An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I don't normally come to the floor to give somewhat lengthy remarks, but today I am doing so because of a deep and, frankly, rising concern for the future of our intelligence community and, in turn, the security of the United States.

For months now, we have watched President Trump's administration, led in this arena by his handpicked Director of National Intelligence Ms. Gabbard, systemically undermine the men and women whose mission is to keep this country safe. These are professionals who serve under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. They are career officials who put duty before politics, who swear an oath not to any President but to the Constitution of the United States.

Yet as this administration fires and denigrates these very men and women, as expertise that takes literally decades to build is being thrown away as it conflicts with political talking points, as assessments grounded in fact are being shelved in favor of conspiracy theories, our adversaries are conspiring, sharing intelligence and military capabilities and strategizing over how to weaken the United States while advancing a very different authoritarian vision for the world.

At the same time, I fear the integrity of our intelligence is being sacrificed on the altar of partisan convenience.

This is not some kind of inside-the-beltway turf battle, and it is not another partisan disagreement. I believe at stake is something much more fundamental: whether America will continue to have an intelligence community free to speak truth to power or whether political pressure will blind us to the very real threats our Nation faces.

(Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)

History shows us what happens when intelligence is ignored, manipulated, or kept from those who need it most. In 1941, the U.S. Navy intercepted communications showing that Japan was planning to attack Pearl Harbor. That knowledge ended up being of little use because it was not communicated to the people who could have taken action to protect the fleet. The result was the devastating surprise that cost thousands of American lives.

In the aftermath, Congress resolved that we could never again afford to be blindsided. So in 1947, in a bipartisan way, Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency, the modern Department of Defense, and other institutions to ensure that unfiltered, unbiased intelligence is provided to the President, to Congress, and to our military. These institutions are meant to protect us from surprises and to give policymakers the truth, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Now, for the most part, this system has worked, and all of us who work up here know it has never been perfect. The abuses revealed by the Church Committee in the 1970s made clear why strong congressional oversight is essential. That is why the Senate Intelligence Committee was established in 1976 and our House counterpart the following year.

Today, while not flawless, these committees--of which I know the Presiding Officer is a member--remain the best check we have to ensure that intelligence Agencies uphold American values and laws and avoid repeating past mistakes--and hopefully learning from them when they do occur. Even with our modern system of congressional oversight, we have seen tragic failures. Intelligence failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. We failed to connect the dots before 9/11. And perhaps most foreboding, in the runup to the Iraq war, intelligence was distorted to fit policy preferences. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida were inflated and cherry-picked. Analysts who even at that time raised doubts were ignored.

The result was a devastating war in Iraq, fought under false pretenses, that cost literally thousands of American servicemembers their lives and limbs. But we learned from those failures.

After the September 11 attacks, Congress placed additional safeguards and created a new position: the Director of National Intelligence. The objective was to better coordinate our intelligence Agencies, to avoid the so-called

groupthink, to remove silos amongst our now 18, 19 intelligence Agencies, and to ensure that analysts could provide thorough, candid assessments--again, even when the truth was uncomfortable or unwelcome.

That was the commitment I asked President Trump's nominee and the current Director of National Intelligence, Ms. Gabbard, to make during her confirmation hearing, and she assured our committee and the American people that she would protect the independence of the intelligence community to ensure that the IC is never politicized. She even pointed to the runup to the war in Iraq as the clearest example of what happens when intelligence is bent to fit policy and the President is told only what he wants to hear. She pledged that she would never allow those mistakes to be repeated on her watch.

Mr. President, but in only 6 months, we have seen the opposite from this administration. We have seen career FBI agents, people who have risked their lives for this country, forced out of their positions simply for investigating crimes committed in the January 6 insurrection. These were professionals following the law, performing their sworn duties, and yet their service was treated as disloyalty. Careers were ended and decades of expertise were discarded just for doing the job they were entrusted to do.

We have seen the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the National Intelligence Council dismissed because their well-documented, evidence- based assessment of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua criminal network did not align with the administration's preferred narrative. These analysts presented carefully sourced intelligence showing that the gang of bad guys acted, actually, independent of the Venezuelan Government, not at the behest of foreign officials. Yet their findings were rejected and their leadership positions removed simply because the truth didn't fit a politically convenient story.

And again, to be clear, there is no question that Maduro's regime in Venezuela and the TDA are ruthless actors who pose real threats, but punishing officials--punishing intelligence officials in particular-- for telling the truth only weakens our ability to confront them.

We have seen the three-star general leading the Defense Intelligence Agency pushed out after analysts produced a straightforward, evidence- based assessment showing that Iran's nuclear program had not been obliterated, as President Trump so loudly claimed. Rather than face those facts, the administration decided to punish the messenger, and he was let go from DIA.

We have seen, more recently, analysts, literally with decades of experience on Russia, stripped of their security clearances or reassigned at the very moment that their years of expertise is needed most.

More recently, DNI Gabbard has personally revoked the clearances of at least 37 individuals in a transparently political act of vengeance in a single stroke of a pen and, at least in one case, exposing an official working undercover. That alone--putting someone who has worked undercover and identifying that identity--in past administrations would have been grounds for firing.

We have seen statutory requirements to keep Congress fully and currently informed ignored, oversight stymied and obstructed, and inspectors general who are supposed to keep their eyes on these Agencies--inspectors general and their personnel silenced, forced out, or removed.

And I remind my colleagues, in terms of oversight for the intelligence community, that is not a right that all 100 Senators have. There are literally 17 of us. As chair or vice chair over the last few years, I am part of the so-called Gang of 8. If we don't do our jobs, nobody is watching all of these intelligence Agencies.

