[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 124 (Wednesday, July 29, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4311-S4323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT GHISLAINE MAXWELL SHOULD NOT BE 
 GRANTED A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON OR ANY FORM OF CLEMENCY FOR HER CRIMES 
 WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN RELATING TO THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE OF 
                                 MINORS

  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Judiciary Committee will vote 
on Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General.
  There are a number of reasons the members of the committee should 
oppose Todd Blanche's nomination--from his willingness to enable Donald 
Trump's worst instinct to his role in helping to create Trump's corrupt 
slush fund to pay out to January 6 rioters who assaulted police 
officers here in this Chamber and others. Yet there is one reason that 
stands out far ahead of the others--that of his complete and total 
mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case.
  Former Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi told the House behind closed 
doors that Todd Blanche, as her Deputy, was responsible for how the 
Department handled the Epstein files. Under his supervision, the 
Department of Justice promised the release of Epstein's client list, 
claiming there was a list they compiled for Pam Bondi and sent to Pam 
Bondi, only to backtrack and refuse to release the document for months.
  It took Congress passing an overwhelmingly bipartisan, veto-proof 
Federal law to force the release of these materials. Even then--even 
then--the Trump administration and specifically the Department of 
Justice, under Todd Blanche's management, delayed their compliance with 
this law.
  When files were finally released, the identity of many perpetrators--
not victims--were redacted, raising serious questions and concerns 
about who the administration was trying to protect. They redacted 
perpetrators, not victims.
  As the White House and Justice Department tried to manage the fallout 
from mishandling this case, Todd Blanche was purportedly in the 
Situation Room with senior Trump administration officials working on a 
public relations strategy--well, on behalf of the President.
  According to the New York Times, one of the options was to have a 
Justice Department lawyer interview Ghislaine Maxwell in order to get 
her to clear Donald Trump. Well, Todd Blanche apparently offered 
himself up to interview Ghislaine Maxwell and strangely raised the 
possibility that Maxwell's lawyer ``might expect something in return 
for her candor,'' according to the Times. A convicted sex trafficker 
wishes something in return from the President of the United States.
  White House Counsel then laid out the possibility that Ghislaine 
Maxwell might be pardoned or have her sentence reduced. You heard that 
right. There literally was a serious discussion at the White House to 
pardon or reduce the sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell just in order to get 
her to say nice things about Donald Trump. And mind you, this is the 
same woman--the same woman--who facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's horrific 
abuse of underage girls over many years, year after year, hundreds of 
young women.
  Our justice system worked as it was supposed to. Maxwell was found 
guilty by a jury of her peers. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison 
for her crimes. That is why it was odd when Todd Blanche, in a highly 
unusual step, personally interviewed Maxwell. And days later, she was--
whoop--magically, magically transferred to a minimum security prison. 
Imagine that.
  That is not the only thing that is odd. Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, 
who Todd Blanche calls a friend, said that Maxwell wanted a pardon from 
Trump in exchange for her public testimony that would help Donald 
Trump. At the same time, Trump has refused to rule out--refused to rule 
out--pardoning her.
  Trump has said:

       I'm allowed to do it.

  He has even gone as far as saying:

       I'll take a look at it. I'll speak to the DOJ.

  This is our President. The President said he would speak to the DOJ, 
which would now be led by his former lawyer Todd Blanche.
  It is frankly horrifying that Trump would entertain the idea of 
clemency for even a second--even a second--for a convicted sex 
trafficker. That alone should be enough for the Senate to speak up with 
one voice and affirm that there should be absolutely no pardon for 
Ghislaine Maxwell--not now, not ever. That is why, earlier this year, I 
introduced a resolution doing just that. But given that Senate 
Republicans are poised to soon confirm Todd Blanche to lead the 
Department of Justice, the time to bring this resolution is now.
  Earlier this month, the Senate passed a similar resolution saying 
there should be no Presidential pardon for Sam Bankman-Fried, so we 
have already set that precedent here in this Chamber. So let us now 
send a message to the White House and the Department of Justice right 
now that there should be no pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. There should 
never be a pardon for someone who helped a monster--a monster--abuse 
underage girls for years. That is why I am requesting that we pass my 
commonsense resolution today saying just that.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 608.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 608) expressing the sense of the 
     Senate that Ghislaine Maxwell should not be granted a 
     Presidential pardon or any form of clemency for her crimes 
     with Jeffrey Epstein relating to the sexual exploitation and 
     abuse of minors.

  There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Ms. ROSEN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 
the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 608) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of 
February 12, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased that we could find 
unanimous agreement on a resolution against a pardon for Ghislaine 
Maxwell. If Republicans advance Todd Blanche's nomination tomorrow in 
the Judiciary Committee, this is the least they can do to make their 
opposition to a Maxwell pardon clear.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative senior proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Lindsey Graham

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to 
an outstanding U.S. Senator and a dear friend, Senator Lindsey Graham.
  When my husband first woke me with the news that Lindsey had died the 
night before, I couldn't believe it. I said to him: That can't possibly 
be true. I thought it was some tasteless internet hoax or a false 
report. Not Lindsey. Not our Lindsey. But sadly, it was true, although 
I still find it so hard to accept. I can only imagine how difficult 
this unexpected loss must be for his beloved sister Darline and the 
other members of his family.
  Often when we think of a Senator, we ask: Did he or she make a 
difference? Did he or she have an impact on events here at home or 
abroad? Was the person a consequential Senator?
  With Lindsey, the answer clearly was the resounding yes. Lindsey was 
a leader not only in national policy but also in shaping international 
events. How telling it is that the Prime Minister of Israel and the 
President of Ukraine both made the long voyage to attend his memorial 
service yesterday at the National Cathedral.
  Whether he was leading a congressional trip to Israel in the wake of 
the

[[Page S4312]]

October 7 massacre to demonstrate America's solidarity with Israel or 
his many trips to Ukraine to show the Senate's unwavering opposition to 
Russia's unprovoked invasion, Lindsey time and again demonstrated 
strong, effective leadership. He was truly a player on the world stage.
  And for me, Lindsey was also a close friend. Along with Senators John 
McCain and Joe Lieberman, I traveled four times with Lindsey to 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Believe me, on those long military trips, you get 
to know your colleagues very well. Lindsey's unsurpassed sense of 
humor, his self-deprecating wit, and his storytelling ability made 
serving with him delightful, and I always learned so much when I 
traveled with him as well.
  I keep thinking that John McCain and Joe Lieberman--both treasured 
friends and colleagues of mine--were there waiting to greet what they 
called the third amigo when Lindsey Graham entered the heavenly gates, 
and I tried to take some comfort in knowing that the three of them are 
now reunited.
  Yesterday, we celebrated the life of this extraordinary Senator. 
Lindsey's life on Earth ended far too soon, but his legacy will endure 
forever.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4744

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans 
failed to advance the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. That failure 
in the House was the latest example of broad bipartisan opposition to 
the Republican proposal to cut more than $50 billion--that is $50 
billion--in benefits for disabled veterans over the next 10 years.
  This controversial proposal continues to divide Congress, and it also 
is dividing the veteran community. And it is something we could have 
easily averted if my Republican friends had engaged in a serious and 
substantive conversation about the process, a conversation not only 
with Democrats but with the veterans service organizations.
  They pursued a take-it-or-leave-it approach. I would like to think 
that it is mainly the House of Representatives that is responsible for 
this take-it-or-leave-it approach because Democrats and veterans 
advocates have been very clear from the very beginning, we oppose the 
cuts in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act for more than 1 million 
veterans who are currently eligible to receive benefits because they 
suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus.
  These disabilities are not hypothetical or abstract; they are real. 
And they do disable people, and often they are the result directly from 
combat or training that inflicts the same kind of harms. For example, 
standing near artillery being fired for many hours a day, the result is 
impairments of hearing, tinnitus. And the toxic chemicals in training 
as well as in combat can result in sleep apnea.
  So I am here to say again I oppose efforts to water down the Major 
Richard Star Act, a DOD-administered and funded policy, with cuts to 
veterans' benefits. I oppose watering it down by taking care and 
benefits away from veterans.
  The Take Care of America's Veterans Act, to its credit, includes 
dozens of bipartisan priorities that Democrats have authored and 
championed. They are bipartisan, many of them. I support them. I want 
these priorities signed into law. Veterans, survivors, and caregivers 
deserve them. But we cannot accept the false narrative that accepting 
the Republican-proposed cuts is the only way to do it--our way or the 
highway--especially since it is a budgetary rule that has been 
selectively enforced in the past that somehow there needs to be an 
offset.
  In fact, there should not be an offset to care for veterans by taking 
away from other veterans for a program that is an obligation of the 
Department of Defense. Call it the Department of War; it is still their 
obligation to provide full retirement pay without subtraction for 
disability benefits, as is now required. Unjustly, unconscionably, 
Republicans insist on offsetting new investments in veterans with those 
offsets, which is absurd, and I hope still my Republican colleagues 
will look to the compromise that I have offered.
  I don't think there should be a need for an offset. There hasn't been 
for some benefits in the past. But if Republicans are going to continue 
to block the Major Richard Star Act with insistence on an offset or a 
pay-for, I have one. It is, in fact, contained in an alternative bill 
that I am offering today to address the two major concerns with the 
Take Care of America's Veterans Act. First, it would replace the 
watered-down version of the Major Richard Star Act with my bill to 
fully eliminate the wounded veterans tax, and it would strike the 
unprecedented cuts for disabled veterans who suffer from service-
connected tinnitus and sleep apnea. In doing so, it would utilize 
unspent Department of Defense funds from H.R. 1, the so-called Big 
Beautiful Bill, to cover the entire cost of the bill. It is the only 
offset proposal for the Take Care of America's Veterans Act that has 
garnered bipartisan support, and it is the one that doesn't pit some 
veterans against other veterans.
  More than $75 billion of the Department of Defense funds in H.R. 1, a 
bill signed into law more than 1 year ago, still remain unspent and 
unobligated, and CBO has confirmed--absolutely confirmed--enactment of 
my proposal prior to the Department's obligation of those funds would 
provide the savings we need. The CBO has said, if we pass this bill, 
the savings from unobligated funds can be counted as an offset.
  Let me just say bluntly: There is a lot of rhetorical rigmarole that 
we can apply to pay-go and offsets and pay-fors. We make the laws here. 
We can pay for this program out of unobligated funds that the Secretary 
of Defense--call him the Secretary of War--has said is unobligated.
  Now, he has said a lot of it will be obligated, but it is for things 
like the Golden Dome, where most military experts say that money will 
not be feasibly spent by the end of the year. We should use it if we 
need to have an offset.

