Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 152 (Thursday, September 24, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 152 (Thursday, September 24, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4962-S4974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5(c) OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, TO REMOVE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITH
IRAN

Mr. KIM. Mr. President, on behalf of the two leaders, I ask the Chair
to execute the order of August 8, 2026, with respect to H. Con. Res 89.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Committee on
Foreign Relations is discharged from further consideration of H. Con.
Res. 89, and the Senate will proceed to its immediate consideration.
The clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) directing the
President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers
Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from
hostilities with Iran.

[[Page S4963]]

Thereupon, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to
consider the concurrent resolution.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be permitted to speak: Kim for up to 8 minutes, Schiff for up
to 8 minutes, Moreno for up to 20 minutes, Slotkin for up to 5 minutes,
Merkley for up to 10 minutes, Murphy for up to 8 minutes, Baldwin for
up to 5 minutes, Welch for up to 2 minutes, Kaine for up to 5 minutes,
and Klobuchar for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today as Donald Trump continues to
wage a war in Iran in our name, on our dime, but without our say--a war
that is nearly 7 months old, a war that has cost Americans billions, a
war that seemingly has no end in sight but that Congress has the
authority to end.
The Senate has just returned to the Capitol after over a month back
home, and in that time, Americans have continued to be loud and clear
at townhalls, at protests, and in letters and phone calls to our
offices. They are sick and tired of this reckless and expensive war.
They are sick and tired of this war, and they expect us to do something
about it.
This is a moment for us to step up and show the American people that
we are listening and we are ready to take action.
Democrats have taken action. We have come to this Chamber 11 times,
in the past 208 days, to try to bring this war to an end.
I have been encouraged to see some of my colleagues join from across
the aisle to do the right thing and join us.
It is not just the right thing to do; it is the right thing to do
right now. It is about standing up for our Constitution--that this war,
which Donald Trump said would end in about a month, has lasted over six
times as long; this war, which Donald Trump wouldn't even admit to
being a war, has resulted in damage done to our national security and
the spread of chaos across the Middle East and the world; and this war,
which Donald Trump said was worth the cost, keeps costing the American
people more and more.
So what has it cost us? It has cost us American lives. We have lost
at least 19 servicemembers, brave men and women; over 750 injured. It
has cost us economic security. Inflation is up--gas prices, just
filling up the grocery carts as well.
These are costs that Donald Trump is bearing upon the American
people. It is costing each and every one of our American families hard-
earned taxpayer dollars.
A report last week by the Congressional Budget Office showed that the
war has cost nearly $40 billion in the first 4 months alone.
It has cost us our readiness and our ability to keep Americans safe
from global threats. These are the things that we are seeing that are
making us weaker and why it is that we need to end this now.
So with this vote today, we can alleviate the cost of the war. I want
to talk a little bit more about why alleviating this cost is so
important to the people we represent, to our national security, and to
our future.
When we hear from so many of our constituents, when I hear from a
woman back home in New Jersey, she is talking about just the challenges
that she is facing raising her family, about the challenges that she is
seeing as gas prices continue to skyrocket, as mortgage rates are
hitting higher and higher. She paused and she looked at me, she said--
all of this that is happening, the Iran war, all these different
actions--she said: But what about us? What are we supposed to do?
And her question is one that all of us should be considering here in
the Chamber. What about the American people? What are they getting out
of this? Well, they are getting footed the bill. They are getting
footed the sacrifice. They are the ones that are bearing this brunt.
When we have a third of Americans already unable to handle a $400
emergency, that is not theoretical, that is their life right now. We
see it as we see estimates already of gas prices going up so much that
it is--what?--over $115 billion more than American families have had to
bear, nearly $900 per household more since the start of this war.
And over and over again, is this making us safer and more secure?
Very clearly, no. And we see that just with the continued attacks, the
continued violence, the spread of this now with Saudi Arabia, the
Houthis. We are seeing this all over the place through the Middle East.
I have worked in war zones; I have worked in the Middle East as a State
Department officer, as a diplomat; and I have seen where this heads.
Chaos is not a negotiating tactic. Trump is simply in over his head
here. The entire administration is in over their head, and, again, the
American people are the ones bearing this cost.
As we talk about that cost to our future, the war has cost a lot of
money. I have shared with you the costs at the gas pump. We see how
much we have had to pay in the past for the previous wars of Iraq and
Afghanistan. We do not want that going forward.
I literally just yesterday celebrated the birthday of one of my sons.
I do not want him and his generation to bear the burdens of these
reckless decisions made by Trump.
This is something we need to make sure we are pushing forward on. I
think a lot about that woman in New Jersey that I mentioned. I wonder
how she is holding up since I last talked to her, how she is bearing
the cost of this war.
And when we recess here shortly, I want to be able to go back to her
and tell her what I heard, tell her what I tried to do, tell her what
we tried to do here in the Senate. I wanted to tell her that I did
everything that I could so she could breathe a little easier, be able
to support her family in the way that she wants, that we--Democrats and
Republicans--were able to come together and recognize that the cost to
the American people is too great and that we need to work together to
stop this war.
So please, I ask my colleagues here at the Senate: Join me. Let's
pass this resolution and do the right thing for the American people; do
the right thing for our Constitution; do the right thing for our
servicemembers in harm's way; do the right thing by ending this war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, ever since the USS Abraham Lincoln was
commissioned in the waning days of the Cold War, it has been known for
many things. After a volcano erupted in the Philippines in 1991, the
Lincoln led the largest peacetime evacuation of United States military
personnel and their families. A baby was even born on board during the
evacuation and named Abraham Lincoln.
In 1993, the Lincoln became the first carrier in the Pacific fleet to
integrate female aviators. But today, as a result of the President's
war with Iran, the Lincoln has achieved another distinction, one it
neither sought nor wished to claim. And that is for more than 300 days,
over 5,000 sailors and marines aboard the Lincoln were at sea, without
visits to their family or their loved ones, without visits to friends
apart from fellow servicemembers.
In fact, the Lincoln set a modern-day record for consecutive days at
sea without a port visit and a record away from its home port of San
Diego. And even now, just recently, after stopping in Thailand for its
first regular port call in nearly 9 months, hull rusted, paint peeling,
the Lincoln and its crew were still a long way from home. As the
President's senseless war has dragged on, it has taken a heavier toll
on the lives and well-being of our servicemembers and their families,
many of whom are in California.
So how does the Commander in Chief respond when asked last month if
carriers like the Lincoln had been deployed too long? Donald Trump
said, and this is a direct quote:

No, no, no. Not nearly long enough.

Not nearly long enough?
It was long enough that our sailors had been working 12- to 16-hour
shifts, at times facing the danger of enemy missiles. It was long
enough that they were forced to ration food and water, shortages that
have reportedly caused severe weight loss and health impacts.
It was long enough that crew members have had severe mental health
crises, which created significant distress for their families as well
to the point where some servicemembers sought to jump off the carrier
into the sea. It was

[[Page S4964]]

long enough that servicemembers had to deal with black mold that drips,
as one servicemember described ``onto your face, shoulders, arms, or
head while standing in line for a meal or even walking out of the
shower.''
Doug, a constituent from California, wrote a letter to me expressing
his deep concerns over his son's service on the Lincoln. His son had to
be medically evacuated from the ship after suffering a collapsed lung,
which Doug believes was connected to malnutrition and overexertion.

The crew went about 4 weeks without hot water or laundry.
They were on rations for 2 to 3 months while working 12- to
16-hour days.

During that time his family spent thousands of dollars sending him
food, but only about half of it arrived.
Doug went on:

After time in the ICU, he returned home to us as a shell of
the son who had left. He is 6'5 and left weighing 210 pounds,
and he returned closer to 180 pounds. He resembled a starved
prisoner of war.