Even more damaging, we have seen highly sensitive intelligence declassified and released, clearly for political purposes, without proper coordination with the Agencies responsible for protecting sources and methods--that is how we do our work and who are the people involved. The disclosures actually risked revealing the identities of assets--and those are human beings--and the techniques we rely on-- those are the technology and skills we have--and the credibility of ongoing operations, all for the sake of advancing a political narrative. The very tools that protect lives and maintain America's strategic advantage are being treated as leverage in a partisan game.

Let's remember, the so-called Russia hoax and that assessment, which this administration continues to disparage, was a coordinated, unanimous finding by the entire intelligence community. Our committee-- on a bipartisan, unanimous basis--reviewed it and validated it extensively. Not a single one of my Republican colleagues objected to its findings, including the current Secretary of State, then-committee chairman Senator Rubio.

And what did that assessment actually conclude? I think every one of us understood that Russia conducted a sweeping, systematic campaign to interfere in our 2016 election; that Moscow's goal was to sow chaos, to undermine faith in American democracy, and specifically to boost Mr. Trump's candidacy. These findings were not partisan talking points; they were sober judgments of career professionals, backed by evidence, and affirmed by both parties in Congress.

And during the first Trump administration, they responded to that report appropriately and put resources to make sure the 2020 election was the safest election on record. Kudos to the first Trump administration in doing that.

But with all of this happening, as troubling as all of this is, what may be most astonishing is who seems to be calling the shots now: not seasoned national security leaders, not career intelligence professionals, but conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a figure who has called the 9/11 terrorist attacks an inside job, who described herself as a ``pro-White nationalist'' and a ``proud Islamophobe,'' and who has made openly racist and anti-Muslim statements. This is not someone with even a shred of credibility, let alone the experience or judgment we should demand from those influencing U.S. national security decisions.

Yet, time and again, we have seen senior officials pushed out of their posts because Ms. Loomer decided they were not sufficiently loyal to the President. National Security Council staffers, people well-known and respected on both sides of the aisle, including staffers who worked for my Republican colleagues in the Senate, were shown the door at her demand; the two top officials at the National Security Agency, including a well-respected four-star general, Timothy Haugh, forced out, along with the Agency's general counsel, again at Loomer's behest.

These are critical posts in one of our most important intelligence organizations, vacated not because of misconduct or failure but because of the whims of a political provocateur whose public record is filled with hate and conspiracies. And don't take my word on these actions. Ms. Loomer's own social media feed claims all of these firings and dismissals almost as trophies.

And just a few weeks ago we saw something that I believe should trouble every Member of this body, regardless of which party you belong to. My staff and I had arranged a visit to the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency located in my State of Virginia so that I could go ahead and do my constitutional duty of oversight and, in that meeting, meet with intelligence professionals who also happened to be my constituents. Yet, at the last minute, that visit was blocked--again-- and apparently, as she claimed, by Laura Loomer.

What does it say about the state of our national security when a self-proclaimed White nationalist and Islamophobe with a personal vendetta against U.S. Government officials--and, by the way, no security clearance, no sworn duty to defend the Constitution--can dictate who serves in critical intelligence positions and even prevent Members of this Chamber from conducting basic oversight?

I have to ask again: Why is this administration going to war against the very professionals sworn to keep our country safe? Why are decades of service and sacrifice being tossed aside?

Why? Because they think they are still obliged to provide the truth and speak truth to power. But, instead, it appears that sometimes those truths

are inconvenient because sometimes their assessments are not what the DNI and the President want to hear.

These safeguards we put in place and the oversight this body provides--again, only 17 of us have seen these classified programs-- these safeguards only work if intelligence officers know that they can tell the truth without losing their jobs. If analysts who analyze the facts and try to come up with conclusions believe their careers will be destroyed for offering inconvenient assessments, then we will only get intelligence the White House wants.

Imagine the consequences if our intelligence community is forced to spend its time chasing down conspiracy theories instead of monitoring terrorist networks, cyber threats, or foreign adversaries. Imagine if analysts stop flagging real dangers because they fear political retaliation. Imagine if experienced officers walk away from service altogether because they know their expertise will be diminished or punished. That kind of environment doesn't just weaken our intelligence community, it puts every American family at risk.

Again, this is not some kind of partisan point. Democrats and Republicans alike have relied on the intelligence community to keep the country safe. Every President, whether they liked what they were hearing or not, has depended on accurate, independent analysis to make decisions that affect millions of lives.

That is what makes this current moment so alarming. We are dismantling trust in institutions that literally took generations to build. We are eroding morale among some of the most dedicated professionals in public service. And I fear that we are sending a clear message to young officers, whether they are at the CIA or any of the other intelligence Agencies: Don't bother building a career in intelligence if you plan on telling the truth.

Meanwhile, these aren't actions in a vacuum. Our adversaries aren't slowing down. Cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, nuclear proliferation, terrorist attacks, transnational criminal organizations--these threats are real, and they are not going to wait for us to get our house in order.

If we continue to allow politics to dictate what intelligence is acceptable, we are effectively flying blind. That is why, again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please, for God's sake, take this seriously. We can disagree about policy, but we cannot allow the facts themselves to be corrupted.

The intelligence community must remain independent, professional, and committed to the Constitution above all else.

I have had the opportunity in my tenure on this committee to work with a lot of these men and women. I didn't know many of them before I was on the Intelligence Committee. They are dedicated professionals. I never asked a single one what their party affiliation was. They oftentimes put their lives in harm's way and, candidly, never get the attention that our military does. They work in secret.

The truth is, these professionals and the work they do deserve to be respected, honored, and listened to because if you corrupt the intelligence and bend it to political wills, we have seen constant examples of what happens.

The truth is, the American people deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 224; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Idaho, the chair of our Foreign Relations Committee.

I join him. I join him enthusiastically in condemning the actions of Hamas--the invasion on October 7 of Israel, the slaughter of 1,200 innocent people, the taking of hostages, and the infliction of suffering that Hamas has inflicted on Palestinians within Gaza. But the situation is much different today than it was a few months ago.