  I believe that veterans, survivors, and caregivers have paid for 
their benefits through service and sacrifice. The cost of caring for 
veterans is part of the cost of war, and for those combat-injured 
veterans who are receiving disability benefits for their injuries, they 
should not have to sacrifice their retirement pay that is an obligation 
of the Department of Defense. It should not be taken out of the VA. It 
may seem like an abstract principle, but to veterans who would lose 
sleep apnea and tinnitus benefits, it is a big deal. In fact, it can be 
a life-changing deal.
  Costs that are dramatically increasing each day because of the 
President's blundering war of choice in Iran have resulted in 18 
service members dying and more than 600 injured, and they will be among 
the ones who are penalized if they retire with fewer than 20 years. We 
are creating a new generation of combat-injured veterans. It is 
unconscionable to claim that we can only care for them by forcing other 
veterans to sacrifice. We need to do the right thing. Veterans deserve 
meaningful results from a grateful nation, and they should never be 
handed an invoice when the costs of war come due.
  My Republican colleagues cannot claim that the Major Richard Star Act 
is unaffordable. If you want a chart to give you some idea of the 
comparatively minuscule cost of the Major Richard Star Act, here is $13 
billion. It is over 10 years. Here is our fiscal year 2027 defense 
request for 1 year. It dwarfs. In fact, $13 billion is hardly a 
rounding error on $1.5 trillion. The NDAA benefits expansion in fiscal 
year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 was $13 billion--no pay-for. The 
estimated cost of the Iran war: $38 billion. That figure is a lowball. 
It is in excess, really, of $100 billion; we all know it.
  Compared to all we spend on our defense capability, doing right by 
these veterans is basically a rounding error that the country can well 
afford.
  Now, my colleague's bill also siphons off $500 million from disabled 
veterans for an IT slush fund that the VA does not need or request. The 
money that they are taking from veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or 
tinnitus covers, in their view, the Major Richard Star

[[Page S4313]]

Act, but it is only 17 percent of the money that they are taking away 
from these disabled veterans. The rest of it, of the $56.2 billion that 
they would save by, in effect, inflicting harm on these veterans--who 
knows.
  Taking money from veterans with service-connected disabilities and 
giving it to President Trump's cronies or whoever else is going to lay 
claim to that compensation cut but not used is absolutely shameful--a 
staggering dereliction of our obligation to veterans. Cutting $56 
billion worth of benefits when only 15 percent, 17 percent will go 
toward covering new VA benefits is cruel and unconscionable. Better to 
adopt my compromise proposal. Taking unobligated funds--$13 billion--
out of the more than $75 billion that are unspent and unobligated, that 
the CBO says can be used for these savings, is the better way to go. It 
is the only one that has garnered bipartisan support. It is the only 
one that isn't opposed by the stakeholders. It is the only one that can 
pass. It is the only one that should pass.
  So notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 433, S. 4744. I 
ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the 
desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third 
time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, it saddens 
me that we are here because I wish we were here with a vote on the 
Senate floor to pass the Major Richard Star Act and other pieces of 
legislation that are so important to veterans, their families, and 
their caregivers across the country.
  The Senator from Connecticut outlined all the things that he says his 
amendment to this legislation would do and be supported by, but the 
reality is, the Senator from Connecticut has tried time and time again 
to pass legislation similar to that, never to succeed.
  Earlier this year, I was on the Senate floor at my seat here, 
standing here telling folks that maybe for once we will quit sponsoring 
pieces of legislation that benefit veterans but never get to the point 
in which they are actually passed. And I committed myself to finding a 
way in which passage of the legislation could occur, not just remarks 
on the Senate floor or in committee or in gatherings of veterans or 
speaking to our constituents at home of our support. In most instances, 
this would be the Major Richard Star Act, which has nearly every Member 
of the Senate as a cosponsor and many Members of the House of 
Representatives as cosponsors. But that has been the case for 6 years. 
I was looking for a path that would result in a result.
  At the heart of the debate today are those tens of millions of 
servicemembers, veterans and caregivers, survivors and family members, 
and VA employees who would benefit by the legislation that I have 
introduced--the legislation that the Senator from Connecticut is 
offering to accept with some amendments.
  These men and women have been waiting years--years--for the 
lifesaving benefits this bill would provide. What we will decide today 
will determine whether they can access the mental health treatments 
they desperately need, whether they can put food on the table and pay 
their bills on time, whether they are able to remarry after the loss of 
their servicemember or veteran spouse without sacrificing benefits they 
need to support their families, and much more.
  The point of that sentence or few sentences is that this is a 
comprehensive piece of legislation that begins with the Richard Star 
Act--the one that I said was sponsored by most Members of Congress but 
never sees the outcome those veterans and military retirees deserve.
  The stakes in this debate are high. I think the legislation we are 
talking about--perhaps debating about--is one of the most consequential 
pieces of legislation that will affect veterans, their family members, 
caregivers, and others certainly in my time as chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and perhaps my time in the U.S. Senate.
  I have been a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 14 years in 
the House and now 15 years in the Senate. I have devoted effort, time, 
and attention to making sure we do right by those who serve our 
country.
  I appreciate my colleague Senator Blumenthal--in fact, our shared 
determination, our dedication to the Richard Star Act. He has tried, as 
I understand by his words, eight times offering a unanimous consent, 
and each time, that effort has been unsuccessful.
  Occasionally, I get complimented for effort. I appreciate compliments 
at any stage of what we are doing here, but what we really ought to be 
interested in is getting results--not results for a compliment but 
results because it makes such a difference in so many veterans' lives.
  Today, the Senator from Connecticut--it is another example of his 
attempt to pass legislation--usually without an offset but today using 
an alternative offset. I respect his goal, but once again, as of July 
22, the Congressional Budget Office has again confirmed to the 
committee that a rescission of unobligated funds to the Department of 
Defense in H.R. 1 does not offset mandatory spending and therefore does 
not qualify under the requirements of law to the Senate--excuse me--the 
requirements of law as the Senate does its work but as the House and 
Congress are obligated to abide by.
  This plan does not meet the needs of the moment, and it will result 
in the failure by Congress once again to deliver to America's heroes.
  There is a simple choice before us: We can either keep repeating 
failed efforts that result in no progress delivering for veterans and 
military families or we can step up and provide leadership needed to 
finally get them the help they need and deserve--action and results. We 
want action that has results. This is why shortly after this 
conversation, this discussion between the Senator from Connecticut and 
I, I will be asking for a unanimous consent agreement myself to pass 
the legislation with an offset that the Congressional Budget Office has 
determined to be a viable offset.
  The Take Care of America's Veterans Act would expand benefits and 
healthcare to millions of veterans and their families, caregivers, and 
survivors across our Nation.
  It combines 60--I think our committee, the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, deservedly has the reputation of working in a bipartisan way 
to get results. We combined, in our efforts to get the Richard Star 
Act, other pieces of legislation that are hugely important to the 
veteran community--60 pieces of bipartisan legislation chosen in this 
process of putting this package together for their sponsorship and 
support by Democrats and Republicans.
  This is not a partisan effort; this is a desire, an effort to 
accomplish something that would benefit all of us who have made efforts 
to support our veterans and to make certain that we do it in a way that 
gets 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.
  That includes the Major Richard Star Act, of which the Senator from 
Connecticut has been a longtime advocate. That is to address a 
longstanding injustice--something that is totally wrong--by allowing 
medically retired, combat-disabled veterans--they are not allowed to 
receive both benefits. This would allow medically retired, combat-
disabled veterans to receive both disability compensation from the VA 
and their earned retirement pay from the DOD.
  The Senator from Connecticut talks about our committee and the 
committee that he serves on as well, the Armed Services Committee. The 
Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction, but there are so many 
veterans that have consequences from the current law that we decided--I 
decided it was time for us to step forward and find a path forward.

  This legislation, in addition to the underlying Richard Star Act, 
includes the Love Lives on Act. That allows surviving spouses of fallen 
servicemembers and veterans to remarry without losing the benefits they 
need to support their families.
  It includes the Veterans' ACCESS Act to make it easier for veterans 
to get lifesaving treatment--and particularly mental health 
capabilities--and expands access to high-quality care in VA medical 
facilities and in the community as well.