What he told me as a father and veteran turns my stomach and must be
brought to light.
Another constituent of mine, Annabelle from San Diego, shared her
story about her husband attempting to jump overboard from the Lincoln
during his deployment. ``He is scared'' she said. ``He thinks he will
get a dishonorable discharge.'' And just because he was burned out, his
13-year career was ruined just like that.
That is not fair. That is not right. That is not what he should be
worrying about right now. But this is what Annabelle and her three kids
are now living with.
Shelby, a high schooler whose mom is deployed on the Lincoln, spoke
about how hard it is to start her senior year without her mom. She
asked ``Will she be back before homecoming? my birthday? Christmas?''
I have no idea, and that is all that I think about.
This week, we learned from the Acting Secretary of the Navy that
eight U.S. Navy personnel assigned to the Lincoln's carrier strike
group attempted suicide during the prolonged time at sea.
The Navy also confirmed that one sailor went overboard from the ship
this summer, while another attempted to go overboard. After months of
denials, the Defense Department confirmed what has been reported for
months, and that is deteriorating mental health aboard the Lincoln and
multiple attempts by sailors to jump overboard.
These are just some of the alarming, dangerous, and shameful
conditions our sailors and marines have endured aboard the Lincoln and
also what our families are going through while Pete Hegseth posts
workout videos and Donald Trump renames lakes and pores over blueprints
for the gilded ballroom.
For Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies, events in black tie;
for our servicemembers aboard the Lincoln, showers and meals with black
mold. Could there be a clearer encapsulation of this administration's
misplaced priorities?
So the American people were told that the war would be over very
soon. That was March 9--10 days after the war started. Now the United
States is more than 6 months into this disastrous war. Months of
negotiations to end the conflict have failed, but the President
promises us that the war will soon come to an end after the election.
And what have we achieved in this war that has cost the lives of 19
U.S. servicemembers? Prices at the pump and grocery checkout have
skyrocketed. Diesel prices, fertilizer prices are crushing farmers
while resultant food prices are crushing the rest of America. Utility
and medical bills are out of control. Everyone but the President and
his buddies are painfully aware that we are experiencing an
affordability crisis in America while the President says ``not long
enough.''
In the closing days of the Mexican-American War, our 16th President,
whose name the Lincoln proudly carries, was a freshman here in
Congress. He wrote to his law partner:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making
power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the
following reasons--

Lincoln wrote--

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their
people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the
good of the people was the object. This, our convention
understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly
oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution
that no one man should hold the power of bringing this
oppression upon us.
But your view--

Lincoln wrote--

destroys the whole matter, and places our President where
Kings have always stood.

We need to take Lincoln's words to heart. This Congress is not a
royal court to do the bidding and bow and scrape before an all-powerful
sovereign. We are a coequal branch of government, and 250 years into
this experiment in self-governance, we should show Lincoln's resolve.
Will we continue to place the President where Kings have stood, or
will we say at long last, ``enough''?
Will we make it clear that this war, illegal from the start, has gone
on too long?
Will we insist on the removal and return of our troops?
I pray that we will, and I urge support on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I am going to yield my time to my
colleague from Michigan to start first--5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Connected Vehicle Security Act

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the Connected Vehicle Security Act.
I want to acknowledge what a rare thing this is as we sit on the
floor, myself and Senator Moreno, a Democrat and a Republican, working
together on an issue of common cause.
It is a bipartisan bill that would protect America's auto industry
and would protect our manufacturing base and protect our national
security above all else. Now, I am completely biased. I am the junior
Senator from Michigan. The auto industry helped build America, helped
invent the middle class.
Millions of workers in the State of Michigan work in some way
associated with the auto industry. And that is why I feel very strongly
that we must ban Chinese cars from ever being sold in the United
States.
Now, on our national security, I am a former CIA officer and Pentagon
official. This is my bread and butter. I just want to be clear that
Chinese cars--with their high-end video, with their LiDAR, with their
geolocation, with their ability to collect on our important
infrastructure sites, our military bases, the ability to track where an
individual leader is driving, the ability for these cars to be hacked
and remotely piloted--it does provide a threat to the everyday American
and our national security.
It is literally a driving spy machine on wheels. All of that data and
all of that information goes back to Beijing. It is not held in the
United States. These cars connect to the internet. They take videos of
our kids. They track individual movements.
Now, we all know that as the Senator from Michigan, I am going to
care about our economic security. A million plus jobs are associated in
the State of Michigan with the auto industry. But the advantage that I
think the Chinese are trying to get is to get a foothold into the
country, start bringing those cars over our borders, over our bridges
and our tunnels, set up shop here in the United States so that they can
get access to the extremely lucrative market in the United States.
What this bill does is it bans vehicle hardware and software that are
designed, developed, or manufactured in China by Chinese companies.
That means they can't be imported, manufactured, or sold here.
This is not a partisan issue. We have sent out the bill to all of our
colleagues, and by a very, very strong majority, they have come back
and said yes. That doesn't happen every single day. It is supported by
our automakers, by organized labor--a broad coalition of individuals
and institutions that know that if we threaten our American auto
establishment and we threaten our manufacturing base, we threaten our
ability to be a powerhouse in manufacturing across the world. It is
cosponsored by more than 50 Senators on both sides of the aisle.
I want to thank Senator Moreno for his cooperation and his team's
cooperation. We have worked this painstakingly over months to keep
stakeholders

[[Page S4965]]

involved. He and I don't agree on everything, but we certainly agree
that letting in these cars subsidized by the Chinese Communist Party
would be the end of the American auto industry. That is not going to
happen on my watch. I know that is not going to happen on his watch.
I want to thank everybody who came and worked hard in this partisan
environment to send a very strong message that Chinese cars are banned
here in the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge my colleague
from Michigan for working so well together on this bill. We don't agree
on a lot. We do agree 100 percent that Ohio State has a better football
team.
Ms. SLOTKIN. No.
Mr. MORENO. But, look, I think, for the people watching, Americans
ultimately--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an
Independent, you just want a government that works for you. You want a
government that functions, that isn't chaotic, that is actually laser-
targeted on not only fixing problems but avoiding problems. This is a
huge problem that is coming up.
If you were to go back in a time machine about 26 years, in this
Chamber, they passed a bill called the China Normalization Act. The
idea was that if we could normalize relations with China, China would
enter the World Trade Organization, and it would be absolutely
phenomenal for the United States because we would get a place to make
things really inexpensively. But what has happened over 25 years, 26
years is that China has built a massive military machine.
We go into meeting after meeting, and whether it is election
integrity and the assault on that, whether it is the assault on our
critical infrastructure, whether it is the fact that they have
blatantly stolen our intellectual property--you were the Ambassador to
Japan. You dealt with this every day, with the Japanese saying: Look,
the threats from China are real; they are ever present.
If we only could have avoided that vote 26 years ago. I can tell you
that what we are talking about here today is even more existential.
As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, it was the auto industry
uniquely that built the middle class in this country.
I believe that in a future time, a future Congress, we are going to
unite, Republicans and Democrats, around one simple concept: that our
job here collectively is to make certain that an American citizen can
graduate from high school and get a good enough paying job that they
can afford a home, afford to get married, afford to start a family, be
able to live in a safe community, and most importantly, retire with
dignity. It seems to me that is actually the essence of the American
dream. But these jobs are few and far between. They are hard to get.
The auto industry can do that.
Let me show just a little chart here for my colleagues. It shows just
how important the auto industry is to America--963,000 factory jobs,
direct factory jobs.
In your State, I don't have to tell you--I can only imagine how many
auto plants you have visited, whether it is Nissan in Smyrna, GM in
Spring Hill, or Volkswagen in Chattanooga. You have autos all over your
State. These are really, really good jobs. The people who work in those
factories meet the definition I just said. We have to make certain, as
policymakers, that we do everything possible to make certain those jobs
are protected.
If you look at the entire auto industry, when you look at the supply
chain--because there are a lot of pieces and parts that go into a car.
It is the second largest purchase somebody will make after their home.
Mr. President, 2.4 million good, high-paying jobs--these are not
minimum-wage jobs; these are family-sustaining wages--and 11 million
jobs when you think about the effects. In Chattanooga, TN, the fact
that Volkswagen is there, you have all kinds of businesses that exist
because of the employment there, because of those wages that allow
people to buy homes, spend money.
Now, what is the counter? What is the threat here? What are we really
doing? China understands this, I think, better than we do, honestly--
the importance of building their middle class--so what they have done
over the last two decades is targeted the auto industry, not to compete
in the auto industry but to conquer the auto industry, to create what I
have dubbed ``automotive fentanyl'' where they create these predators
that go out and don't just compete--because General Motors, Ford,
Toyota--you name it--can compete with any car company on Earth. They
can't compete with a country that is hell-bent on total conquest.