Four months ago, I stood here, and I asked for unanimous consent in support of the Senate resolution on the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The resolution called for an end to the siege, an end to the war, and the return of the hostages.

Since then, more than 400 people have died of starvation, including more than 100 children, and that is ongoing and accelerating. Thousands more have died under bombs and bullets at aid sites themselves.

At the time, I held up this picture of Jinan Iskafi. She died in her parents' arms, the victim of a military blockade on infant formula.

Here joining Jinan are children suffering from famine conditions that exist right now, this month--Amer, Maryam, and Shamm.

There is an ongoing famine in Gaza, and the Netanyahu government has made a self-conscious decision to deny people the food and medicine they need to survive. Women waiting for C-sections are trapped in the middle of a bombing campaign. Children are forced to watch their mothers die slowly of cancer, with no access to medicine. The hospitals they need are being destroyed.

At the same time, the Netanyahu government has begun a new military operation to take complete control of Gaza City. In Gaza City, hundreds of civilians are living under nonstop bombardment. It is about destroying buildings that are left standing, and it is a bombing campaign that has as part of its objective to force them to leave.

The Netanyahu officials in his government acknowledge that they want people to move out. They acknowledge that their campaign is in significant part about displacing people who live in Gaza City and forcing them to move elsewhere. That is at a time when those folks are living in tents; the kids aren't going to school; where they have already moved six or seven times.

The decision a family has to make is horrific: Do they move to another place where there is no place to go and they have no guarantee of any kind of safety, or is it better for them and their family to stay where they are and risk that they will be in the path of the bombing campaign?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire. I really appreciate her very practical presentation about a common concern that we have--Republicans and Democrats--and that is that we do no harm when it comes to the profound insecurity people are feeling about having access to healthcare for themselves, for their partners, for their kids.

And we have got real differences in this Chamber. Little introductory remarks about the One Big Beautiful Bill--I do think it is a terrible bill. I do think that we have taken money from healthcare and other areas to fund a tax cut for very wealthy people. I think it is bad for the economy and creates a lot of insecurity.

We are also having a big battle about the funding of government, which is the responsibility that we all have. And I want to be candid. I take significant issue with the President when he says: Don't even bother dealing with Democrats.

This always is a budget issue that has to involve Democrats and has to involve Republicans. If we don't talk, we don't resolve differences and we are not even in a position to do our job and find common ground. So we are in a pickle. That creates some hard feelings as we try to work through this. And I don't want to dwell on that because we do have different points of view on that.

But we have a situation here, as the senior Senator from New Hampshire described, where if these healthcare premium supports expire, every American who has come to depend on access to healthcare through ObamaCare, which is now accepted as an important element in our healthcare system, every person on that is in incredible jeopardy.

And I know that every single Member of this Senate is very concerned about access to healthcare for the people they represent. There is no alternative for folks out there that is even being discussed if we don't continue the premium support for people who are getting their healthcare through the Affordable Care Act.

So I want to focus on this as the Senator did. I don't want to focus on the partisan differences; I want to focus on the concrete reality that a family is going to face if the Affordable Care credits expire.

No. 1, as Senator Shaheen said, this can't wait. The date is going to arrive; the tax credits expire; people depending on that healthcare won't have it. Twenty-four million Americans will face higher costs.

Again, I want to emphasize that is not 24 million Democratic families; that is not 24 million Republican families; it is 24 million families. It is in both our States. It is not political. It is about healthcare, which every single citizen, we want them to have it and have it be affordable.

Premiums are going to increase, on average, about 75 percent as the Senator said. One in four people who have a chronic condition are going to lose out on coverage; 3.3 million small businessowners will see their premiums increase.

I just want to stop on that point for a moment because the Senator, my colleague here, has done so much for small business, and that is because she knows, as I do and I know as you do, Mr. President, small businesses are so vital to the well-being of our community.

One of the things I have learned from my visits to small businesses is really pretty inspiring because I see those Vermont small businessowners; their employees are like family to them. The most important thing for them is to make sure their employees are doing well.

One of the things that is really important to our employers is that they can provide healthcare, but with the premiums going up like this, it is a wicked decision and discussion between the businessowner and the employees about a raise versus picking up the high cost of a premium increase. That is going to be aggravated if these tax credits expire; 1.6 million of those folks in small businesses would lose coverage.

Again, I want to make this concrete now. In Vermont, 27,000 people who rely on the tax credits will lose their health insurance. They just won't be able to afford it.

Let me give you a couple of examples of the real world here in Vermont. The annual premium increase for a 60-year-old couple in Vermont that earns $82,000 a year--and that is tough to get by if you have a family on that amount of money--but the premium increase is going to be $23,000. That is a fact. That is a 335-percent increase, but that is like $2,000 a month.

So what that says to that family is you are on your own, no healthcare.

In Nebraska, 112,000 folks rely on the Affordable Care monthly premium tax credits. The annual premium increase for a Nebraska family, a 60-year-old couple that is earning $82,000, $83,000 a year, $23,000-- pretty much the same as Vermont.

In California, there are 1.5 million folks relying on the ACA premium tax credit. That 60-year-old couple making $82,000, it is going to be an additional $17,000.

In Connecticut, 112,000 folks are going to lose access to healthcare with these increases. That 60-year-old couple with $82,000 in income, a $28,000 premium increase; 541 percent.

I will.

I am so glad that you brought that up because what drives everyone crazy is the so-called cost shift. A lot of our community hospitals, they get underreimbursed, oftentimes on Medicare or Medicaid. And then the employer-sponsored premiums are the only place the providers can go to cover their legitimate costs.

So there is a huge spike in the cost. If you have all these folks without healthcare and they are showing up and getting free care, then somebody has got to pay, and that is going to be the employer-sponsored and private pay.