[[Page S4314]]

  Those of us from rural places understand the value of that community 
care, and in today's time of challenges with our veterans' mental 
health and suicide prevention efforts, that community care becomes even 
more important. Quick access is critical.
  It also includes the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans 
Benefits Expansion Act to increase compensation benefits for veterans 
with severe service-connected disabilities and their families.
  There are dozens of other bills--bipartisan bills sponsored and led 
by Republicans and led by Democratic Members of the Senate--that are 
included in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act to make certain the 
VA is equipped with the right resources, staff, facilities, and 
authorities to provide the support servicemembers, veterans, and their 
families need.
  The question we generally are arguing about is the pay-for. Again, 
the law requires that. To pay for these improvements, this bill would 
codify elements of a rule that the VA proposed 4 years ago in the Biden 
administration, in 2022. The VA indicated then and now that it plans to 
change how the Department evaluates claims for service-connected 
disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus. VA officials testified 
before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in January that the 
Department is moving forward, and VA officials confirmed that again 
just several weeks ago.
  The reason this is important is that that means there are going to be 
changes that the VA is authorized to make in these two arenas in 
providing benefits to veterans.
  The VA in the Biden administration--and apparently agreed to in the 
Trump administration--found there were ways to improve--they are 
required by law to evaluate the benefits they provide veterans, and if 
changes are appropriate because of medicine or science or changes in 
treatment, the VA can modify those benefits to reflect current science 
and medicine. The VA is going to do that. The offset is the fact that 
when the VA does that, it saves money. When the VA does that, however, 
it will be considered paying down the debt.
  I don't know how it can be a radical idea or an unfair idea that if 
we are going to take the money out of the VA for those two 
circumstances--the VA is going to do that--why don't we capture a 
significant portion of that and actually use that money to provide 
benefits to veterans? It is not like we are taking something away. The 
VA is going to alter the formula in their normal course of business, 
and we are capturing the savings in part--we are capturing part of the 
savings to actually use it to help other veterans, their families, and 
their caregivers.
  Once the Department finalizes the rule, the savings associated from 
that change in the rule will be lost. It will no longer serve as an 
offset for anything; it will just go into the General Treasury. It will 
be a lost opportunity for us to reinvest those funds in the long 
overdue improvements included in the Take Care of America's Veterans 
Act.
  My colleague has stated that ``the costs of war include caring for 
our veterans.'' I share that sentiment. Military service is a family 
service. The cost of war also includes caring for spouses and children 
and caregivers and survivors. The Take Care of America's Veterans Act 
would do that and more.
  So we had the opportunity to use something that is going to happen. 
We had the opportunity--we have the opportunity to make sure it is used 
to benefit veterans. The idea that we are taking a benefit away from 
someone is also false. This is prospective. After the rule changes, 
that is when we have the opportunity to make certain that we are still 
caring for our veterans. We are not taking anything away from any 
veteran that receives benefits today. In fact, there is a grace period 
in which veterans can continue to apply for these benefits after this 
legislation becomes law.
  We are not taking anything away; we are using money that the VA says 
is no longer going to be spent and spending that money in a different 
way for veterans, often including the same veterans that receive those 
disability payments.
  This legislation is strongly supported by many military and veterans 
organizations, including the Wounded Warrior Project, the Military 
Officers Association of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, 
the Tragedy Assistance Program--or TAPS--for Survivors, the Elizabeth 
Dole Foundation, the Veterans Justice Alliance, the National Defense 
Committee, the Military Coalition, and Mission Roll Call.
  It is also supported by the American Legion--the largest veteran 
service organization in the country--and by Medal of Honor recipients 
Britt Slabinski and Earl Plumlee, the president and vice president of 
the Medal of Honor Society.
  It is also supported by Richard Star's brother, who has been an 
advocate for the Richard Star legislation since the beginning of this 
issue's arrival and certainly since the passing of his brother and his 
interest in making sure that his brother is honored.
  These organizations know the challenges facing the military and 
veteran community. They know firsthand the high cost of continued 
inaction by Congress, the cycle of delaying veterans, caregivers, and 
survivors from receiving earned benefits.
  It is not a perfect analogy, but I remember my own mother lobbying me 
because she was a ``Notch Baby'' in the Social Security system. If you 
were born in a certain set of years, your benefits were less than the 
people before you and the people after you.
  My mom accused me of--Congress--maybe she wasn't accusing me 
personally--but accused Congress of just waiting until she died before 
making the change.
  I want to make sure that we do not lose another veteran, another 
servicemember. I want to make sure we get a result and we get a result 
fast.
  When I introduced this legislation, my assumption was that we could 
accomplish this--even in the Senate and the House in this difficult 
world we work in--that this legislation could be passed by Congress and 
signed by the President, this legislation that is supported by the 
White House. We could get this legislation done in the miracle of a 
month.
  I didn't anticipate the opposition that has arisen. I have indicated 
to the Senator--the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs--an interest in working together to resolve differences, and we 
will work to do that.
  But doing what we have done--what has been done time and time again--
of a UC request that has no result is unsatisfactory to me and 
unsatisfactory to the veterans and the veterans organizations I just 
listed. I am tired of waiting. Don't wait until our veterans are no 
longer living before you do something to protect their benefits and 
resolve an injustice that has gone on far too long.
  The cycle of delaying veterans, caregivers, and survivors from 
receiving their earned benefits must end and must end now.
  And with that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am, frankly, astonished and appalled 
by the argument just made by my friend and colleague from Kansas, the 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. His argument essentially 
is: The VA is going to take away these benefits through rulemaking and, 
therefore, we should take advantage of the savings that the VA is going 
to make by action that is wrong, unconscionable, and deeply hurtful to 
veterans.
  Now, let's be very blunt here. The Biden administration was 
considering a similar proposal. I fought it. We fought it successfully. 
The Biden administration backed down because they knew it was wrong.
  I predict that there will be this similar kind of outrage in the 
veterans community to taking away these disability benefits from well-
deserving veterans and that the present Secretary of the VA will be 
forced to back down as well.
  Why are we doing his handiwork when he has not even yet proposed the 
rule? We are assuming he will do something that is wrong, shameful, and 
unconscionable--and we should take advantage of it? Count me out.
  I fought the Biden administration on this one. I will fight any rule 
that will inflict this harm on veterans. And even

[[Page S4315]]

if he were to do it, why should we codify it, put it into statute so 
that it can't be reversed at some later point without another statute?
  I am hopeful that we can reconsider this idea of depriving disabled 
veterans of benefits in order to help other veterans.
  Now I want to be very clear. This is my eighth or ninth time here, 
asking for unanimous consent, but it is an entirely new proposal that I 
am offering. In fact, it is the same proposal that the Senator from 
Kansas is offering, except it doesn't take away benefits from veterans; 
it pays for the measure in another way.
  The Senator from Kansas says it would be against the law for us to do 
it. Who makes laws here? The Senate and the Congress make the laws. If 
we made a law about how to pay for something, we can make an exception 
to that law. We are not bound inextricably and inevitably by other 
Congresses if we face an injustice under laws that other Congresses 
have passed. I am unwilling to accept the idea that we have to deprive 
benefits--gouge them, in effect--of benefits they have earned.
  And let me just conclude by saying: All of the good things in this 
bill, count me in; but taking away benefits from veterans to pay for 
them, count me out.
  I think we can do better as a nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I object. I indicated my objection.
  Mr. President, I have described the Take Care of America's Veterans 
Act in my remarks following the unanimous consent request by the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  But, again, I would highlight that these are changes that are going 
to be made under normal statutory law by rules at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. And the end result is that the money, when saved, 
will be--the reductions and the savings that occur will accrue to the 
General Treasury, as compared to the benefits that we want to provide 
to the veterans in this country.
  Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 433, S. 4744. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Moran substitute amendment at the desk be 
agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and 
passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, for all the reasons that I have 
stated, this bill has all the right measures that I can support except 
taking away benefits in the expectation that the VA Secretary is going 
to promulgate a rule that has been beaten back in a prior 
administration, that we should be united in opposing.
  Let me ask my colleague, the chairman of the VA Committee: Will you 
support the VA Secretary in proposing this rule that would, in effect, 
cut benefits for disabled veterans?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is reminded to direct his 
questions to the Chair.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I propose that question to my 
colleague through the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You can answer; you cannot answer.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing to work to 
make sure the veterans receive the benefits they are entitled to and to 
make certain that the VA does its job in a medical- and science-based 
manner and would await for the VA to accomplish that, which they 
indicated as recently as 2 weeks ago they were going to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am going to be really charitable 
because I know my colleague's heart is in the right place, and I know 
we share an objective here, which is to care for our veterans.
  And I am going to interpret that answer as his being willing to 
join--if it comes to pass that we have this proposed rule, that he 
would oppose it.
  I think the VSOs would oppose it. I think the veterans community 
would oppose it. I think the people of America would oppose it, which 
is why it was withdrawn under the Biden administration--because it is 
such a shameful, bad idea. And we should not incorporate it in a 
veterans bill, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act as a means to 
pay for benefits to other veterans when there is no need for a pay-for.
  All of the good things in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act--I 
support. We have a path. We have a path. Use the money from H.R. 1: 
unspent, unobligated, unfeasible to spend before the end of the fiscal 
year. It will go back into the Treasury.
  I think the path is clear. I hope we can come together and support 
it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the underlying 
request?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the rulemaking process that was initiated 
in the Biden administration in 2022 has continued on the VA's list of 
work and has never been withdrawn and continues to be considered. And 
as I indicated now for the third time--indicated by the Secretary of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs--the Department--that it will be 
implemented.
  I just know that repeating the same political talking points without 
a realistic alternative has prevented these bills--and particularly the 
Richard Star Act--from passing for years. It has been too easy for us 
to put our name on the legislation and never see it accomplished.
  We can tell our veterans we are supporting them, we are working for 
them--I want a path forward that actually demonstrates that we are able 
to accomplish the elimination of this injustice and the support for 
veterans who desperately need our attention.
  Our veterans should not have to--they know the cost of war. They 
should not have to wait for us any longer.
  And, again, the offer that the Senator from Connecticut indicated, it 
is the same kind of UC request with something as was--that doesn't 
result in a result because it is not an offset that satisfies the law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Indiana.