They now make almost four times as many cars as we do here in
America. They export almost as many cars as we make here in America.
While their domestic market is dropping, they are producing ever more
cars. They need to feed that beast. They need to feed that machine. So
what do they do? They go into countries like Germany where, when you
are born, the first words from your parents are ``You have to buy a
German car.'' Thirty-four percent of hybrids sold in Germany last month
were Chinese--in a country that is culturally inclined to buy German
vehicles. You look at countries like Ecuador. Fifty-seven percent of
the new cars sold in Ecuador are Chinese vehicles. Mexico and Canada
are starting to go there. All over the world, you are starting to see
this total domination.
In the case of Germany again, Volkswagen Group, which is partially
owned by a government entity in Germany, for the first time in their
history had to lay off 150,000 workers. Why? Because they can't compete
with the nation of China that is hell-bent on destroying their
industries.
This is the reality of what we are talking about--$1.2 trillion in
GDP. This is what is at stake.
So I will conclude with this. It is really hard to pass legislation.
We know that. Our Founders wanted it that way. They wanted to make
certain that two Senators from every State, big or small, would have to
come together to figure out how to get to a compromise. That requires
enormous effort. Introducing bills that will never pass--that is easy.
We keep the clerks very busy with papers for bills that will never
pass. This is a bill that has almost 100 out of 100 Senators on board.
People have totally different ideological points of view, but on this,
we have united, which is we cannot allow this threat to happen.
I am confident and hopeful that I can come back to you, Mr.
President, next week with my colleague from Michigan and that we can
pass the Connected Vehicle Security Act and that when the House comes
back on November 8, that the House take up an identical version of this
bill that Congressman Moolenaar and Congresswoman Dingell have been
working on and that we can get this bill in the hands of the President.
I know that he feels the same way I do, which is that we are not
going to let these cars into our market; we are going to make certain
that we defend the U.S. auto industry.
So thank you again to my colleague for the hard work. Thank you to
all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that have provided input and
have gotten us to the point where we have a phenomenal piece of
legislation. I am very, very hopeful that we will absolutely get this
done next week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 226

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the Chinese Government will do anything,
at any cost, anywhere in the world to silence its critics.
Freedom House has documented hundreds of cases of the Chinese
Government stalking, intimidating, even assaulting people outside of
China, people all around the world--a lot of people right here in our
United States of America. This stalking and intimidation of people on
our soil is absolutely unacceptable.
This goes by the term ``transnational repression.'' It is China
taking its tactics of suppressing dissent and extending them right here
where we have freedom of speech in the United States of America. Thus,
while President Xi is here in Washington, we need to send a message
that says that this is unacceptable, that our Constitution guarantees
that every person here in the United States has the right to speak

[[Page S4966]]

freely, including the right to criticize our government and certainly
the right to criticize foreign governments without fear of retaliation.
That is what freedom of speech is.
So I am calling on the Senate today to affirm our belief in and
commitment to this principle of free speech. That is why this
resolution is a bipartisan resolution, with Senator Dan Sullivan and
Senator John Curtis bringing it forward, to say that these Chinese
tactics to suppress freedom of speech in the United States and
intimidate our citizens are unacceptable.
We have seen what China has done at home. We have seen what they have
done to enslave the Uighurs with facial recognition technology. We have
seen what they have done to force Tibetan children into boarding
schools. We have seen what they have done in Hong Kong to arrest and
imprison those who criticize the Chinese Government. We have seen their
journalists jailed for reporting the truth.
But it hasn't been enough for China simply to conduct these practices
on Chinese soil; they are exporting those practices here to the United
States of America. Freedom House calls this ``the long arm of
authoritarianism.'' It is stretching beyond the borders of China, all
around the world--countless stories of how China has intimidated people
on our soil into silence.
I was struck by a woman in California who said: This individual
walked up to me, said ``We know where your family is located in
China,'' and walked away.
Why did that happen? Because she had expressed disagreement with some
of the policies of China, particularly their oppressive strategies back
home.
Last week, I spoke with a woman who told me that a member of her
family had criticized the Chinese Government, and in retaliation, the
Chinese Government had arrested dozens of her family members, not one
or two--it should be zero--but dozens.
I spoke with journalists from Radio Free Asia. More than 70 relatives
of Radio Free Asia's Uighur news service have been imprisoned or
harassed in China in retaliation for reporting done here in the United
States by American journalists.
Beijing has been abusing international institutions, like Interpol
and the U.N., to smear and stalk people who are testifying to what is
happening to the Uighurs, what is happening in Hong Kong, what is
happening to the Tibetan children.
In July, Beijing made their long arm of authoritarianism official
law. Article 63 of a new Chinese law called the Ethnic Unity and
Progress Law claims authority for the Chinese Government to hold people
and organizations outside of China legally liable for undermining unity
and creating division. That is obviously code for ``criticizing the
Chinese Government.'' It is unacceptable that we are allowing this to
happen right here.
We want to reinforce President Trump in conveying to Premier Xi that
this is not OK or acceptable. There are lots of other discussions
taking place about ships, about critical minerals, about trade, but
absolutely we should affirm as a Senate that we stand behind freedom of
speech and reject China's ability and authority to intimidate, stalk,
and oppress people on our soil.
This week, I led my Senate and House colleagues in a letter to
Secretary of State Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne
Mullin and others urging them to protect our freedom of speech here at
home.
As noted by the FBI, ``If you are in the United States, including a
U.S. territory, your freedoms are protected.'' That sums it up. Your
freedoms are protected. And that is why we need to send this message.
Let's send this powerful, bipartisan message that in the United
States of America, people are free to speak, that authoritarians don't
get to bring their repression onto our American soil.
With that, let us fulfill our oath that we took to our Constitution
to defend it, including defending our freedom of speech, and
unanimously pass this resolution that says that the long arm of Chinese
authoritarianism is unwelcome here in the United States, that it is
unacceptable here in the United States.
And to do that, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar
No. 247, S. Res. 226; further, that the committee-reported substitute
amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution be amended as
agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment to the preamble
be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the
motions to be considered be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the author
of ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I take a backseat to no one in my
opposition of socialism, communism, or any other form of collectivism.
In ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I wrote:

This is the story of an evil well documented and yet still
somehow enticing, even in America. This is the story of
socialism in all its drab and dreary machinelike destruction
of individual thought, creativity, and ambition. This is the
story of socialism in all its violence, bloodshed, and
tyranny. It is a cautionary tale of how America has so far
eluded the siren call of something for nothing, of an
equality determined and enforced by government--but also of
how close we still are to succumbing to socialism.

My concern is far greater that America will succumb to socialism by
choice than by foreign invasion. The question is, Will this next
generation follow the path of previous generations? Will today's youth
emerge from their parents' basements and begin to earn a living,
discover that their success depends on their merit and hard work or
will they succumb to the allure of something for nothing?
In ``The Case Against Socialism,'' I pull no punches about the
tyranny and violence of Mao and the panopticon of China's surveillance
state today. But I draw a distinction between articulating the horrors
of Chinese authoritarianism and Senate resolutions intended to
embarrass Chinese leaders who are visiting our country.
The art of diplomacy is the art of pulling punches, avoiding insult,
attempting to find common ground. Diplomacy creates a space to refer to
someone as ``President'' even though the world knows they were elected
by a small group in a single-party state.
The leadership between the United States and China is the most
consequential of the 21st century. As such, we should strive to at
least have decent working relations with one another. That is why I
fully support President Trump's overture to meet with President Xi.
We should not advance symbolic condemnation that unnecessarily
undermines United States-China diplomacy with no tangible benefit to
United States' interests. Instead, we should encourage more United
States-China dialogue given the consequences of a hostile relationship,
not symbolically poke them in the eye before the first state visit in
10 years.
Diplomacy is fast becoming a lost art. I, for one, hope that
President Trump's diplomacy will lessen the tensions between the United
States and China.
I, therefore, object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection was heard.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this resolution says the Senate condemns
China for a systematic campaign of transnational repression, affirms
that all individuals residing in the United States have the right to
live free from foreign government intimidation, coercion, and
surveillance. I do not understand--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. I do not understand why any Member of the Senate would
object to defending freedom of speech here in the United States of
America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

H. Con. Res. 89

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to
assert its constitutional authority and to demand accountability for
the grave costs that servicemembers, their families, and the American
people have shouldered because of the President's war in Iran.
After more than 6 months--6 months--it is clear that the President
had no plan when the war started and has no plan for how to end it.