The Senator from New Hampshire was right in pointing out we have got this broken system that we are making worse with this effort. So thank you so much for that, the Senator from New Hampshire.

I wanted to go back to these numbers too. In Alaska, 23,000 folks, they can

lose their healthcare or they are going to have a premium increase. That family with $82,800 in income, it is $44,000. So that is a 554- percent increase.

In Wyoming, 40,000 folks rely on the ACA tax credits. That 60-year- old couple with an $82,000 income, their premium is going up $37,000. That is $3,000 a month.

In West Virginia, 49,000 folks losing. That 60-year-old couple, $82,000 income, $39,000 premium increase; $3,000 a month.

What we know is that can't happen. It cannot happen. You are literally, through passivity in this U.S. Senate, where we have the option to act or we have the option to hide, the second option is sending a direct premium increase to our families, up to $40,000 in a year for people who make $80,000. So this happens, this is on us. If this happens, it is on us.

I will yield to the Senator.

Well, if you are a billionaire, it works out. The fact is, it can't be explained. It hasn't happened yet. This is about to go into effect if we don't act as the Senate.

Yes.

It is the actual imposition of the premium increase. The only way we can spare this heartache--literally, taking away people's healthcare--is by extending the premium tax credits. So that is a decision this body has to make.

I did.

Let me get that number for you but go ahead.

Right.

That is right.

That is right; $37,000 a year, and there are 40,000 as you mentioned.

This is really about the Affordable Care tax credits that expire. This was not in the Big Beautiful Bill. The Big Beautiful Bill took a trillion dollars away from the Medicaid Program, but now we have pending before us the imminent cliff where the premium increases that were passed by this body on a bipartisan basis to help during COVID, those expire.

When that expires, those families in Wyoming are going--who are on the Affordable Care Act and who are 60 years old and they have $82,000 in income, they are going to see a premium increase of $37,193.

That is a loaded gun. It is the heart of the family and their ability to carry on. This just can't happen. It can't happen. We are the body that has the option of ignoring the hardship and the catastrophic consequences of this on the families we represent or sparing them and allowing them to continue having access to healthcare they depend on.

That is exactly right. That is exactly right. That is within the power. This is the wonderful thing of those of us that have this job. We have the power to do something that can help the people we represent. They need healthcare. Republican families need it. Democratic families need it. People who don't care anything about the political process, they need it. And in this country, they should be entitled to it.

We can act. It is not a partisan thing. It is not a victory for one side or the other. It is really a lifesaver for these families--the Wyoming families, the Vermont families, the Illinois families. So I urge this body to come together to do something that the people we represent--every single one of them--need and would benefit by.

Well, you know, you are exactly right because that family making $82,000 a year, they are struggling to pay the premium as it is. If they have to pay $3,000 more a month, most of those families are going to say they would like to but can't because they are uninsured.

I will give a story of my own. My first wife died of cancer, Senator. She had cancer for 9 years. We had terrific healthcare. She had a rare form of cancer.

One night, my car broke down, and the wrecker guy picked me up. We had a long ride. We got to talking. It turned out that his wife--and he had two kids, younger kids--had the same form of rare cancer and his wife died and we talked about that.

But there was a difference. We had insurance through the University of Vermont where my wife was a professor. He had no insurance. He was working late nights, long hours, raising these two kids by himself, and he was trying to pay off a $335,000 medical bill. That is not right.

But that example you just mentioned or this Wyoming family or Vermont family or Illinois family, they are faced with $3,000 a month. They don't have the money; they go without healthcare. Somebody gets sick. It is a serious illness. They get medical debt.

(Mr. JUSTICE assumed the Chair.)

They get anxiety--anxiety on top of the anxiety that always accompanies a serious illness in a family, where all of your attention, if it is your partner, if it is your child, is about your partner, your child.

On top of that, you have the incredible stress of bill collectors calling up: Where's the money? We don't have to allow this to happen. We don't, and we shouldn't.

And I just want to emphasize, it is not a Republican, Democratic deal; it is a mutual responsibility that this U.S. Senator has to the people of this country in your State and in my State.

So I urge us to get a solution. And I talked about West Virginia, the Presiding Officer's great State, where folks will face enormously high premium increases if these Affordable Care Act subsidies are expired. It will be brutal. I told the Presiding Officer about my visit to West Virginia, my respect for the coal miners, those hard-

working folks there. And I know how highly important it is to the Presiding Officer about healthcare access. So let's act as a body. Let's do it together and make certain that folks do have healthcare, just don't have the anxiety and uncertainty and the bills that are just going to cripple them. I want to thank the Senator from Illinois. I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues from my Senate office, Ms. Erin Jarnagin.

I hate having to put this picture up. Let me tell you why I am putting it up. Washington, I think we can all agree, is a unique place. Some might call it unusual. Some might even argue and make an argument persuasively that normal in Washington, DC, is just a setting on the clothes dryer.

We have a deep-seated propensity in Washington, in the Federal Government, to look reality in the eye and to deny it. Sometimes that is dangerous. That is what is happening in Ukraine. We are looking reality in the eye, and we are denying it, and it is dangerous. And it is not fair to Ukraine. It is not fair to America, and it is not fair to anybody on God's green Earth that cares about freedom.

This is a picture of people in Ukraine burying their dead. And it is not pretty, but it is real. Now, for 8 months, President Trump has tried to talk to President Putin in Russia--8 months. And for 8 months, President Putin has made all kinds of promises--a lot of pretty words, a lot of play-acting--and he has done none of what he said he would do.

He has played--``he'' meaning President Putin. He has played America like a banjo--like a banjo. President Putin says he wants peace, but he doesn't, and we know that now. That is what I mean when I say we have got to just look reality in the eye and accept that.

President Putin is not going to want peace until the costs of war are greater than peace. It is just that simple. For someone who has blood under his fingernails, for someone who has Stalin's taste for death-- and I am, of course, referring to Putin--it is simply a cost-benefit analysis.