                         SHIPS for America Act

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, Americans are aware that many of the 
products we buy and sell in this country are manufactured in China, but 
fewer may know that most of the Chinese goods come across the ocean and 
into our ports on Chinese ships--whether they are flying the Chinese 
flag, whether they are owned or operated by Chinese companies, or are 
even built in Chinese shipyards.
  But what may come as a shock is that those same ships could also 
carry deadly weapons. That is right. Hidden among the shipping 
containers carrying appliances, clothing, and household goods, might 
well be missile launchers and drone launching systems. Arriving 
undetected, they could target our cities, destroy our infrastructure, 
and kill our citizens.
  This is a possibility American leaders must prepare for now. Naval 
analysts confirm that China is retrofitting cargo ships with deadly 
weapons: long-range strike and surface-to-air missiles, drone launching 
systems, and radar and tracking systems.
  A large percentage of these vessels coming in and out of our ports 
are owned and operated by firms with direct ties to the Chinese 
Communist Party. What if one of these ships arrived in one of America's 
largest ports? Now, the best case scenario is our intelligence 
community would detect the weapons, enabling the Coast Guard to 
intercept and seize the Chinese ship. That is the best case scenario.
  But there is a far more alarming possibility: An armed Chinese cargo 
carrier slips in, undetected, and it launches devastating attacks on 
the port, destroying vital infrastructure and killing hundreds, and 
possibly many, many more.
  The Port of Houston is, for example, one of the largest by tonnage in 
our country. It is home to the world's largest petrochemical complex 
and a quarter of America's oil refining capacity.

[[Page S4316]]

The explosions caused by a Chinese attack on the port would send clouds 
of carcinogens into the air and over nearby communities. Meanwhile, 
America's energy supply would be devastated, causing painful shortages 
and draining the economy of millions of dollars a day.
  A similar disaster could play out at any of our other major ports--
Los Angeles, for example, our hub for transpacific trade; or Hampton 
Roads, VA, the east coast's deepest harbor and home to the world's 
largest naval base.
  Now, neither of these situations is inevitable if we cut our reliance 
on Chinese vessels and we decide to make American ships again.
  You see, the United States was once home to the world's largest 
commercial fleet, numbering 4,000 ships. Today, we manufacture only a 
handful of commercial vessels each year. China can build over a 
thousand. In total, the United States has fewer than 100 ocean-going 
commercial vessels; while China, they have nearly 6,000, the largest 
fleet in the world.
  Letting our maritime industrial base continue to rust is a great 
risk. It doesn't just give China control over global supply chains and 
levers to constrain America's policy options; it presents the Chinese 
Communist Party opportunities every day to sneak weapons into our 
cities.
  We have a choice. We can do nothing and invite a potential economic 
and national security disaster, or we can rebuild our fleet. We can end 
our dependence on Chinese ships, and we can open up a new era of 
American ship building.
  I choose the latter. I choose restoring American maritime dominance.
  The SHIPS for America Act is the best way to accomplish this. The 
bill will encourage the construction of new ships and shipyards through 
tax incentives. It will deliver deregulation and permitting reform to 
reduce costs and speed the delivery of new vessels. It also will 
modernize training programs at our maritime academies and recruit a new 
generation of mariners.
  And the SHIPS Act will establish a maritime security trust fund to 
finance these programs, plus an expansion of the U.S.-flagged 
international fleet to 250 ships by the mid-2030s.
  Now, we have a strong champion in President Trump, whose Maritime 
Action Plan is consistent with this bill.
  China is retrofitting its commercial ships into covert warships. The 
evidence is clear. So too is the risk of allowing these vessels to 
dominate global trade and fill our ports because we have no ships of 
our own.
  But we have a plan to protect our ports and people, to build and 
launch a new fleet manned by American mariners, flying the Stars and 
Stripes. And Congress should pass the SHIPS Act without delay.
  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. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Stop Insider Trading Act

  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, integrity--integrity inspires 
confidence. We have a problem here in the Senate and in the House: 80 
percent of Americans believe we do a poor job of keeping our financial 
interests separate from the insider information that we have. People 
don't have the confidence in us, and that leads to an approval rating 
of 15 percent for Congress.
  But we can help restore integrity, and therefore confidence--
confidence in the Senate, confidence in the House, confidence in our 
institutions. We can do that with a bill that I have introduced called 
the Stop Insider Trading Act.
  Now, it is well known that Members of this body and the House have 
bought individual stocks. In fact, we have seen that people will post 
on social media the stock trades of the former Speaker of the House and 
trade off of her trades. In fact, as crazy as it sounds, that has 
become a legitimate investment strategy because it makes money. And 
that undermines the confidence people have in our institutions.
  We have disclosure laws, which is how people can see those trades and 
make them. But it is not enough for the integrity of the institution. 
We need to make the rules stronger. We need to stop people from being 
able to buy individual stocks in the Senate and in the House.
  We need my Stop Insider Trading Act because that is exactly what it 
does. It says that, if you get elected to the House of Representatives 
or the U.S. Senate, you can no longer buy stock. Trading on insider 
information will become impossible because you won't be able to make 
that purchase.
  Now, we also want to make sure that if, say, you come from a 
successful business, we don't want to penalize you. We are not going to 
force you to sell your stock of your company. But we are going to say 
that you have to give notice, 7 days at least, to let people know if 
you are going to sell any positions you own. Remember, you can't buy 
any more. But if you have some already and you want to sell them, you 
have to give 7 days' notice.
  And that will address the issue of, for example, when we had a member 
of the Intelligence Committee sell about a million and a half dollars' 
worth of stock right before the COVID pandemic selloff of the stock 
market.
  Even the perception of impropriety undermines the integrity, and 
therefore the confidence the people have. So let's stop it altogether. 
Let's ban people's ability to use insider information to buy stocks and 
make sure, if they are going to sell any, that they have got to tell 
everybody well in advance so that Americans and the market can know.
  My bill also has real teeth in it. It is a $2,000 fine or 10 percent 
of the proceeds. Let's say you sell a million dollars in stock, and you 
didn't tell the market ahead of time, like you were supposed to. You 
didn't follow that 7-day rule. It is a $100,000 penalty--a 10-percent 
penalty. So either $2,000 or 10 percent, whichever is bigger, plus you 
have to give up all your profits. That is a penalty with teeth that 
will get the attention of Members here on Capitol Hill.
  It is time that we restore the integrity and the confidence in this 
body when it comes to inside information. We, because of our position, 
have access to this, but we should not benefit from it. This is 
supposed to be public service. No one should come here seeking a 
profit.
  And yet, on Monday night, some of my colleagues tried to pass a 
unanimous consent, passing the Stop Insider Trader Act that the House 
of Representatives passed, and Democrats blocked it. Democrats blocked 
my Stop Insider Trading Act, which would have helped restore confidence 
in this body.
  It is time that we got the Democrats on board, that we get this 
passed. It passed in the House with Democrat support. And 13 Democrats 
and 2 Democratic cosponsors are on the Stop Insider Trading Act in the 
House, which the House was able to pass. They have sent it here for the 
U.S. Senate--for us--to do our job.
  I call on my Democratic colleagues--my colleagues across the aisle: 
Please, get on board. We need to restore faith in the institution. A 
15-percent approval rating is terrible. We need to restore the 
integrity. We need to restore the confidence.
  My Stop Insider Trading Act does just that. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to get on board this commonsense proposal to be able to 
restore integrity and confidence in the U.S. Senate and prevent insider 
trading from getting between us and the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                            Social Security

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I want to talk about a subject people 
just love to talk about. I have come to the floor to talk about a big 
scam in our country. It is happening in broad daylight before our very 
eyes. Politicians here in Washington know what is going on, but they 
refuse to speak about it. They are too worried about getting reelected 
in most cases, and they think telling the truth about the scam will 
hurt their chances of staying in power.
  Well, here is the sad truth: For decades now, the American people 
have paid into Social Security each month without having any idea if 
they will ever see a cent of the money they put in.

[[Page S4317]]

  Since being signed into law in 1935 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our 
great President, Americans' money has been going in the front door of 
the Federal Government and then going right out the back door. Your 
dollar doesn't grow, and it doesn't come back to you or your children. 
It is a big, gigantic, blown-up Ponzi scheme, and the last time I 
looked, people who do Ponzi schemes usually go to jail.
  Every American is forced to participate in it. You have no choice. 
You don't have a say in the matter. Whether you are 17 or 67, more than 
6 percent of your paycheck is taken out by the Federal Government to 
pay for Social Security--your so-called retirement. That might not seem 
like a lot, but to millions of Americans struggling to live paycheck to 
paycheck, that 6 percent is a huge sacrifice.
  Americans have been paying into this program for years, only to see a 
fraction of what they have been promised. It really makes you wonder 
how this government-approved Ponzi scheme is legal.
  The truth is that this ``retirement savings'' program is 100 percent 
broke. It is absolutely broke, just like our Federal Government--$40 
trillion in debt. The Social Security trust fund is projected to run 
out of its reserve money in 2032--just a few years from now. You know, 
when these funds are depleted, senior citizens could see a cut in their 
monthly check up to 22 to 25 percent of their benefits. On average, 
that is $500 a month.
  You know, if the Federal Government were to try to save the program, 
it would most likely mean that your taxes would skyrocket.
  Mr. President, 38 percent of mandatory spending within the Federal 
budget annually goes toward the failing Social Security Program. Yes, 
the money you send up here, 38 percent a year goes to Social Security--
not the money that you already sent because, guess what, it has been 
sent and it has been spent and scammed out of our system. It is not 
there. In other words, almost $1.6 trillion every year of your taxpayer 
dollars is being spent on a program that is currently scheduled to go 
bankrupt in 6 years. So basically, the money you send up here has been 
spent and now is nowhere to be found.
  The Social Security Program is the single largest program we are 
wasting our tax dollars on--the biggest. It is a mind-boggling program 
to say the least, but don't worry, it gets worse.
  After decades of having Social Security taken out, millions of 
Americans have to pay taxes when they go to collect their Social 
Security. Yep, you heard exactly right. After you pay taxes and you put 
it in there for savings for many years and you get it back, guess 
what--you have to pay taxes on it now because our former President and 
former Senator, Mr. Joe Biden, when he was a Senator in 1983, got the 
great idea of, let's tax Social Security. What a scam. Depending on 
which tax bracket you are in, between 50 percent to 85 percent of your 
benefits can be taxed by the Federal Government.
  Last year, I introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act to 
stop the unjust double tax on Social Security benefits. Thankfully, the 
One Big Beautiful Bill included senior deductions that significantly 
reduce Federal taxes for the majority of retirees. Thank goodness.
  In a day and age where the cost of living is skyrocketing, our 
seniors should not experience a second tax on their Social Security 
when they have already paid tax on that money. If we must keep this 
outdated program, the least we can do is to ensure that senior citizens 
don't get slapped with a double tax.
  Despite what millions of Americans have been tricked into believing, 
it turns out that paying into Social Security does not entitle you to a 
fixed pot of money. Everybody thinks: We are going to pay in, and I am 
going to get a lot of money in the end. The sad reality is that many 
Americans won't see a cent of the money that they paid into Social 
Security.

