the latest salvo in Trump's war on Americans'
healthcare.
A year ago, Trump ransacked over a trillion dollars from the
healthcare system to bankroll tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans
and corporations.
And since then, millions of people have lost their coverage
altogether while tens of millions get slammed while premiums double,
triple, even quadruple.
But I guess that wasn't enough for Donald. Now he is coming after
seniors--millions of them--by raising their prescription drug costs.
In Trump's America, families are fighting for their lives while the
rich get richer.
Iran
Mr. President, Trump is more concerned about protecting himself from
the repercussions of his failed war in Iran than protecting our troops
who are in the line of fire.
As Trump twiddles his thumbs without any plan for how to end his
reckless misadventure, our servicemembers are facing down barrage after
barrage of Iranian missiles and drones.
Donald, posting another lie on Truth Social won't stop the missiles
from flying. Thumping your chest won't bring down the crushing gas
prices you have sent skyrocketing. And brushing casualties under the
rug doesn't get our men and women in uniform out of harm's way.
And those whose names were eliminated, before they put them back, do
not come back to life when you just simply take their name off the
roll.
There is only one way to do that--to do all of that--bring our troops
home. End the war. Democrats will soon force another vote on our War
Powers Resolution to end this aimless war and bring our troops back
home to their families.
Every second Trump prolongs this war, our servicemembers' lives are
at risk.
Senate Republicans, stand up for troops, not the President who sent
them to war without a plan, without a mission, without an exit
strategy. Senate Republicans, stand up with the American people and
come join us in ending this war.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________