[[Page S4967]]

To be clear, Iran is a terrorist state and should never have a
nuclear weapon, and the regime's aggression in the region and
repression of Iranian citizens must end. That is why I have long
supported sanctions against Iran as well as the Iran nuclear agreement
negotiated by President Obama and our allies. And I opposed President
Trump's decision to take us out of that agreement.
Our ultimate goal must be peace in the region. But more than 6 months
into this conflict, American servicemembers have been killed, including
my constituent MSG Nicole Amor, who was among those killed by an
Iranian strike on a United States facility in Kuwait on March 1.
Innocent civilians across the region have also been killed, and the
costs keep mounting.
Beyond the toll on human life, the costs of the war to taxpayers is
staggering. The Pentagon recently estimated that it has already spent
$42 billion on this unauthorized war so far--$42 billion.
This is money that could be used to expand childcare or to restore
healthcare premium tax credits to help millions of Americans who have
seen their healthcare premiums double or triple this year or how about
the 8 million people who, just this last year, have given up coverage
entirely? That $40 billion, that could have extended the tax credits to
help people afford their insurance premiums for over a year. And now
the President is asking for $70 billion more. That is 2 more years of
those tax credits.
As a result of this war, American families continue to face spiking
gas prices, costing consumers more than $800 per family in higher gas
and diesel costs. American people, outside of what I just outlined that
the Pentagon has spent of its taxpayer money, have spent over $100
billion on this war in higher prices.
In Minnesota, gas prices are up more than a $1.50 since the day
before the war started. Diesel prices--right as farmers are going to
harvest--have doubled across the country.
These higher fuel prices also make trucking, in addition to farming
and freight, more expensive, hitting families and small businesses over
and over again when you add to that the tariffs.
That is why Congress must step up and assert our authority under the
Constitution. Congress did not authorize this war. And more than 6
months in, Congress still has not authorized this war--6 months in. And
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep just giving up their
authority.
Why even come here? Why even take this job if you are going to just
let one President run over you and be able to make his own calls and
just say: Hey, we are going to a war. It is going to cost the American
people over $100 billion. It is going to spike up prices across the
country. Innocent people are going to be killed, and then we are going
to lose soldiers at the same time.

In fact, both Houses of Congress have passed resolutions to stop this
unauthorized war. I have voted a dozen times to stop this war, unless
Congress passes an authorization, and I will continue to vote that way
until Congress restores its role in decisions of war and peace.
The American people are asking what this war has accomplished:
Are we closer to a strong and strict agreement to curtail Iran's
nuclear ambitions? The answer is no.
Are we now dealing with Iranian leaders who are less hardline? The
answer is no.
Have we preserved open shipping routes that are so important for
trade? Answer, no.
It is time for the President to end this war. It is time for the work
to bring costs down for the American people and foster lasting peace in
the region. This is our moment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to support yet
another resolution to end the war in Iran.
Here is the latest poll regarding public support or approval.
Eighteen percent of respondents--this latest CNN poll--say that
President Trump's decisions around the war in Iran are helping the
United States. Seventy percent of Americans say that his decisions
around the Iran war are hurting Americans. That is a stunning number.
Basically, it is only the hard-core MAGA supporters that still
believe this war is a good idea. Everybody else--Independents,
Democrats, independent-thinking Republicans--have all decided that this
body needs to vote to end this war. And it is not hard to figure out
why.
Here is a chart that is familiar to my colleagues. This is the unreal
spike in gas and diesel prices that has occurred solely because of this
war.
If you are in Indiana right now, diesel is $7 a gallon. That is why
farms are going bankrupt right now in the Midwest at record rates; the
tariffs and the high price of diesel. But for American consumers who
are just filling up their tank with gasoline, the same disaster: in
California, above $6 a gallon; in many States, above $5 a gallon. And
it is just going up and up and up.
But Americans also see this has been a national security disaster for
the country. It has obviously been an economic nightmare. Mortgage
rates are at 7 percent again, by the way, if you hadn't noticed. That
is because of the war, primarily; the tariffs as well.
But Americans oppose this war 70 to 18 in the current poll because
they know that it is hurting our national security. We have not had a
resolution on the floor in a number of weeks.
So I just want to talk about four things that have happened in the
last few weeks that show how this war is spiraling and spiraling out of
control. Every single day, this war becomes more dangerous for the
region, more of a disaster for the United States.
One of the things that the administration said that was a motivating
factor for the war was getting rid of Iran's missiles. I don't know how
many times we heard Secretary Hegseth tell us that the goal was to
destroy Iran's missiles and missile capacity. And back in April, he
claimed that they had functionally destroyed--that is his word--
``functionally'' destroyed Iran's ability to make new missiles.
Well, the Wall Street Journal just reported that Iran is producing
ballistic missiles again at scale. And we only were able to eliminate
around 30 percent of the missiles. They have most of their stockpiles
from before the war, and now they are producing missiles. Again,
satellite imagery shows that Iran is rebuilding bridges and roads to
production sites; they are restoring tunnel entrances; and they are
building capacity again.
Iran is building missiles again. This is the whole reason we were
going into the war--a total failure--to eliminate Iran's missile
capacity.
What is the strain on our servicemembers? Well, we just learned this
week that eight Navy sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln have
attempted suicide. Two of those sailors, as we all know, tried to jump
overboard to end their lives. This is a ship that has been without a
port call--was without a port call for 286 days. That is abdication of
leadership, an abdication of the responsibility to care about our
troops' safety by our Department of Defense leadership.
We have sailors and soldiers and airmen that are in crisis right now
because we have put them in harm's way for far longer--for far longer--
than any brave man or woman who has signed up to defend this Nation
deserves to be in harm's way.
We have a new war that has broken out. A new war has broken out in
the last 2 weeks. This was totally predictable.
Everybody said: If you go to war with Iran, the Houthis are not going
to stand put. They are going to start firing inside Yemen and at the
Saudis, and that is exactly what has happened.
Drone strikes from the Houthis have knocked out Saudi Arabia's bypass
pipeline earlier this month. They have seized control of routes along
the Red Sea. And, functionally, the Red Sea is now shut down as a means
for the Saudis to move oil out of the region. This is part of the
reason why gas prices continue to go up.
The Strait of Hormuz is partially open again, but at what expense?
Prewar, it cost a supertanker $200,000 to move through the strait.
Today, it costs--this is a per-day cost. Today, it costs $1 million per
day for a supertanker to move through the strait, five times the cost
before the war. That alone adds $26 to the cost of each barrel of oil.
So, even though we are moving some transit through the Strait of

[[Page S4968]]

Hormuz, it is at a cost that consumers can't afford.