Does the benefit of continuing the war outweigh the cost? That is just a fact.

We are going to have to do something if we all want peace--and we all say we do, including the people of Ukraine. They don't want peace at any price--neither do I--but we all want peace. I know President Trump wants peace.

But in order to get peace and to get Putin to negotiate seriously, we are going to have to increase the costs and make the cost on him of prosecuting the war greater than the benefits of him being able to continue to do it.

Now, how do we do that? One option is sanctions. Putin has completely transformed Russia. Russia had--before the war, had some tendencies toward--I don't want to overstate this, but I want to be fair--toward a democracy. At least, they got to vote, and not every vote was rigged. But that has all been changed.

Putin has turned Russia into a total authoritarian state. He controls the media. If you disagree with him, you go to jail. That is why you don't see much dissent. That is why you see virtually no dissent.

If you are his enemy and he thinks you have become too problematic, he just kills you--just poisons you. Russia today is as autocratic as China, and their security--their surveillance of their people--is just about as pervasive.

So Russia has changed. Putin has converted Russia into a war economy. That means that most of the GDP--not all of it but most of it, because people have to still live--but most of the GDP in Russia, much of it, is devoted to war, manufacturing weapons, paying money to people to go fight.

It is very expensive, and Putin affords it by selling oil. In fact, 40 percent of Putin's cash flow--the only way he has been able to prosecute this war is by selling oil. And one way to get him to the table is to cut off his cash flow. The only way to cut off his cash flow is to cut off his oil sales.

One way of doing that would be sanctions. Just say to people throughout the world, if you buy Russian oil, then you are no longer going to be able to do business with the United States of America and you are no longer going to be able to use the U.S. dollar. That is what President Trump has talked about doing.

But as you know, President Trump has also said--and I certainly see his point of view--if I am going to do it on behalf of America, by God, Europe's got to do it because they are the ones most at risk. And he said: I am not going to do sanctions and pass the bill that over 80 of us have joined here in the Senate--the President said, I am not going to do sanctions until all the Europeans do sanctions and stop buying Russian oil.

I understand where he is coming from, as I said.

The problem with it is you have some European countries--one is Hungary, another is Slovakia--they tend to be more aligned with Russia than anybody else in the European Union, and they buy oil, and it is going--from Russia, and it is going to take a while to convince them to stop it. It is going to take months.

Meantime, Putin is launching 800--not 80--800 drones and 800 missiles a night at the Ukrainian people, and he is not just aiming that weaponry at the Ukrainian soldiers. He is destroying the civilian population, the infrastructure. He is killing people.

In fact, it is escalating. The President met with Putin in Alaska, as we all know, and made a bunch of promises and completely reneged. And all we have gotten from that meeting is 800 missiles and drones a night.

So if sanctions are not going to work for now, it is going to take several months for us to work that out, what can we do? Well here is what I think we ought to do--and I am introducing legislation to do this. Joining with me will be Senator Graham. It will be bipartisan legislation--Senator Graham, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Whitehouse. There will be others who will join in the legislation. And we are going to move this legislation. We are going to move it.

We are going to seize Russian assets if our legislation passes, and we are going to give those assets to Ukraine to prosecute the war. Here is what I am talking about. Just about every country in the world has assets in other countries. They don't just keep all their money in their own country.

Oftentimes, those assets are liquid assets, and many times they are called foreign exchange reserves. You have probably heard that term, ``foreign reserves.'' They are used in trade to convert from one currency to another.

When the war--when Putin attacked Ukraine, Russia had $300-plus billion--some say it is as high as $320 billion--of assets in Europe and the United States; most of them are in Europe. About 90 percent of those assets are in Belgium, in Brussels. Some are in France; the rest are in the United States.

We are talking cash here. They originally were in debt securities, but we are talking cash now. There is over $300 billion of cash that the United States and our European allies froze that belongs to Russia.

It has been sitting there, and it has been invested basically in money markets, and we have been sending the interest to Ukraine to help them fight the war. But we have left the principal, the $300 billion a month. We haven't seized it; we just froze it.

The time has come to seize it. And I understand the arguments against it. Some in Europe will argue: Well, it will break international law. I get it. Russia has already broken international law. Russia has already seized European companies. Russia seized over $400 million cash from JPMorganChase accounts they had in Russia. So Russia isn't bothered by international law. It is a violation of international law for them to have invaded Ukraine and to be massacring these people.

But I get it. We want to follow the rules even if Russia doesn't. But the time has come to look reality in the eye and no longer deny it, to admit it.

If our legislation passes, here is what we will do. We will seize that $300 billion--no longer freeze it; we will seize it. We will give it in tranches, in smaller amounts as they need it, to Ukraine. Not all $300 billion--we are still working on language but not all $300 billion at once. We will give it to Ukraine in tranches.

Ukraine can use that money to buy their own drones and to buy their own missiles. Ukraine can use that money

not to kill Russian civilians, but Ukraine can use that money to buy missiles to take out every single refinery in Russia, cut off their cash flow, take out every single oil refinery in Russia. Ukraine can use that money to buy missiles to take out every single weapons production plant in Russia--every single one--and make President Putin understand that there is going to be a cost for him prosecuting this war.

We need to do that while we are working out what I think will be equally as effective--maybe more effective--this issue of sanctions, but we need to do it now because we can't wait months and months and months until we get the sanctions issue worked out.

So if our legislation passes--we will have to get the permission of our friends in Europe, but we have talked with many of them, and I think they will agree--we will give Ukraine an influx of $300 billion-- no taxpayer money from an American will be spent on this. This will all be Russian money. We are going to level the playing field. We are going to see what Mr. Putin is made of.

Now, I want to be clear--and I hope the White House is listening to this. I want to emphasize it: We are not spending any American money. This is Mr. Putin's money.