  Basically, Social Security is just, folks, another tax--a tax on both 
employees and employers since most companies have to match the 6 
percent that their employees are forced to pay out of their paychecks. 
Yeah, they double the tax.
  This is socialism. It is highway robbery. And for the last 60 years, 
we have known this program was going under, but no one up here has been 
willing to fix it. In fact, Social Security is known as the third rail 
of politics that no one up here is allowed to talk about.
  Don't talk about Social Security because we don't have a solution, 
and we might lose our jobs.
  In fact, Social Security is known as that third rail because nobody 
will touch it. It is taboo to talk about Social Security. But my 
question is: Why? Why is that? We work for the people. We work for the 
taxpayers. We have known this program was going bankrupt for years. It 
has been a disaster since day one.
  When millions of Americans are going to reach retirement age soon, we 
had better look out. They are expecting to get their money. They are 
expecting to get the money that they paid into Social Security for 
years. They are going to get screwed over with nothing left, and this 
is going to be a serious problem.
  The Social Security scam doesn't stop there. As you know, Joe Biden 
welcomed tens of millions of illegals into this country with open arms. 
They said that our borders are closed. Yep, after they let 20 million 
people in that shouldn't be here. These aren't nice people either, most 
of them. Many of them are rapists, murderers, drug lords, and gang 
members. Well, it turns out, the Biden administration and Alejandro 
Mayorkas, our great Homeland Security Director, they weren't just 
letting these illegals into our country without vetting them; they were 
handing them Social Security and Medicaid benefits as they were coming 
into the door.
  Welcome to the United States of America. We are broke, but we are 
going to give you money. We are going to give you a Social Security 
number.
  It is no wonder we are broke. While millions of Americans will never 
see the Social Security benefits that they worked hard to pay into 
throughout their career, illegals, they are getting money. They are 
getting rich off the money that Joe Biden said that they could have. It 
is disgusting, but it is not surprising. This is our Federal 
Government.
  So why aren't we allowed to talk about it? It is almost like the 
system was set up to fail from the get-go. I caught a lot of flak when 
I brought this up in a hearing just a few years ago.
  What is this guy talking about? We are going to get Social Security.
  Yep. If you believe that, I got beach land I will sell you out in 
Arizona.
  If every single American had invested the money that they are forced 
to pay in Social Security each month into a stock--if they had done 
that, they would have gotten 10 times the money that they put in, if it 
was just invested in the stock market.
  But do you know where it was invested in? Most people don't know 
this. Your money, when it comes here, is put into Treasury bonds that 
have very low returns--very, very low--not even close to anything that 
you would ever invest in yourself. That is where your money goes.
  Don't be naive. The reason Social Security is invested in bonds is 
because it is being used to basically prop up the Federal Government.
  We are broke. We don't have any money. Please send more. Can we raise 
the Social Security tax and just tell them they are going to get more 
money at the end?
  Folks, it is a scam. If this money had been invested in the stock 
market, again, you would have had 10 to 15 times more money. It is 
embarrassing, but apparently we are not supposed to bring that up.
  To his credit, President George Bush tried to save Social Security in 
2000. He tried to privatize a lot of this money. If we had just done 
that--if this body in here would have just said: OK, we know we screwed 
it up for 40 years. Let's go ahead and do it. Let's get out of this 
jam.
  They didn't want any part of it because they wanted to steal the rest 
of the money, and that is exactly what is going on.
  He suggested that younger workers divert their portion--young workers 
divert their portion--to a money market account that would pay for 
theirs in the future and ours today, those of us that are close to the 
Social Security. But, of course, the DC swamp up here,

[[Page S4318]]

they shut that down fast: Let's don't talk about Social Security. It is 
taboo. It is a dang shame. The program might not be on the verge of 
bankruptcy today if they had just invested part of the young people's 
money into the market.
  But you have to remember, the government relies on your money for 
their slush fund. The Federal Government stopped working in your best 
interest a long, long time ago. The average taxpayer earning the median 
wage is paying approximately $3,500 to $4,500 annually into the Social 
Security Program. Over a 40-year work period, that is around $140,000 
to $180,000. That could have gone toward a 401(k), and you would have 
had money to retire on. People would be seeing much greater returns.
  We had better start figuring this out, folks. We had better start 
figuring it out. This group up here, a lot of them say: I am going to 
be gone. I won't have to worry about it.
  Somebody is going to pay the price.
  It won't be long until people will be coming right around this 
building going: Where is my money?
  Do you remember January 6? Yep. January 6 was a pretty bad day. I was 
here. I sat right over there. It was my very first day here. I was 
thinking: What a disaster I have gotten into.
  Well, if you start telling people, ``You are not getting your Social 
Security money,'' it is going to get ugly. And I don't blame them--not 
one bit. We are $40 trillion in debt. There is no sign of it slowing 
down. The bottom line is we need to get bureaucrats and politicians out 
of this mess, stop the Social Security scam, let people really know 
what is going on, and give the money back to the people.
  We need to make sure Americans get what they were promised, or we 
need to come up with an alternative solution that would allow Americans 
to make their own retirement investments. Give them their money, or 
let's put it in a money market account. The stock market is booming.
  It is far past time Washington, DC, starts working for the people 
that we are supposed to represent. What a thought. That is mind-
boggling, isn't it? Why would we do that? We work for ourselves up 
here. We don't work for the people. It is ridiculous. It is a scam. Not 
for special interests. Not for career politicians entrenched in 
bureaucracy or for Washington elite pet projects.
  Instead of spending money we don't have on things we don't need, why 
don't we put the money back into the American people's pockets and tell 
them the damn truth: We stole your money, but we are going to try to 
get your money back.
  Not only is it in America's best interest to do this; it is the right 
thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Delaware.


                       Tribute to Marie Cordivano

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, all of us who hold the office of Senator 
know that we really only succeed in our service to the States which we 
represent because of the tireless dedication of the men and women who 
make up our teams, back home where we are from and here in Washington, 
DC.
  While we may be the face or the voice on television--it is our name 
on the bills; it is our name on the door--it is really the folks who 
make up our teams that make it possible for us to make a difference 
every day for the people we represent.
  I am blessed to represent a million Delawareans. And I know that I 
could not do that job at all, let alone well, without the gift and the 
blessing of the service of roughly 50 people.
  But today I want to take some time out to thank and recognize the 
heart of my team in Delaware, someone whom I have long admired and 
whose service I greatly appreciate, Marie Cordivano.
  What does it take to run a political campaign, to run a political 
party, to run a Senate office? It takes someone like Marie. I have 
known her so long I feel like she has been in my office for decades, 
but it has really only been 5 years that she has been a full-time part 
of my Senate office, but I have known her since I first ran.
  She is the heartbeat of the Delaware Democratic Party and, in many 
ways, of my office in Wilmington, DE. She brings so much to her service 
to her job: kindness, hospitality, a charitable and upbeat spirit, a 
passion for serving others, a lifelong Democrat, someone who is because 
she believes in helping others.
  When I have asked folks for what they associate with Marie, one word 
came up over and over: mushrooms. Now, that might surprise you if you 
are not from where I am from, but just on the northern border of 
Delaware is the center of mushroom horticulture in North America, and 
because of Marie's family connection to some of the leaders in the 
mushroom industry, every year she brings a pallet at Thanksgiving of 
boxes of mushrooms and won't let anyone go without accepting one.
  Being as I am a little picky about the Ethics Committee on which I 
serve, I initially tried to reject these gifts of mushrooms, to donate 
them to the food bank, or give them to someone else. And yet, like so 
much of Marie's hospitality and kindness, they just kept coming.
  They are a welcomed and appreciated gift but a reminder of the 
example of her kindness and her generosity to others.
  That is the word that came up most often when I asked others who have 
served with her for now 5 years in my office: What do you think of when 
you think of Marie? Kind, someone who gives great, big, warm hugs, who, 
even if she is having a hard day, asks: ``How is your day,'' someone 
with contagious positivity, someone who every day has to answer call 
after call after call from constituents who more often than not are 
calling to complain.
  And Marie doesn't just answer the phone, she listens. She doesn't 
just listen, she engages. She doesn't just engage, she educates. She 
handles it with incredible skill, making sure that the folks who call 
my office are heard and their concerns are conveyed, and, if possible, 
that they leave better understanding what it is they called in about 
because, let's be blunt, sometimes these calls are motivated by seeing 
something on cable TV that maybe isn't exactly true. And so in a gentle 
but positive way, she asks persistent questions and guides my 
constituents to better insight.
  When I have asked others in the office, they have said this: I can't 
imagine a better person to represent you, Chris, to your constituents. 
Even over the phone, you get a sense of Marie's heart and warmth, and 
there is no one more dedicated, not just for the fight of democracy but 
for the values of Chris Coons and his office.
  So, Marie, thank you. Thank you for sharing your kindness. Thank you 
for sharing your warmth. Thank you for sharing what you have done for 
Delaware for so long. You are loved across our DC and Delaware teams 
and will be dearly missed. I hope you get to spend more time now with 
your children Ben and Sarah, with your grandchildren Asher and Carter, 
with your dog Nico.
  You are the best of Delaware, a proud Padua alumna with a passion for 
service, family, kindness, and democracy. I cannot wait to hear about 
the adventures ahead, and thank you for your service.