Finally, there has been satellite imagery in the last few weeks that
has shown new construction inside Iran around a complex called Pickaxe
Mountain. This is probably their new, most important nuclear site. It
looks as if they are digging a very deep bunker--deeper than Fordow--to
restart their nuclear research program. As one expert said, the window
to strike Pickaxe Mountain has already expired because the regime has
dug so far underground that we can now not hit it.
So they are restarting the nuclear program. They are restarting their
missile production program. We have not eliminated their drone
capability. We are leading up to a mass suicide and self-harm crisis
amongst our servicemembers. Costs are spiraling out of control for
consumers and for farms. A new war is breaking out in the region that
threatens the stability of the Middle East and further drives up gas
prices.
That is why support for this war is at 18 percent in this country. We
are supposed to be a democratic body that listens to the will of the
people. The people--whether they are Republicans, Independents, or
Democrats--are telling us loudly and unequivocally: End this war.
And it is not like we can't. This resolution is a chance for this
body to end the war. So we are pleading, once again--it is the tenth
time that we have had a resolution like this--for our colleagues to
join us. The American public is making it clear: They can't handle the
costs of this war, and they can't stand for the national security harm
it is doing to the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, today, I rise, once again, in strong
opposition to Donald Trump's illegal war in Iran.
For more than 6 months now, American families have paid the price for
this President's war of choice. This conflict has cost the lives of 18
of our servicemembers. It has cost American taxpayers $43 billion, and
it has cost families, small businesses, and manufacturers, as the price
of just about everything has skyrocketed.
I have been traveling across Wisconsin to hear from my constituents
as to just what this war has cost them.
In Milwaukee, I have heard from veterans about the cost of war on our
soldiers, their families, and their communities.
In Madison, I have heard from parents who are seeing a 20-percent
increase in the cost of back-to-school essentials, like lunch boxes and
notebooks and paper.
In La Crosse, I heard from a hardware store owner about the impact of
the rising costs on goods in his store and what that means for his
customers.
In Green Bay, one manufacturer told me that his supplier of raw
aluminum in the Middle East--a product that he can only get overseas--
was literally bombed. That is on top of the hundreds of thousands of
dollars in increased costs from tariffs and the war generally.
Our Wisconsin farmers are just getting hammered. They had higher
fertilizer costs at the planting season, higher fuel costs just to run
their equipment, and because of Trump's trade wars, they have fewer
places to sell their produce. During this year's planting season alone,
Wisconsin farmers spent nearly $44 million more on diesel fuel than
they did last year. As of today, the price of diesel in Wisconsin is a
whopping $6.59 a gallon for our farmers and our truckers.
The devastating impact of this war cannot be overstated. These
families are trying to put food on the table. Small business owners are
trying to stay afloat. Farmers are just trying to break even.
Wisconsinites never wanted this war. Yet they continue to pay for it
every day. They are paying more at the pump, more at the grocery store,
and more to keep their businesses and farms running.
The American people deserve better than an endless war that is
costing American lives and making it harder for them to get by at home.
I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in bringing an end to this
war of choice and vote yes on this resolution.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, this war in Iran absolutely, immediately
must end, and it will only end if the person who started it with the
unilateral decision to go to war decides to end the war.
We in the Senate have voted numerous times to end this war. We can't
do it unless we get votes from the other side of the aisle, but it is
absolutely disgraceful that the United States is in this war.
It was a decision of two men, not of two legislative bodies and not
of two votes of the American people, but of two men--Donald Trump and
Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu was in the Situation Room, making his
case that we should go to war with Iran. Any of the advisers to the
President said it was a bogus claim that it would be done overnight,
which is essentially what the assertion was.
So our President made a decision--and it was a unilateral decision by
him, a unilateral decision--that we go to war. He told the American
people it would be over in a couple of days, just like in Venezuela,
and that the people of Iran would rise up and take out the Ayatollah.
Many Iranians did rise up, and they got slaughtered.
The President bragged about the military might--and we do have a
strong military--but his strategic thinking was totally flawed and
foolish. He thought bombing could resolve something that it couldn't.
So, yes, we bombed. Yes, the leadership in Iran was wiped out.
But then Iran did what military advisers knew it would do, but the
President could not listen. They used an asymmetric response--drones--
to close the Strait of Hormuz. The impact here has been going on for
over 6 months, and the only way we can assess what has happened is to
come to the conclusion that the President's policy was a complete
failure. It is not working.
The President continues to promote a nonpolicy and to assert we are
putting the squeeze on Iran.
Mr. President, you are putting the squeeze on farmers in Iowa. You
are putting the squeeze on the tourist industry in Vermont. You are
putting the squeeze on manufacturers in Wisconsin. You are putting the
squeeze on the American people.
You know, for a farmer in the Midwest who wants to fill up his
combine with diesel, it is 1,500 extra dollars a day. And for what? For
what? For the ego of a man who capitulated to the pressures of Binyamin
Netanyahu--and that is what he did--and who does not have the
leadership ability or the character to assess what has happened in
these past 6 months and acknowledge that it is time for a change?
This is a day-to-day catastrophe, and the man who started this must
end it. But we, as U.S. Senators, with the responsibility and the trust
given to us by the people who elected us, have a say, and it is time
for us to say: End this war. End this war now. Arrogance is not a
substitute for good judgment. Arrogance is not an expression of
toughness and resolve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. WELCH. It is time to end this war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, President Trump's war against Iran has been
deeply unpopular--from the very first day--in Virginia and among
Americans, and it is growing more and more unpopular with each passing
day.
It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see 18 troops lose
their lives. They don't want to see the Pentagon undercounting troop
deaths.
It is unpopular because the American people don't want to see
hundreds of combat casualties for no legitimate purpose and a concern
that the Pentagon is undercounting combat casualties.
It is unpopular because Americans--and Virginians, in particular--
don't want to see extended deployments of carrier strike groups and
their loved ones away from home. A report came out yesterday that there
were eight attempted suicides in the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group
because of the extended deployment.
It is unpopular because having your sons and daughters deployed
overseas,

[[Page S4969]]

as 1,200 Virginia Guard members were last Saturday, in a war of choice
and with no clear plan or strategy, leaves families uncertain about the
future.
It is unpopular because diesel prices are going up, and other prices
are going up.
It is unpopular because Americans don't want to see a U.S. missile
hit a school and kill hundreds of kids.
It is unpopular because Americans don't appreciate a leader who would
tear up a diplomatic deal that was working and, instead, prefer a war
that is not working.
It is unpopular because it is depleting our munitions.
It is unpopular because it is adding to our debt.
It is unpopular because Americans have spent now more than 100
billion extra dollars in fuel costs than they would have without this
war.
The good news is that we can do something about it. We don't have to
stand back and just say: Wow, the President has decided, for silly
reasons, to start an illegal war, and I guess we just have to go along.
And that is what this vote is about.
We have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The
Constitution says the President cannot declare war, only Congress can.
There has been no congressional declaration of war. The President is
violating the Constitution with this war.
There is a statute that allows the President to defend the country
for 60 days without Congress, but it requires that that military action
expire at the end of 60 days. We are well past 60 days. The President
is not only not following the Constitution, he is not following the War
Powers Act.
Third, we have passed a concurrent resolution--Congress, both Houses,
under a Republican majority--declaring the war illegal. The President
has ignored that.
We directed him: Withdraw troops or get an authorization.
He has done neither, and it is not likely he will do either.
But the American public is speaking loud and clear and saying: You in
the Senate--you can do something about it.
And that is what this resolution is about.
The House, for the second time, has passed a concurrent resolution
provided under the War Powers Act. We will now vote, and it is my hope
we will vote with them to declare, yet again, that this is an illegal
war and that the President should stop it.
In closing, I will just say this: The President appeared at the U.N.
earlier this week and said it was his decision as to whether to do a
peace deal or whether to annihilate the nation of Iran. We have never
had a President who talks like this, and we never should again. But it
is not his decision; it is our decision.
The time to make a decision to end this war is upon us. I urge a
``yes'' vote on the concurrent resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the
vote scheduled for 1:45 now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on H. Con. Res. 89

The question occurs on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. PETERS. 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms.
Alsobrooks) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--50

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NOT VOTING--1

Alsobrooks

The concurrent resolution (H. Con Res. 89) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Nebraska.

Farm Bill

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, the last time that Congress passed a
full farm bill was in 2018; that was 8 years ago, and that law expired
in 2023. We should have passed a new bill by then, but Congress has
only passed short-term extensions. A lot has changed over the past 8
years, and the farm economy looks vastly different.
To be frank, America's farmers and ranchers are struggling. Drought,
high input costs and low yields have made it a very trying time.
I heard some of these concerns firsthand in August during a livestock
roundtable in Crawford, NE. I also heard this at our State fair where I
listened to ag producers from across our State.
These producers are in dire need of a modern farm bill, and we owe it
to them--the people who feed, fuel, and clothe us all--to enact
policies that promote stability and markets to sell their products.
I keep this goal front and center as a member of the Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. And I am proud to say
that last week, we advanced the farm bill out of committee. We are one
step closer to giving America's farmers and ranchers the long-term
certainty that they need.
But I am disappointed in how long it took us to get there. You know,
we first tried to move the farm bill in July. The Agriculture Committee
took a vote, but it failed. Every Republican voted yes. Every single
Democrat voted no. This was particularly disappointing given that this
year's farm bill includes numerous priorities led by Democrats.
Republicans worked in good faith to include their legislation to help
the producers in their States. I am proud of those bipartisan
priorities in this bill. I worked with Chairman Boozman to build
policies that support a safe, steady supply of food, fuel, and fiber.
Importantly, our bill also includes locking in permanent year-round
E15. This is one of the most direct ways that Congress can provide
relief without subsidies, by strengthening domestic demand for corn and
ethanol.
We cannot continue to operate on the current waiver system. For 8
years now, we have needed a Presidential waiver for E15 to be sold
during the summertime. And these waivers, they have been granted every
year. But this uncertainty makes it harder for producers and retailers
to invest and plan.
Permanent year-round E15, well, that would create a consistent,
predictable market. It would allow farmers, ethanol plants, and fuel
stations to operate with confidence.
Our biofuels producers and our retailers need that certainty. They
deserve a stable market 12 months out of the year, and I have been
fighting for this for over a decade. It is long overdue.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there circulating
around E15. Let me be clear: This bill is not a government mandate. It
simply gives fuel retailers the choice if they want to sell E15 at
their gas station. And it also gives consumers a choice to fill up with
E15 at the gas pump and to save some money.
The Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that E15 is completely
safe in cars made in 2001 or later.
Let me repeat that. If you have a vehicle manufactured in 2001 or
later, E15 can be used in your car. It does not hurt your engine.
So please, colleagues, public, quit saying that.
E15 expands domestic fuel options using American-grown corn. This
reduces vulnerability to global supply