I know some people are worried about upsetting him, but he is not like the rest of us. He is not. He purely looks at this from cost and effect. Human life doesn't matter to him. We are going to make it very, very costly--if we do this--for him to prosecute that war.

I want to end on this note: Look, the American people I know are tired of overseas wars. I am tired of them. I know how people feel. I don't want the United States of America to be the world's policeman. I don't. But do you know what? I don't want Putin to be the world's policeman either. I don't want President Xi in China to be the world's policeman either. I don't want the Ayatollah in Iran to be the world's policeman.

Let me tell you what is going on here. The Presiding Officer knows this. We see it in classified information and nonclassified-- unclassified information. And you can surmise it if you follow the news. Xi in China, Putin in Russia, and the Ayatollah in Iran are working together. Putin couldn't prosecute this war without China.

China sends infrastructure materials and technology every single day to Russia that can be used for civilian uses but also for military uses. China buys Russian oil to give them the money to run their weapons plants in Russia.

Putin and Xi and the Ayatollah are working together. The quarterback, in my opinion, is Xi; it is not Putin. And here is their goal: Their goal is to have Putin dominate Central and Eastern Europe, to have the Ayatollah dominate the Middle East, and Iran control the Middle East. Thank God for Israel. Israel has caused them to put that part of their plan on the back burner.

Their other objective is to have China dominate the Indo-Pacific, do whatever they want, and be free to roam, as they are doing as we talk today, in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America. And I am going to tell you, that is not a world that is safe for freedom. That is not a world that is safe for democracy.

This fight in Ukraine is not just about Ukraine. It is not. It is about the Indo-Pacific. It is about Finland. It is about Poland. It is about Sub-Saharan African countries. It is about South America and our hemisphere.

So I hope the Senate will pass our bill. We are going to move it. If you object to it, stand up in front of God and country and say so. But we have got to do something.

I can promise you, with $300 billion of new capital--none of which will be American taxpayer money--Ukraine can buy some missiles and get Mr. Putin's attention, and he will be inviting us to a summit, and he will be paying for lunch.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration held a hearing entitled ``Another Biden Blunder: Missing Unaccompanied Alien Children and Criminal Sponsors.'' I attended this hearing. It certainly begs the question, Why, now that they are in control, are Senate Republicans continuing to focus on the Biden administration instead of examining the policies of this administration?

When I was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we held not one but two full committee hearings on the Biden administration's handling of unaccompanied children. It is a legitimate issue. We must do everything in our power to protect these kids, and that requires oversight of policies that are in place now, not stories of history.

Just look at yesterday's oversight hearing with FBI Director Kash Patel. Director Patel deflected my questions relating to his gutting of the unit in the FBI that was investigating something known as the 764 group--an organization the FBI itself described as a ``nihilistic violent extremist'' group that seeks to blackmail children to perform vile acts on camera.

News reports released yesterday noted that nearly every agent on Baltimore's domestic terrorism squad was reassigned this year to work full time on immigration enforcement, forcing them to walk away from investigations of the 764 group.

This change at the FBI is dramatic in counterterrorism, in counterinsurgency--all of these areas where the FBI has expertise--and developed professionals are being told they have a new assignment: Go out and find undocumented people in the United States. There are 11 million of them. In fact, roughly 20 percent of all FBI agents reportedly have been diverted from their critical national security and public safety roles, including protecting children from extremists and traffickers, to work on President Trump's mass deportation effort.

Even worse, the data show that this administration is not focusing its immigration enforcement on the ``worst of the worst,'' as the President says. Instead, they are picking up innocent, law-abiding people.

Just consider the recent raid of the Hyundai Metaplant in Georgia. Hundreds of agents from across the country raided this factory. The agents--many of whom work on priority counterterrorism and drug enforcement cases--did not have experience in low-priority immigration enforcement operations. They ended up arresting hundreds of South Korean nationals who were in the country to install equipment at the plant so that eventually American workers could go to work at that factory.

Now the South Korean Government is investigating human rights abuses during that raid, and construction on the facility is paused at least for another year, maybe two. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau was reportedly forced to express ``deep regret'' over the incident in a meeting with his South Korean counterpart.

I have read some of the news accounts. The South Koreans are livid. Here is our government, begging them to put businesses and factories in the United States, and we raid this and take away 300 South Koreans who were there for the transition on that factory. Some of them were in shackles and handcuffs.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I would like to ask, through the Chair, a basic question of my friend from Vermont.

You have been involved in politics a few years. So have I. I am trying to understand if I were a Republican Senator who voted for this kind of premium increase for people in my State, more than a handful--a lot of people in my State--how I would explain it. Do you know?

Excuse me, Senator.

When you say it is just about to happen, is it the announcement of the premium or the actual imposition of the premium increase?

Through the Chair, you used an example of Wyoming.

You said 60,000 people in Wyoming.

Well, I was trying to figure out if someone is making $82,000 a year, I think that was your reference point.

And they qualified for the Affordable Care Act health insurance, they currently can receive a subsidy to help with the payments based on their income.

And you are saying the change in the big beautiful Trump budget by our Republican colleagues is going to result in an increase in monthly premiums in Wyoming of a person making $82,000 a year of $3,000 a month?

This is not a casual increase; this is for real.

Let me ask you this question: Since we have the continuing resolution being considered, which would go into effect September 30, if we agree on one, if you took care of this tax credit issue, you could spare that family in Wyoming from a $3,000-a-month addition to their hospitalization premium; is that correct?

Let me ask the Senator from Vermont his own personal experience. Mine was that last year, I decided to replace my knee--my football knee from high school--and my hip, same year.

I started receiving these projected bills and how much I might, personally, owe if I didn't have any health insurance. We are talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. Now, these were basically elective surgeries but much more than the average person has available on hand to pay a bill.