                        Tribute to Jose Estrada

  Mr. President, I want to take some time today to also speak about 
someone who has been the heart of my team here in Washington, Jose 
Estrada.
  My wife and I have come to view Jose not just as a colleague, an 
employee, but a friend, a member of our extended family.
  What makes for an incredible public servant? diligence, 
determination, insight, hard work, humor, trust, kindness. Jose has all 
of these and more.
  When he initially got the job offer, he drove without stopping from 
San Diego to DC, just a first sign of the intensity of his commitment 
to this work. I have watched him grow from being a right-out-of-college 
22-year-old to someone whose advice and counsel on a daily basis are 
key to me and how I do my job.
  He is often the first person I see in the morning and the last person 
I see at night. And he is incredibly humble and would never take credit 
for all the contributions he has made to my team and my office, which 
is why I thought it was important to get it on the record so that in 
the future he could not deny that he was well-regarded, well-respected, 
and made a significant impact.
  It is hard to capture everything Jose does for our team. He is 
someone who

[[Page S4319]]

always has the answers to pressing questions, whether from me, from the 
scheduling team, or from interns. He remembers whom I was in a meeting 
with 3 years ago. He remembers the details of all sorts of memos. He 
remembers the details of my life; what church I grew up in, what 
neighborhood I grew up in.
  He has now mentored more than 70 interns in my office, and I am very 
proud of our intern program because it is where I hire from. I began 
here as an intern for Senator Bill Roth and for Senator Joe Biden, and 
knowing that Jose has taken intense care of every intern, their 
interview and selection, their placement in making sure they have the 
chance to genuinely contribute, means a lot to Annie and me.
  From one of our former interns, they said: In a role where Jose had 
to be everywhere and do everything, he still spent the time to get to 
know each of us and make sure our internship was special.
  And he has been so good at it that they then come and work for us 
full time in our office.
  From one of his colleagues in my office here in Washington: In any 
crisis, you know you can call Jose and he will just take care of it. 
Not only will he take care of it, but you know you have a friend 
through all of it.
  Jose, you have served with selflessness, kindness, dedication, even 
joy. You are someone who is willing to put in the hard work, to work 
14, 16, 18 hours a day. When we are here all night for vote-arama, he 
is the one who is with me at 3 a.m., 4 a.m., 5 a.m. He takes the time 
to get up early, get that extra cup of coffee, get in to talk to the 
interns early, get them doughnuts, be generous with his time and 
advice, and make our office a great place to be.
  The most important accolade, of course, comes not from me but from my 
wife Annie, who literally said Jose is one of the most ``thoughtful and 
kind people'' we know. I know he will be an inspiration to his 11-
month-old niece Valentina. I know his parents Jose and Marisela are so 
proud of him. They need to know that you raised a remarkable young man. 
I know they will be thrilled to have him back in California as he 
returns to attend Stanford Law School this fall.
  I believe there is nothing this promising young man cannot do. He has 
demonstrated remarkable wisdom and talent, insight into politics, and I 
am confident his future is bright, and we will someday see him back 
here.
  The next chapter of his life includes becoming a lawyer and using the 
skills and the talent of a lawyer to change lives, to help those whom 
the law does not protect, and to advocate for justice at a time when 
that is really at risk in our Nation.
  Jose, the office will simply not be the same without you, but you 
leave us better. We all will carry a piece of your heart, your humor, 
your kindness, and your insight. And you won't be free of us either 
because you are a friend and a member of our family for life.
  You are the best of what DC should be, someone here truly to do good 
and to make a difference, and I hope you know that you have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                      Honoring Marshal Brad Fisher

  Mr. BANKS. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today, I must say 
that with a heavy heart I am grieving today for town marshal Brad 
Fisher, a 25-year law enforcement veteran who was tragically killed 
today in the line of duty in Indiana.
  Marshal Fisher was assisting other officers in stopping a fleeing 
suspect when the suspect hit Marshal Fisher and ultimately killed him.
  I am praying for Marshal Fisher, for his family, everyone in the town 
of Lynn, IN, and Randolph County. What a devastating loss, a tragic 
loss. May he rest in peace.
  And may we always remember the sacrifice that all of our men and 
women of law enforcement make when they keep us safe. I just want to 
take a minute and remember him.


                         Election Interference

  Mr. President, President Trump recently confirmed what many of us 
already knew: that foreign adversaries like China are working daily to 
interfere in our elections and our democratic society.
  China especially seeks America's decline in hopes that they can 
establish a world order that runs through the Chinese Communist Party, 
and we must do everything possible that we can to stop them from doing 
that.
  Historically, when countries have held that kind of ambition, they 
have started big, catastrophic wars. It should come as no surprise that 
the People's Liberation Army is undertaking the largest peacetime 
military buildup in human history.
  That is why it is incumbent upon this body to fully fund our 
military--including President Trump's $1.5 trillion defense budget 
request that he has made of this body--so that we can deter exactly 
that kind of conflict.
  It is outrageous that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--
the Democrats--are holding up this bipartisan NDAA and budget request 
to fund our military when our military desperately needs our support.
  Yet, even if we successfully deter a hot conflict, we could still 
lose in other ways. That is because every day the CCP is waging 
economic and political warfare against us. The CCP is trying to nurture 
dependency, exploit our divisions, cause us to question the justness of 
our cause, and erode our democracy.
  This political warfare campaign is not confined to the shadows. In 
many cases, it operates out in the open.
  Just take a look at Neville Roy Singham. Singham is a 72-year-old 
American tech mogul who sold his company and immediately fled to China. 
From his Shanghai office--which he shares with a CCP propaganda 
outlet--whose avowed mission, by the way, is ``to tell China's story 
well''--Singham began funding a complex network of leftwing NGOs and 
nonprofits that advance the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.
  Take a look at some of the radical organizations on this chart that 
he supports through the billions of dollars that he made selling his 
tech company to a Chinese Communist Party business.
  This is all a matter of public record. Even the New York Times has 
marveled at the hundreds of millions of dollars that Singham-linked 
groups have funneled to radical nonprofits that ``mix progressive 
advocacy with Chinese Government talking points.''
  Take one example that you and I know well--CODEPINK--you know, the 
radical organization that chases many of us around the hallways--around 
this building and our office buildings. You see, CODEPINK used to 
condemn CCP human rights abuses.
  But after Singham started lavishly funding the group--and then, by 
the way, he married its cofounder--CODEPINK stopped criticizing the 
Chinese Government and started defending it. In fact, in recent years, 
CODEPINK has even provided cover for the CCP's shocking genocide in 
Xinjiang.
  Meanwhile, a newer Singham nonprofit called No Cold War is entirely 
dedicated to advocacy designed to ensure America is defenseless against 
the CCP's economic, military, and political warfare.
  But the Singham network is not limited to China-specific advocacy. 
Singham groups advance a wide variety of causes that are united only by 
their hatred of America, our allies, and the rule of law.
  From anti-ICE boycotts, violence against law enforcement, rioting, 
obstruction, and support for Hamas' attempted genocide of Jews in 
Israel, Singham groups and their members advance division, chaos, and 
hatred.
  All of this advances CCP interests and poisons our society. 
Thankfully, under President Trump's leadership, the Department of 
Justice is now investigating this and whether Singham has been fueling 
this lawlessness in violation of U.S. law. It has been a long time 
coming.
  At the same time, the State Department under Secretary Rubio is 
leading from the front in identifying leftwing violence and building an 
international coalition to confront it.
  It should come as no surprise that, as the CCP seeks to interfere in 
our society, it also seeks to interfere in our elections. As President 
Trump disclosed before the American people in a prime-time address 
earlier this month, China perpetrated the largest known compromise of 
United States voter information in history: stealing the personal data 
of over 220 million Americans in the 2020 election.

[[Page S4320]]

  The President also exposed ongoing vulnerabilities when it comes to 
America's elections, and thank God he did that. As one newly 
declassified intelligence assessment found:

       We judge that U.S. adversaries, including at a minimum 
     Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, as well as non-state 
     groups, have the capability to compromise U.S. election 
     infrastructure.

  Our adversaries are actively coming for our elections, and if that is 
not enough to sound the alarm--what you just heard from President Trump 
in his prime-time press conference and what I just shared with you--I 
don't know what else is.