[[Page S4970]]

shocks. A more diverse energy mix of oil, gas, renewables, nuclear, and
biofuels makes the United States harder to pressure, and it makes us
more resilient in times of conflict and disruption.
In addition to E15, this year's farm bill includes my precision ag
package, three bills that will help America's producers harness the
full potential of precision agriculture. We need to make it more
affordable for our farmers and ranchers to be able to access these
cutting-edge tools.
In turn, we can help their operations become more productive, more
efficient, and less resource intensive.
This farm bill also includes my legislation to prevent future food
shortages in our Tribal nutrition programs. By incorporating input from
Tribes on contracting decisions, we can strengthen this important
resource for communities that depend upon it. And I was very, very
happy to work with my Tribes in making sure that we got that included
in this bill.
Additionally, I secured a provision to safeguard Federal conservation
funds from being exploited by America's adversaries. This is going to
protect U.S. taxpayers and our domestic manufacturers from being taken
advantage of.
And, finally, I am very pleased to see my colleague Senator Ricketts'
FENCE Act included, a bill that I cosponsored. Senator Ricketts' bill
will give farmers and ranchers an opportunity to use virtual fencing as
they build and recover from natural disasters, and this is especially
helpful after the historic and devastating wildfires that blazed across
Nebraska earlier this year.
All of these provisions are needed. Together, they make a 2026 farm
bill a strong bipartisan legislation that truly serves our farmers, our
ranchers, and rural Americans.
As a committee, we did the work. We agreed to include good bills from
both Democrats and Republicans. We built strong bipartisan support for
year-round E15. We offered a fair compromise on SNAP cost-share
concerns.
We compromised on many items, and now we need to get this done. Let's
pass the farm bill. Let's give America's farmers and ranchers the
stability that they need.
To my colleagues, please, join me, and let's get this over the finish
line.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Tribute to Kalina Thompson

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor
someone who has changed the lives of millions of Americans, though
until this moment, they may have never heard her name: Kalina Thompson,
my chief of staff, who is leaving our office at the end of the month,
after more than a decade by my side.
Kalina and I did not meet as kids. We met when I was already a
Congresswoman. But in a way, it still feels that we grew up together,
as we learned from each other and leaned on one another from my early
days in the House, finding out what it truly means to serve this great
Nation, to lead, to not just get through long workdays in order to
simply make it until tomorrow, but to make sure that tomorrow is even
better than yesterday for the good of those coming up behind you.
Kalina is someone whose passion for public service is matched only by
her compassion for others. And don't be fooled by her soft voice; when
she believes in something she will fight harder than you can imagine to
transform a pipedream into a reality, to do some good, to do right by a
constituent who is desperate for someone, somewhere to lend them an ear
or a hand.
You know, it is rare to find someone whose North Star so closely
aligns with your own, but that is what I found in Kalina; a kindred
public servant, a trusted sounding board, a truthteller who will call
me out when I am wrong. She somehow stays unshakable, even in moments
of chaos, and beyond it all, a fiercely loyal friend.
We were there for one another as we each became mothers, and we were
there for one another as we worked day and night to make sure that
other new moms would have an easier time than we did.
It is thanks in large part to Kalina that my FAM Act became law,
helping ensure that nursing moms traveling through airports would have
access to private, clean, and accessible breast-feeding rooms.
She recognized that we would never expect a traveler to eat lunch in
an airport bathroom stall. Yet, for so many new moms, they had no
choice but to breast-feed in one. She saw a wrong, and she righted it.
It took 5 years, but in doing so, whether they know it or not, she
bettered the lives of countless women across this country. So every
time you are heading to your airport gate and see one of those breast-
feeding pods, think of and thank Kalina. I know I do. That is just who
she is.
She is someone who so thoroughly and thoughtfully thinks of others
that sometimes she does forget to think about herself.
So it doesn't matter that folks in question are halfway down the
block or halfway across the world, if she hears of someone in need, she
will go sleepless until she exhausts every avenue of service.
I have watched her sacrifice time with her own family to do
everything possible to help families escape war-torn countries in the
Middle East. She has made calls to fellow moms across the globe just to
let them know they are not alone, that we are fighting for them, that
we would never stop fighting for them.
She has redefined the word ``compassion'' with every call she made,
every ounce of hard work she put in, every time she went the extra mile
for a stranger thousands of miles away.
Kalina is also a leader who has taken the lessons she has learned
along her own career journey, and she used them not just for herself
but for all of those climbing the ladder rungs of success behind her.
As legislative director, then as deputy chief of staff, and now as
chief of staff, she has made sure that the women in our office always--
always--know and fight for their worth.
Now, because of her, there is a whole generation of female staffers
that believe in themselves more fully, and Congress is a better place
because of it, because of Kalina.
I could go on and on about the constituents Kalina has helped, the
bills she has helped to pass, the lives she has changed, the lives that
she has saved, starting with her own work fighting to pass the
Affordable Care Act; but let me just tell one more story.
As Democrats, we like to say that we are the party of middle-class
families, which is true. But Kalina took it upon herself to make sure
our office didn't just offer the standard family Senate policies for
staffers, when it came to things like FMLA or parental leave. No, she
wanted to set a new bar for congressional offices.
She said to me: If we want our constituents to truly believe that we
would fight for their families, then we have to fight for the families
of those who come to work for us every day as well.
And it wasn't simple. At first, it seemed like it would be too big of
a resource hit to actually go through with the plan she was proposing.
Could our budget afford it? Could our workforce afford it?
It would have been easy to just scrap the idea, to backtrack, to
stick with the status quo. But Kalina refused, arguing that if we want
to actually live up to our policy ideas, to our political party's
ideals, it starts with us in our own backyard.
And you know what? She was right. So we became the first office in
either the House or Senate to grant 16 weeks of paid leave to new
parents. And then we extended our family leave policy. We made sure
that we didn't just talk the talk as Democrats, but that we also walked
the walk as employers. And because of her, staffers have been able to
go care for their fathers battling cancer; because of her, new moms
have had the time necessary to look after themselves and their little
ones in those precious all-important first few months after birth.
Because of Kalina, no one in our office has had to make the impossible
choice between earning the paycheck that puts food on their table and
being there for an ailing mom, sister, child, or spouse.
Try as hard as she might, Kalina could not singlehandedly change
family leave policy for the entire country. But this was a proof point,
making it clear that it is possible for an office to be there for its
staffers and do its work without missing a beat, because it actually
benefited our office in the long

[[Page S4971]]

run to provide those 16 weeks of leave, as staff members have served
longer than they otherwise would have, sticking with us for long
tenures, knowing that we will be there for them when it matters most
during their toughest, most trying times.
And I will say, she and I don't agree on everything. There are some
differences that have divided even our office right down the middle.
For instance, Kalina and our former legislative director Steph would
literally sit in our office in those cubes in Cannon and horrify the
rest of us by happily digging into a giant mason jar of sauerkraut,
eating sauerkraut right out of that jar, for instance.
But on nearly everything else, I just feel beyond fortunate to have
found a partner so courageous in everything that she takes on, from
learning English in America after moving from Bulgaria as a little girl
to her ``Love Story'' karaoke performances to going head to head with
the Senate Rules Committees to help me change our Chamber's bylaws to
let parents take newborns onto the Senate floor.
No challenge has been too daunting for her and no task too small. She
simply cares. It is who she is, and it is why I am endlessly grateful
to have been able to have her by my side for so long through so much.
Let me finish by saying thank you to Kalina, of course, but also her
family--Sandy, Wills, and Sofie--for lending your wife, your mom to us
for those countless late nights and weekends.
Kalina, I will miss you more than I could ever say, but just know how
proud all of us are of you and how lucky I feel that I got to watch you
grow into the force for good that you are today.
Bon voyage, my friend. I know you are going to continue to do good
for the rest of the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Graham). The Senator from Georgia.