Imagine if instead of an elective surgery, I had, God forbid, broken my leg, ended up in the emergency room, and needed help with surgery when it was all over. The net result of it is a bill which most families would struggle to pay if they had no health insurance protection.

This seems like the reality of the situation. It is your money or your life is the Republican proposal. We are either going to have you pay $3,000 or more a month in premiums or you are going to have to gut it out and hope you don't get sick or don't have an accident that could cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

I thank the Senator from Vermont as well as the Senator from New Hampshire for organizing this block. I am going just say that people have contacted me from Illinois and are scared to death about what is going to happen on October 1. This big beautiful budget bill of President Donald Trump, unfortunately, is not going to extend the tax credits available to reduce premium costs. Families are asking me: How in the world, Senator, are we supposed to pay these increased costs of thousands of dollars each month?

I don't have an answer for them, but the Senate has the answer. The Senate can change that. We can restore this tax credit. There are a lot of priorities for a lot of people, but I will tell you, if you have ever lived without health insurance, you understand it is a basic priority.

You never know tomorrow what you are going to end up paying in a medical bill, and if you aren't prepared for it, it can wipe out your savings in no time flat.

I just want to thank my colleagues from Vermont and New Hampshire for organizing this floor block.

Access to healthcare is one of the most important issues facing Americans today, and it is an issue near and dear to my heart--because I know what it is like to live without health insurance.

I will never forget being the father of a new baby, who had a serious medical condition but I didn't have any health insurance. I never felt more helpless than I did in that moment. It is a terrible feeling and something I do not wish on anybody.

Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress are preparing to subject millions of Americans to the stress-filled, sleepless nights, that come from knowing your family does not have health insurance. If Congress fails to renew the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits before the end of this year, the cost of health insurance will spike for almost every American who relies on an ACA Marketplace plan. Increased premiums will create financial hardship for middle-income families across the Nation and cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance.

There has been a lot of confusion surrounding these tax credits, and I want to make clear who is at risk of being affected by these cuts. More than 90 percent of families with a Marketplace plan receive the ACA's premium tax credits to lower their monthly premiums. That is 22 million Americans who rely on these tax credits to afford healthcare.

Without these subsidies, 22 million people will see the cost of their insurance premiums rise rapidly. For most families, the cost will skyrocket 75 percent. That means that a family of four making only $32,150 a year will see a nearly $400 annual increase in their healthcare costs. A family earning $64,300 will see their premiums rise to $905 a year from $180--more than a 400-percent increase.

The imminent expiration of these tax credits, combined with the devastating Medicaid cuts passed earlier this year by Republicans, will devastate families of limited means and hospitals. The increase in premiums will be too much to bear for many families. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the ACA credits expire, 4 million people will become uninsured. And that is in addition to the more than 10 million set to lose their healthcare as a result of the so-called ``One Big Beautiful Bill's'' Medicaid cuts.

Last night, on the Senate Floor, I shared two messages my office received from Illinois constituents who are terrified about the upcoming tax credit expiration. The first message was from Kristen, from Rochester. She is a freelance writer, who has recently been diagnosed with a long-term degenerative disease. She said, ``I depend on the ACA Marketplace for insurance. Without it, one of my multiple medications could cost $7,500. Without these subsidies, I would be unable to cover the cost of my care.''

The second message was from Zach. He is a small business owner and father of four from Highland. Zach wrote, ``The Affordable Care Act has been a lifesaver for my family. It would ruin us if we lost the benefits from the Affordable Care Act. It would ruin us economically and physically if we lost these big, beautiful benefits from the ACA.''

These are real stories, from real people, who will be affected by the callous inaction of my Republican colleagues. But Kristen and Zach are not the only ones who are living in fear because of the upcoming expiration of these tax credits.

Melanie, from Elmhurst, wrote to my office and said, ``Without the tax credit my monthly payment is unaffordable, plain and simple.''

Vivien, from Evanston, emphasized that ``We cannot go back to the years when millions of Americans could not afford to get insurance.''

I could not have said it better. The end of the year is approaching, and my colleagues from the other side of the aisle seem uninterested in extending these lifesaving healthcare subsidies for Americans in red, blue, and purple States. I am calling on my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to come together on a bipartisan basis to extend these subsidies and offer families some financial relief.

Senate and House Democrats will soon introduce a bill that would keep the government open and permanently extend these tax credits. We can do both. And we should do both. I ask my Republican colleagues to join us in these efforts. In doing so, I am reminded of something my former boss, the late Senator Paul Douglas, said after the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. He said, ``We will indulge in no comments about those who came at the 11th hour to the support of the measure . . . All can share in the thrill of victory. We merely ask that we all work together to make this measure a success.''

I hope my colleagues will heed his words and protect the tax credits that so many Americans rely on to afford their healthcare.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as many Americans know, the current budget is going to expire at the end of September, and if an agreement is not reached, the government will shut down, which is, frankly, not anything that anyone wants. The question that we now have to address is how we keep the government open and serve the needs of the American people.

As Americans know, Republicans have a majority in the House and in the Senate, and they also control the White House. They run the government. Republicans have the responsibility, therefore, to keep the government open.

My understanding is that there will be a vote tomorrow on a continuing resolution to fund the government until November 20. In the House, a simple majority wins, and I would imagine that, by a very slim vote, Republicans will have the votes they need in order to pass their resolution.

In the Senate, however, the rules are different--historically different. In order to pass a continuing resolution, it will take a 60- vote majority to pass. That means that at a time when there are 53 Members of the Republican caucus and 47 Members of the Democratic caucus, it will require bipartisan support. That is what Senate rules are about.

In other words, Republicans will need Democratic and/or Independent votes--I am an Independent--in order to keep the government open.

Bottom line: Republicans will need to negotiate. That is how the Senate works, and that is how democracy works.