  All Americans--especially my colleagues in this body--should be 
outraged by this vulnerability. We know that our adversaries like the 
CCP seek to do us harm and yet we stand by and often do nothing about 
it. Our inaction has no excuse.
  We need to safeguard our democracy, and we need to do it right now.
  If this Chamber does anything at all this year, it must ensure that 
American elections are for Americans only--now and always. That is 
precisely why we have got to pass the SAVE America Act, and we have to 
pass it now, ASAP.
  In the face of the CCP's coordinated campaign, we need more election 
integrity--not less. We need to ensure that all votes in American 
elections come from Americans--not illegal aliens or foreign 
manipulation.
  And by the way, it is not only because of our international 
adversaries that we need to pass the SAVE America Act. Just last week, 
a huge story hardly got any notice in the mainstream media. But the new 
Democrat Governor of New Jersey--a former colleague of mine in the 
House--she announced that 6,600 noncitizens were ``accidentally added 
to the New Jersey voter rolls.'' That is a hell of an accident.
  But not only that, she also told us that nearly 400 of those voters, 
who were accidentally placed on their voter rolls, actually voted in 
the last two elections in New Jersey.
  Some of my colleagues keep saying that stories like this are a 
figment of our imagination. It doesn't really happen. Illegals don't 
vote in American elections.
  The Democratic Governor of New Jersey just told us it did happen. 
They keep saying that these stories are just, I suppose, ``accidents'' 
or ``software glitches'' is what the Governor called it. The fact of 
the matter is that these stories keep happening, and we need to do 
everything that we can to put an end to it. It destroys trust in our 
elections when Americans read about stories like that.
  If we have to cancel the August recess to pass the SAVE America Act, 
so be it. Let's do it. Protecting our elections from fraud and 
international interference is a lot more important to me than vacation 
time.
  Our adversaries--like the Chinese Communist Party--will stop at 
nothing to distract, divide, disrupt, and destroy America. Their 
campaign is not confined to election day. Election day is our last line 
of defense.
  Americans must always be free to reject the CCP and its values, while 
choosing a path that embraces the timeless truths that have always been 
at America's core. The day that the CCP chooses the outcome of our 
elections will be the day that it won. And by then, it will be way too 
late to correct course and pass a commonsense bill like the SAVE 
America Act. We cannot wait for that day.
  I urge all of my colleagues to wake up. It is time to pass the SAVE 
America Act to save our elections, protect our country, save America. 
It is fundamentally important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to what Americans all over 
this country are deeply feeling at this moment.
  America is not a nation that prefers wars, but we are being led by an 
administration that is foolishly choosing war to solve problems that 
could best be solved by other means or--more troublingly--it is 
choosing to wage war to distract public attention from larger problems 
of its own making.
  This pattern of foolishly choosing war, whatever the legality and 
whatever the price, is sacrificing the lives of American troops, 
killing innocent civilians, stressing our Nation's budget, imposing 
devastating costs on American families and businesses, dividing us from 
our allies, and shredding our reputation as a stabilizing force in the 
world.
  The chaos and damage from these wars are mounting, even as the 
President contemplates more military misadventures in Cuba, Mali, and 
who knows where else.
  Our constituents know that Congress is the only institution with the 
constitutional power to stop unnecessary war, and they are begging us 
to do so.
  President Trump has launched three wars that are currently underway. 
He has not sought the approval of Congress for any of them. The wars 
are all, therefore, illegal.
  But in addition to the illegality that naturally flows from a 
President starting a war without a congressional authorization, each 
war is also burdened by numerous other legal, moral, and strategic 
weaknesses.
  The first war is Operation Southern Spear, a campaign that began 
nearly a year ago to use the U.S. military to strike boats in 
international waters near South America. To date, more than 65 separate 
strikes have killed more than 250 people on boats chosen as targets by 
our military.
  The operation has been repeatedly justified by the Pentagon as 
attacks on narcotraffickers. But the evidence suggests that many 
innocent civilians--unarmed noncombatants who are not transporting 
narcotics--are being murdered in these strikes, even while reporting 
confirms that this bloodshed is not accomplishing its stated purpose of 
decreasing the amount of drugs coming into the United States.
  Now, the administration has worked exceptionally hard to maintain all 
aspects of Operation Southern Spear as secret, as classified. Because 
it is all classified, I am severely limited in what I can say about it.
  The President created a secret list of what he calls ``designated 
terrorist organizations,'' last July, as subjects for military attack. 
There is no law giving the President such a power to create such an 
attack list. I have reviewed the list, but because it is classified, I 
am not able to describe it here. And as a result of the fact that the 
list has never been made public, those marked by the President for 
execution have never been notified that the United States has placed a 
target on them.
  The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice produced a 
legal memo, last September, to justify boat strikes against 
narcotraffickers in very specific circumstances. The memo also 
carefully described prohibited activity that could not be legally 
justified. I have read that legal memo, but it remains classified. So I 
cannot discuss its contents.
  In October, the Pentagon issued an implementation order to carry out 
the President's directive in accordance with the OLC legal opinion and 
limitations. That EXORD contains the targeting criteria that are to be 
used in choosing which boats to attack. I have reviewed the EXORD, but 
it has remained classified. So I cannot describe its contents.
  Each of the attacks is accompanied by a file describing the strike. I 
have reviewed the files of nearly 50 of the strikes and will soon 
complete review of the remaining. Those files remain classified. So I 
cannot describe their contents.
  So why--why--is the administration maintaining the classification of 
all of this Southern Spear information--the justification, the legal 
rationale, the target list, the targeting criteria, the strike files 
describing each attack? Why the secrecy?
  It is obvious why the administration wants all this cloaked in 
secrecy. The President and the Pentagon don't want the American public 
to see what is being done in our name and with our tax dollars. They 
are trying to hide from the public--and even from this body--the 
flimsiness of their legal case and the exorbitant cost and 
ineffectiveness of the operation.
  For example, the Pentagon is glad to show edited videos of an 
exploding boat to pat itself on the back about its lethality toward 
narcotraffickers. They proudly did so on social media, and all over 
mainstream media, following the first fatal strike of a boat last 
September--September 2.

[[Page S4321]]

  But months after the administration produced this PR video of a fatal 
strike, it was revealed that the full video--the unedited video--also 
showed struggling survivors clinging to the boat's wreckage and seeking 
to be rescued.
  In violation of U.S. and international law, the United States 
returned to the site in open international waters and killed the 
survivors.
  I have seen the video, many of my colleagues have, and it is 
horrifying. The administration refuses to release it.
  Now, remember that, at the time of that strike--September 2, 2025--
the existence of Southern Spear hadn't even been announced. Those 
struggling for their lives, clinging to shipwrecked wreckage, had not 
even been informed that they might be targeted. The United States 
killed them anyway and then selectively edited the video so that the 
American public would only see the flashy initial boat explosion but 
not see the cowardly and cold-blooded murder of desperate shipwrecked 
people that took place later.

  And, you know, that is not even the most shocking thing about 
Southern Spear. The most shocking thing is that the administration has 
been lying to the American public about whether the campaign is even 
against narcotrafficking.
  While I am not allowed to discuss the contents of the legal opinion, 
and I am not allowed to discuss the EXORD's targeting criteria, I can 
say this: In reviewing the targeting criteria and trying to match it up 
with the legal opinion, I was immediately struck by what was missing. 
So I am not going to describe the contents of either, but I was 
immediately struck by what was missing from the targeting criteria.
  It is hard to believe this, but the targeting criteria used by the 
U.S. military to strike boats and kill people on open waters contain no 
requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on 
board--no requirement that there be any evidence that there are 
narcotics on board--nor is there any requirement that the sailors on 
any of these boats be armed.
  Now, these criteria could have been included by the Pentagon in the 
targeting criteria that they chose, but they intentionally chose not to 
include the presence of narcotics or the presence of arms.
  Why not restrict U.S. military attacks on boats to those we know to 
be carrying narcotics? How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. 
military to strike boats and kill those aboard with no evidence that 
the boats contain narcotics or arms? How could this be deemed self-
defense, which is the requirement for the President to use lethal force 
without a congressional authorization?
  I ask these questions as a proud member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I ask these questions as the proud father of a U.S. marine.
  How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to attack 
boats without evidence of narcotics and without evidence that those on 
board to be killed are armed?
  Many of those killed in Operation Southern Spear--unarmed individuals 
not transporting narcotics--are not combat casualties. They are murder 
victims. Public reporting conclusively shows that some of those 
murdered have been humble fishermen, whose families saw them leave for 
an honest day's work and then never come home.
  President Trump's second illegal war is Operation Absolute Resolve, 
the U.S. military invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime of 
dictator Nicolas Maduro.
  I have long in this body, as the lead Democrat on the Western 
Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
supported all kinds of policies to sanction and punish and isolate the 
dictatorial Maduro regime. But using the U.S. military to invade a 
sovereign nation without congressional approval, and without any 
explanation or strategy for what might come next, is another matter 
entirely.
  The world follows the example of this country, and if invading 
another nation's sovereign territory to kidnap its President and topple 
its government is acceptable for the United States, we lose our 
standing to criticize dictators around the world who might decide to do 
the same thing--in fact, who are currently doing the same thing.
  The actual military invasion of Venezuela was at least brief, and I 
think all recognize that the U.S. military performed in a very 
exemplary fashion in carrying out the mission they were ordered to 
perform.
  But its aftermath has been highly problematic. The United States is 
now using the American military to control the Venezuelan economy and 
government, and thus contributing to the oppression and subjugation of 
the Venezuelan people.
  Even though Venezuelans chose overwhelmingly to reject the Maduro 
regime in a 2024 Presidential election, in favor of the political 
opposition headed by the recent Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado and 
the duly elected President Edmundo Gonzalez the United States has, 
following the invasion, thrown its support behind the Maduro regime by 
propping up his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as the country's leader.
  The United States just announced a potential process toward finding 
elections and democracy in Venezuela. And guess who is leading it. Vice 
President Rodriguez' brother, part of the Maduro regime that was and 
remains oppressive toward Venezuelan people.
  Public reporting suggests that the administration has deliberately 
made it difficult for Maria Corina Machado, who just won the Nobel 
prize 7 months ago for her advocacy for Venezuelans, and for Edmundo 
Gonzalez, the duly elected President of the country. The United States 
has made it hard for them to return home to Venezuela, even in the 
aftermath of a horrible earthquake that has killed and injured 
thousands and thousands of their countrymen and women.
  Why is this administration choosing to support the Maduro-Rodriguez 
dictatorship and impede authentic leaders who offer a new chapter for 
the Venezuelan people?
  The Venezuelan people deserve a government by, of, and for 
Venezuelans. Maintaining Maduro's cronies in place and allowing them to 
continue the oppression of the Venezuelan people, primarily to benefit 
well-connected energy companies, is not a legitimate use of American 
military power.
  Rodriguez and the remnants of the Maduro regime are moving 
aggressively to consolidate their hold on power that the overwhelming 
majority of Venezuelans want to dislodge. Like despots around the 
world, they have learned how to humor the administration in the short 
run and buy its affection, and then, hopefully, wait until we get 
distracted and move our attention elsewhere.
  And it is Venezuelans who are suffering, especially in the aftermath 
of the earthquake, as they watch the government of the Maduro Vice 
President, Rodriguez, not be able to effectively provide services to 
those who are in need of disaster relief.
  Finally, America has spilled much blood and treasure during President 
Trump's foolish war against Iran.
  On February 27, we were not at war, and the Strait of Hormuz was 
open; and the price of gas and other key commodities were as normal as 
things can be in 2026. But President Trump--without a clear plan, a 
coherent rationale, the participation of allies, the approval of 
Congress, or the support of the American public--launched Operation 
Epic Fury.
  The President ignored his own promise to avoid more war in the Middle 
East. He fulfilled a sad prophecy many of us made during his first 
term, when he tore up a diplomatic deal that was working to control 
Iran's nuclear program. Those who make diplomacy impossible make war 
inevitable.