Tribute to Mark Libell

Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, it is my honor to rise today and give
somebody gratitude for my first and, so far, only chief of staff, Mark
Libell. Mark was with me from my first days in the Senate.
I have spent my entire adult life in ministry. This was my first
public office. So as I made my way to the Senate, I knew that I needed
someone who knew his way around here--you can relate--someone who knew
where the bathrooms were and who knew how to get things done around
here.
Mark was a Senate veteran and well respected by everyone who knew
him, and it didn't take me long to understand why. He came to DC as an
intern in 2003, and he decided he would intern until he found a job or
ran out of money. He clearly was hooked. And if he ran out of money, he
planned to pack up his car and return home to Alabama.
Well, luckily for all of us, Mark did not stay an intern for long. He
went on to work for my friend Senator Debbie Stabenow, Representatives
Bart Gordon and Linda Sanchez, and Senator Jay Rockefeller.
After 10 years working on Capitol Hill, Mark took his talents to the
Federal Reserve Board but returned to the Senate a few years later to
serve his beloved home State of Alabama as deputy chief of staff and
legislative director for my friend Senator Doug Jones.
So when I say Mark knows the Senate, I mean he really knows the
Senate. Although he hails from Alabama and everybody knows how serious
that rivalry is between Georgia and Alabama football, we have never
held that against him. He has seen this place from every angle, he has
done just about every job there is to do in a Senator's office, and he
has been a major asset to my mission and my work.
That is part of what makes Mark so special, because he saw so many
roles. He sees himself in every staffer. He has a deep respect in every
role that a person plays in a Senate office no matter their title.
Staff assistants and senior staff alike know that Mark's door is
always open. He will make time to offer career advice or to solve a
problem. And when staffers walk out of his office, they feel respected,
and they feel heard. Most importantly, they feel like someone is in
their corner rooting for them to succeed. And on more than one
occasion, he has been a confidante and trusted counsel to me.
Mark has the heart of a public servant. He wrote his thesis on Bobby
Kennedy. Even in a place as cynical as Washington, DC, Mark is leaving
the Senate as much of an idealist as when he arrived over two decades
ago. He has always believed in this institution's ability to make a
difference in people's lives, and that is why Mark fought for me to
keep on the entire casework team from my Republican predecessor and
friend, the late Senator Johnny Isakson. That casework team that Mark
advocated for has gone on to help nearly 68,000 constituents and is
nationally recognized as one of the best casework teams in Congress.
They get great things done for Georgians all the time. Because my name
is on the door, I get the credit, but they do the work under Mark's
leadership.
Mark believed that we could cut child poverty in half, and he helped
me to do that when we passed the expanded child tax credit. He believed
we could ban private equity from mass-purchasing homes, and we did just
that. He believed that we could come together and lower the cost of
insulin, and we did just that.
But what I most appreciate about Mark is that he always believes in
this country's ability to do better, to be better. That idealism he saw
in Bobby Kennedy is very much alive in him.
Mark believed in a country where a State in the old Confederacy could
elect its first African-American Senator and first Jewish Senator in
one fell swoop and where a kid from Florence, AL, could go on to become
one of the most influential staffers serving today in the U.S. Senate.
Because no one achieves anything alone, I would also like to thank
Mark's wonderful wife Carrie for the support she has shown to Mark and
my entire operation through early mornings and late nights. I would
also like to thank his mother Lynn and his brother Adam. I know his
father, who about a year ago passed into the light, smiles from
someplace in eternity.
While Mark may be leaving the Senate tomorrow, he leaves behind
dozens of staffers whom he has inspired with his patriotic idealism
that a career in public service is worth it, is worth the sacrifice,
that the small wins add up, that they make the difference in the lives
of ordinary people, and that our future is brighter when we choose to
have faith in one another.
So, Mark, from me, from my staff, and from the people of Georgia,
thank you so very much. God bless you and your future endeavors. Keep
the faith, and keep looking up.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Artificial Intelligence

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think we would all probably agree that
we are living through in realtime the biggest technological
transformation in generations.
I was lucky enough to be involved in the beginnings of the wireless
industry. As an investor, I invested in companies in the internet. As
significant as both of those are, they pale in comparison to what we
are facing now with this transformation, and there is a lot of good
that will come out of artificial intelligence. We all know that AI is
already changing the way Americans work, the way businesses compete,
the way scientists conduct our research, and, frankly, as to what our
government should do to protect our country. Let me be clear at the
outset, America has got to continue to lead this transformation.
I am down, today, with two of my colleagues--the Senator from Hawaii
and the Senator from New Jersey--to say that we can't dawdle at this
moment. Each of us has got a whole series of AI legislative items. I
have got ideas about data centers, about kids' safety, about liability
for AI agents, national security. Senator Rounds and I, for example,
today, talked about a workforce transformation.
But we have been at a moment in time, over the last few weeks, where
the AI companies themselves have acknowledged that they are creating
tools and entities that they may not even be able to control. We have
seen one company, OpenAI, launch a series of 3,000 AI agents that
jumped over the security barriers, attacked a different company,
Hugging Face, came back and tried to attack their own company--these AI
agents together. The

[[Page S4972]]

remarkable thing is, these 3,000 agents talked to each other,
communicated, tried to hide from humans, and literally left little bits
of code on their paths so that subsequent groups of AI agents might
come and discover those.
I have met, over the last couple of weeks, with business leaders from
finance and from across corporate America who all say: What are you
guys doing?
This is the issue of our time. Yes, I have got frustrations on data
centers, but this is the issue of our time. This is going to be the
biggest transformation of our lifetimes, and we don't have even de
minimis safety protocols. We are completely relying on the good will of
these large AI frontier tech companies to kind of do the right thing.
That is irresponsible. You know, I am proud of the role I play in the
national security domain. I have been chair or vice chair of the Intel
Committee for the last decade.
Another company--not OpenAI. That was the Hugging Face incident.
Anthropic created a new model called Mythos, and our head of cyber
security--CYBERCOM--and the National Security Agency, General Rudd,
said, basically, that Mythos is going to change warfare almost as much
as drones. Luckily, we got a first look at that but only because the
one company was willing to give that forward.
So we ought to have a time to have a fulsome debate about data
centers, kids' safety, liability, and other issues, but right now--and
we were going to do this today, but we are going to come back on Monday
because the Senate has left. We are, kind of, the three of us--and we
are talking to other colleagues on both sides of the aisle--saying:
Let's strip back all of our personal ideas, and let's just put a marker
down that potentially we could act on because we hear from some of the
technology leaders that we might lose, you know, the ability to control
some of these tools not in years or months, but some folks say--and I
am not fully believing them--in weeks. I don't believe--I am not a
``doomer'' on AI--I don't think the robots are going to take over the
world--but I do think, if we had an event where an AI tool went out and
took over a hospital or took over a water system or shut down a power
system--and Americans are already concerned about the rate of this
technology change--they could shut down this innovation, and that would
be the worst for our country. We need to lead this in terms of some of
our competitors like China.
So what we are going to be proposing is, I think, as simple as
possible. Before any AI model coming out of these frontier labs is
released to the public, it ought to be tested to make sure it is safe.
A lot of these big companies also do some self-testing, but they do it
in what is called a sandbox, where they are supposed to protect it.
Well, we have seen that some of these sandboxes are pretty sloppy. We
ought to create basic cyber security standards for that sandbox. When
you start at the very beginning of how an AI model is developed, we
ought to make sure that company has some basic safety protocol in
place. Then, God forbid, if there is an incident, there ought to be an
incident reporting so we know what is happening because the difference
is, in past innovation, you could have a mistake, but it might--the
amount of damage that could happen would be fairly limited.
Potentially, this could be so much greater, and we literally are having
the companies themselves say: Help us.
Now, Lord knows we have got to make sure this is not an effort to
simply ensconce the four or five biggest companies. We have got to make
sure smaller tech--VC--has a place on this safety panel, but we need
national security.
We need our top scientists. We propose NIST. We are open on how to do
it better, but it needs to be a public-private relationship that has a
safety board. We wouldn't climb on an airplane or you wouldn't get in a
car or you wouldn't get a new financial product without some regulatory
oversight. With something that is as big as this, we should not miss
the moment. God forbid, you know, we go away for our campaign season,
and in the interim, something happens, and we have no safety in place.
I spent a career in technology before I got involved in politics, but I
never felt a moment like this. So I hope that we will act.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from
Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from
Virginia and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and also
thank Senator Kim, the Senator from New Jersey, both of whom have real
expertise in this area and as it intersects with public policy.
This is really about one simple thing, and that is, humans in control
of the code and not the code in control of the humans.
We are at a seminal moment in world history, not just in American
history, where it is possible for this code to escape human control.
That is not an apocalyptic statement from a person who wants to make a
point in a political context; that is a fact that is new to all of us.
This code is capable of escaping our control, and it is potentially
capable of something they call recursive self-improvement, which means
the code can write its own code and that humans would find the code
that was written by AI so inscrutable as to not be able to control it
at all.

So what we are proposing--and I want to reiterate what Senator Warner
said. When we were in private conversation, he said: Nobody can bring
their pet rock to this conversation.
What do I mean by ``pet rock''?
Everybody has got a bill on AI. By the way, they are really important
things--energy use, the safety of children, the future of work, the
future of intellectual property--but we are not going to solve that in
a 10-day period. So what we sat down on a bipartisan basis to do with
AI safety groups, with companies that are in the business--with
experts--is to say: How do we reduce the acute risk now, not the
societal risk over the long run, not to balance the equities between
whatever it may be 2, 3, 4 years from now. How do we take down what
some people are calling civilizational risk? Some people find that too
apocalyptical. Fine. Let's not call it risk of extinction. Let's not
call it civilizational risk. Let's just call it a high risk of
something very terrible happening, and that should be enough for us to
be on the floor to say: Well, why don't we try to take down that risk?
There is a very straightforward pathway. First of all, it is
predeployment testing, but one of the things, I think, we have all
learned is that, by the time a company is ready to deploy what they
call a frontier model, it has been through some testing. So it is
important to test it before it is commercially available, but the truth
is that the Hugging Face incident, in particular--that thing jumped the
fence way, way earlier than when you would do the predeployment
testing. So we need third-party review from the jump.
And the thing about a sandbox--and I was taught this term of art
about 10 years ago, and I remember talking to my tech expert in my
office: What is a sandbox?
And they said: You should think of it like an actual sandbox, sort of
where you experiment, where there are no wrong answers, where it may
get a little messy.
So the configuration of these sandboxes has been like that--for
experimentation, almost casual, very entrepreneurial.
But the problem is, these things can escape control at the sandbox
level so it is not enough for predeployment testing. We also need
third-party review of the process at every stage because we don't know
at which point an agent--an AI--or a swarm of agents could escape human
control. Then, at the end of it, we need postdeployment breach
notification, analysis, transparency so that, if there are big,
dangerous events, we know how to prevent them from happening in the
future.
So that is all this bill does. It says: Let's get third-party review
all the way through the process and then all the way up to
predeployment testing. Then, if something goes badly, we have
transparency on the back end. We threw out all of our ``pet rocks''--
nothing partisan, nothing like my longtime priority on AI, but rather
the very narrow question, which is: Don't we have an obligation, if
there is any risk of a power grid going down, if there is any risk of a
financial system buckling, if there is any risk at all, don't we have
an obligation to take down that risk

[[Page S4973]]

and fight about the rest of the stuff at some other time?
The kind of ironic thing about this Congress right now is that the
private sector is begging to enshrine what they are starting to promise
to do in Federal statutory law because they are about to say: Here are
all of the safety measures we are doing. But there is a reason you
don't regulate toxic chemicals or biomedical research or aviation by
voluntary agreement. You need a Federal statute, and then the private
sector can work toward compliance on that Federal statutory standard.
But you don't want 90 percent of the AI companies--the frontier
models, the hyperscalers--complying and then the other 10 percent
saying: Wait, I don't have to do that, do I? I don't have to do that,
do I?
So all we are asking is that this bipartisan proposal--and it is
bipartisan. We are working on it in very, very good faith to try to
narrow the scope of disagreement but not narrow it to the point that we
pass nothing but, rather, narrow it to the point where we pass
something that takes down the immediate risk and allows us to look our
constituents in the eye and say: We did something on this very, very
serious and urgent matter.
With that, with the permission of the ranking member, I want to bring
in the Senator from New Jersey, who has a background in tech and has a
background in national security that I think adds a lot to this
conversation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator
Warner and Senator Schatz for working with me and working on this
project going forward.
I actually find this experience here being on the Senate floor right
now really important because we are here because this is what the
American people want. The American people want their elected leaders to
be focused on the concerns and the threats that they worry about, that
keep them up at night.
As mentioned by my colleague from Hawaii, I come to this Chamber as
somebody who served in national security, someone who served under both
Republican and Democratic Presidents, in war zones in Afghanistan to
the Situation Room at the White House. This path of mine started just a
little over 25 years ago when I saw from my own home State of New
Jersey the threats that we faced on national security because of
September 11.
I was not someone who thought I was going into national security
until that day, but by 6 p.m. on September 11, I said that I am going
to do and dedicate the rest of my life to doing everything I can to try
to keep this country safe. Yes, that led to a lot of work in war zones
and on counterterrorism, but it was always about this broader goal of,
how do we ensure that safety?
I come at this now not just as someone who is concerned about
national security but as a father of two little boys, one of whom just
celebrated his 11th birthday yesterday. And as excited as I am about
seeing these two little boys grow up, I will be honest with you, I
worry about what kind of world they are growing up in, the level of
anxiety that I have as I see the type of technology that will define
their generation. It will define not just their jobs and their
education but so much about their security. So I think about them
because it is not just us here in this Chamber; we are here because we
are trying to answer the call of the American people.
I just did a townhall the other week. Overwhelmingly, people are
calling upon us, saying that they want urgency; they want this Chamber
to move with the speed of urgency that they feel.
So what I appreciate here is that we are engaged in this effort right
now to do one simple thing, which is meet the moment. That has a lot of
implications, but one is just the fact that no Senator in this Chamber
is going to have all the answers. There is not a single one of us that
knows all the answers. Neither do all the tech leaders. They don't know
all the answers either. But that cannot be an excuse for inaction;
that, instead, we should channel that humility and that urgency to be
able to move forward and recognize we do not have time to be able to
design something that will handle the entirety of all the concerns we
face when it comes to AI and this technology we are concerned about but
just say: Look, we need to be able to move forward, to show some
progress, to show some responsiveness to the concerns raised by the
American people.
I think this legislation is that effort to try to come up with
tangible things that will move the needle. It is not going to solve all
the problems, but that is the point. It is about trying to build up
that muscle memory in this Chamber that we need to find. It is a muscle
memory that this Chamber has found in the past when it has confronted
different national security challenges in the past. We need to find
that yet again at a time of great division in this country but setting
it aside for us to be able to, again, meet this moment.
So I am just grateful, again, for the leadership of Senator Warner,
Senator Schatz, and other Senators that we are engaged with. This is an
invitation to others to join this effort to stand up and say: Let's get
something done. Let's not get totally bogged down in just the divisions
that we see stalling progress on so many other fronts. The American
people are demanding of us to act. Now is our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I will wrap it up here. I have been in
Virginia talking about this for a while. We have a lot of data centers,
which is of some concern. But, boy oh boy, there was a seismic change
starting as the companies themselves started to say: Holy heck. And
just think about that. Mythos came out in March. National security and
others said: This is going to change warfare. The OpenAI Hugging Face
incident happened in July. That was 3,000 agents working together. In
August, OpenAI got 10,000 agents to work together. It was on a
different problem; they solved a math problem. But the idea is that
there is kind of an exponential increase in sophistication, as these
agents work together to cover their tracks, that, as Senator Schatz
said, potentially could move beyond human control.
If we just say ``Well, that is still hypothetical,'' let me give you
two last comments.
Just today, we found that actually a model had already been released
from OpenAI that attacked the Australian healthcare system. If it
attacked our system, I think we would be pretty upset.
Even more compelling--some of us have written a letter to both the
folks on the intel side and on the defense side--there was a ship from
China sailing towards the Middle East, and we got very close to bombing
that ship because the AI tool and the intel said there might be weapons
on that. Thank goodness that at some point, somebody did a little more
checking, and we didn't do that, but we were close to a geopolitical
event that could have been catastrophic.
These tools are already built into our systems, and clearly, you
know, the way our military executed on Maduro--you may not agree with
the greatness of it, but it was brilliant. But we don't have safety
protocols.
So we are not asking for the world. Let's do the testing early. Let's
make sure that you have a safety standard in all of these companies.
Let's make sure we do the sandbox right, report on the incident.
We could discuss, you know, who is on that panel. It needs to be
mandatory. It needs to have government. It needs to have national
security. And Lord knows we need to have researchers, scientists. All
of these individuals are asking for this. Who are we to turn that down?
I am going to go back to where we started. This will be the most
significant technology innovation in our lifetimes. It will make
wireless and the internet and the cloud small in comparison. There
could be enormous positives coming out of this. There are also going to
be disruptions. But if we don't do this in a safe manner, then shame on
us.
Again, I come back. You wouldn't climb on an airplane that hadn't
been checked. We are just saying let's do those basic safety checks.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4974]]

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wanted to add one last thing. I want
to acknowledge the great work that Senator Klobuchar and Leader Thune
are doing on this and Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz. There are a
number of other Republican Members.
This has a sense of urgency. We need to come together. We could put
everybody's name on it. But history will not judge us well if, God
forbid, we have an incident and we put no protections in place, for our
country and for this innovation.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

____________________