  Now, 5 months later, the folly of this illegal war has been made 
plain to all. Eighteen U.S. troops have been killed, and the 
President--it has recently been revealed--and the Pentagon are 
disrespectfully reclassifying some of those deaths as not being related 
to the war so that the President can downplay the true impact it has on 
service members. Hundreds of our troops have been injured, although the 
Pentagon is trying to downplay those numbers as well. Thousands of 
innocent Iranian civilians have died, including children--
schoolchildren--who were killed when the United States bombed a school 
in the opening days of the war.
  The costs of the war to the American taxpayer has ballooned into tens 
of billions of dollars, and the Pentagon is

[[Page S4322]]

now seeking an astronomical extra increase in last year's record 
defense budget to pay for the costs of this war, which have all been 
self-imposed costs. American families are paying more for gasoline. 
American farmers are paying more for fertilizer and diesel. American 
businesses are paying more for goods and materials that normally flow 
through the Strait of Hormuz.
  And, in recent days, a new challenge has emerged, one that the 
administration should easily have anticipated. The Houthis, who are 
together allied with Iran and are strategically positioned in Yemen, 
have started to cut off transit through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in 
addition to the closures in the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the 
world's major commercial routes and threatens even more inflation that 
will punish American consumers.
  The endless rounds of start-stop and the frequent Presidential 
proclamations of victory or cease-fire, then to be interrupted by new 
rounds of the back-and-forth of attacks in the region, have produced a 
profound uncertainty that is endangering economic prospects in all 
corners of the Earth.
  Now these three foolish and illegal wars--Southern Spear, Absolute 
Resolve, Epic Fury--are largely rejected by the American public. Our 
voters want us to make their lives better, not waste their money in 
pointless military engagements far from home, especially with regard to 
Trump's war with Iran.
  Haven't we learned something from 20-plus years of war in the Middle 
East? The Global War on Terror cost the United States more than 14,000 
lives, led to more than 65,000 American casualties, and skyrocketed 
costs into the trillions of taxpayer dollars that should have been 
spent on education and infrastructure and healthcare investments at 
home.
  Americans want a President, but more than that, Americans want a 
government that will spend our dollars here to make energy, healthcare, 
childcare, and other necessities like groceries more affordable. The 
President has already punished us enough with his chaotic tariff taxes 
and his doubling down on illegal wars just to make things so much 
harder for everyday people.
  So what can we do? What can we do?
  Knowing that the President is likely to plow forward on this failed 
and destructive policy, Congress has to finally stand up. The Iran war 
is triply illegal.
  First, it is unconstitutional because the President launched it 
without having the congressional approval required by article I of the 
Constitution.
  Second, the war violates the War Powers Act of 1973. This act allows 
a President to initiate military action in very specific circumstances: 
if there is a declaration of war by Congress, which there hasn't been; 
if there is an authorization for use of military force passed by 
Congress, which there hasn't been; or in the case of a national 
emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those 
conditions were met prior to the President's launching of this war.
  But even if one were to assume that one of those conditions had been 
met, the War Powers Act requires that any military activity started by 
the President without Congress has to hit a hard stop at 60 days unless 
Congress affirmatively votes to continue it. We are well past the 60-
day point--we are now past the 5-month point--with no congressional 
authorization. Yet the President continues to send more troops to the 
region and threaten more attacks as the American public watches more 
flag-draped caskets come home.

  Now both Houses of Congress, under Republican majorities, have passed 
legislation requiring the President to remove U.S. troops from 
hostilities against Iran unless Congress passes a war authorization. 
The President has not removed troops from hostilities. He is actually 
sending more into harm's way. The President has not sought a vote on a 
war authorization because he knows that such a vote would lose in both 
Houses in Congress in a dramatic fashion. Instead, he has taken the 
warmongering all on his own shoulders.
  President Trump can ignore the law, and he can break the law, but he 
can't change the law. If the President won't abide by the Constitution, 
by the War Powers Act, or the express will of two Republican-majority 
Houses of Congress, we have one more power. Only Congress can 
appropriate funds for war or defense operations.
  As the President and his Cabinet are here seeking even more funds to 
carry out his illegal wars and fighting against any guardrails against 
his warmongering, Congress has to stand up against him. We have to 
stand up against illegal wars. We have to stand up for our troops. We 
have to stand up for our military families. We have to stand up for 
citizens who want a government focused on making lives better, not 
waging warfare away across the world. And we have to stand up for 
America the peacemaker, not America the war wager.
  It is telling that at the very moment we are in the middle of these 
three illegal and undeclared wars that are causing a huge cost to our 
troops and innocent civilians, the President and the Pentagon are 
choosing this moment to try to rename the Department of Defense as the 
Department of War. Of course, they are. They want performative war in 
the worst possible way. They care more about the optics and the 
trolling Twitter with flashy videos than they do about doing the hard 
work necessary to keep Americans safe and defend this country.
  You know, most nations actually had a Department of War during much 
of their history, and the United States did too. America had a 
Secretary of War and a War Cabinet for many, many years during the 
history of this Nation. But after World War II, when President Harry 
Truman, who had seen the bloodshed of war as a military officer in 
World War I and had to make consequential decisions as the Commander in 
Chief to end World War II, stood back and said: Do you know what? The 
United States is a great nation. We shouldn't prefer war; we should 
prefer defense. Let's defend our Nation, and let's tell the world we 
will do anything necessary to defend our Nation, but let's make it 
clear to the rest of the world that the mission of our military is not 
war; it is defense. We changed, in 1947, the Secretary of War to the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon is the Defense Department, not 
the War Department. And guess what. It was a great thing the United 
States did.
  When nations all around the world saw us do it, they did it too--
Britain and France, also World War II enemies like Germany and Japan, 
and current adversaries like Russia and China. All other nations 
followed the diplomatic lead of the United States and said: The mission 
of military should not be war. We don't prefer war. The mission should 
be vigorous defense. Brazil was actually the last nation to make the 
switch. They did it about three decades ago.
  So now, in the world, the use of war to describe the mission or the 
Cabinet or the Secretary is virtually unheard of, except the United 
States wants to bring it back. President Trump and his self-titled 
``Secretary of War'' want to switch us back so that we, instead, brag 
about the fact that we are focused and interested in war. It is a 
pending matter that is contained within the National Defense 
Authorization Act that will be debated on the floor here in the next 
few months. The Pentagon has even changed its email address to war.gov.
  This is juvenile and embarrassing, and it would be comical if it 
weren't so tragic.
  Is this who the United States of America has become now--war.gov?
  Is that how we want to be known in our history?
  Is that how we want to be known by allies and adversaries around the 
world--as a nation that prefers war to diplomacy? as a nation that 
sends its troops into harm's way for needless wars of choice rather 
than being focused on the vigorous defense of our homeland and our way 
of life?
  I don't believe that is who this country is after 250 years, so I am 
going to keep challenging the President's illegal and foolish wars at 
every opportunity and with every tool granted me as a U.S. Senator, 
being mindful of Mother Teresa's wisdom: We are not called to be 
successful. We are called to be faithful.
  If we focus on being faithful to our history, to our values, to our 
troops and their families and to our citizens, we are likely to be 
successful. In doing so, we can reclaim the role for Congress that our 
Founders envisioned as

[[Page S4323]]

they embarked upon this 250-year experiment in American democracy.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5334 at 6 p.m. 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
scheduled for 6 p.m. today on H.R. 5334 be allowed to begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Motion to Proceed

  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) and the Senator from Kentucky 
(Mr. McConnell).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) 
and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Alsobrooks
     Armstrong
     Baldwin
     Banks
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McCormick
     Merkley
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sheehy
     Slotkin
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--12

     Blunt Rochester
     Hassan
     Hirono
     Kim
     Markey
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Welch
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gallego
     Graham
       McConnell
       
       Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). On this vote, the yeas are 84, 
the nays are 12. The motion is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________