Speaking for myself and I believe many millions of Americans, here is some of what it will take to get my vote:

No. 1. Republican leadership, don't take away healthcare from 15 million Americans by making the largest cut to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in history.

No. 2. Republican leadership, don't increase health insurance premiums by 75 percent on average for over 20 million Americans who get their healthcare through the Affordable Care Act.

No. 3. Republican leadership, do not undermine modern medicine and the health and well-being of our children by rejecting the scientific evidence regarding vaccines.

No. 4. Republican leadership, do not allow our great country to be moved toward authoritarianism by putting Federal troops on city streets without a request from a Governor or a mayor. Do not have ICE agents snatch people off our streets without due process. Do not undermine the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law by allowing an administration to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress.

Let me be more specific. As I think almost every American understands, our current healthcare system is dysfunctional, it is broken, and it is cruel. At a time when we spend almost twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other major country--over $14,000 per person--85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured--85 million Americans.

The Republican continuing resolution in the House does nothing-- nothing--to prevent 15 million Americans from being thrown off the healthcare they currently have, as a result of Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill. In other words, instead of lowering the number of uninsured and underinsured, if we do not act, 15 million more Americans will be uninsured. We cannot allow that to happen.

This is a life-and-death issue. Studies have shown that up to 50,000--50,000--Americans every year will die unnecessarily if we do not reverse these cuts.

So we are talking about here, if we do not act, going from 85 million uninsured and underinsured to 100 million uninsured and underinsured. Those cuts must be rescinded.

But it is not just preventing 15 million Americans from losing their health insurance; everybody in this country--every businessperson, every union worker--knows that the cost of healthcare in this country today is astronomically high and unaffordable. I don't care what State you are in--people cannot afford healthcare today. Yet, if we do not act right now, in this continuing resolution, the Affordable Care Act tax credits will expire and premiums will skyrocket by 75 percent on average for more than 20 million Americans.

Let me repeat: Healthcare premiums for 20 million working-class and middle-class Americans will go up by 75 percent on average if we do not extend those tax credits in this coming legislation.

Let me say that I wish very good luck to my colleagues, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, who want to go home to their constituents and explain why healthcare premiums are going up by 75 percent in order to pay for $1 trillion in tax breaks for the 1 percent. I do wish you the best of luck in trying to explain that one. I do not intend to.

Further, let me be clear: Vaccines work--not exactly a controversial statement. It is a statement supported

by every major medical organization in the United States and around the world. Vaccines are safe, they are effective, and they have saved millions of lives in our country and tens of millions of lives worldwide. In fact, vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements in modern history.

At a time when the Secretary of Health and Human Services has dismantled the vaccine review process, narrowed access to lifesaving COVID vaccines, fired leading public health experts, and filled scientific advisory boards with conspiracy theorists and ideologues, we must stand with the scientific and medical communities and rescind Secretary Kennedy's dangerous policies.

This is not about politics. It doesn't matter whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent. We are talking about protecting our children from polio, measles, whooping cough, and other preventable diseases.

The American people, slowly but surely, are catching on. No matter what their political view may be--Democrat, Republican, Independent-- they understand that our current economic system is rigged. They understand that the very richest people in this country are becoming much richer, while 60 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and millions of people are trying to survive on starvation wages.

The American people understand that while billionaires are getting huge tax breaks, they are finding it harder and harder to afford healthcare, to pay the rent or their mortgages, to afford childcare, to be able to send their kids to college, to pay for the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, or to buy decent quality food for their kids.

The American people understand--painfully and depressingly--that unless we change the way the economy functions, their kids will likely have a lower standard of living than they do. In the richest country in the history of the world, it is likely that the younger generation will have a lower standard of living than their parents, while almost all new incoming wealth goes to the people on the top.

Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than we have ever had in the history of the United States. Today, we have one man, Mr. Musk, who owns more wealth--if you can believe it--than the bottom 52 percent of American households--one man, more wealth than the bottom 52 percent of American households. And, by the way, he is on his way, it appears, to become a trillionaire--even richer and richer.

Today, the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 93 percent--top 1 percent, more wealth than the bottom 93 percent. And the CEOs of major corporations now earn over 350 times what their average employees make.

While the billionaire class becomes richer and richer, real inflation accounted for weekly wages that are lower today than they were 52 years ago--huge expansion of worker productivity, and yet the average worker, in many cases, is worse off than he or she was 52 years ago.

Enough is enough. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is insane to be giving a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent. If President Trump and the Republican leadership want my vote, they will have to rescind that tax break for their oligarchic friends.

Our country today faces not only major economic crises, we are looking at extraordinarily threatening--a threatening moment to our democratic form of government. Frankly, we now have a President of the United States who does not believe in our Constitution and the separation of powers; who does not believe in freedom of speech and the right to dissent; who is moving us, every day, toward an authoritarian form of government with more and more power into his own hands.

Too many Americans from my State of Vermont and every other State in this country have put their lives on the line and sometimes died in order to defend democracy and our way of life: the right of people to live without fear, the right of people to express their point of view-- no matter what it may be. You disagree with me, that is great. That is called American democracy--the right of people to vote without intimidation.

Today, in an unprecedented way, we have Federal troops in cities in America who have not been requested by a governor or a mayor. Today in America, we have people who are being snatched off the streets--taken right off the streets or out of their workplaces--by masked Federal agents, thrown into vans, and dispatched to detention centers without due process. Does anybody think that that is what America is supposed to be about--somebody walking down the street, getting picked up by masked men, thrown into a van, and taken God knows where? Today, we have a President sending some of these people to South Sudan, Uganda, El Salvador--we don't know where. People have no relationship to the country they are being sent. Imagine being plucked off the street, sent to South Sudan, country in the middle of a civil war, virtually no government. That is not acceptable. That is not what our great country is supposed to be about.

These undemocratic, unconstitutional policies must be rescinded. The movement toward authoritarianism in this country must be ended.

In this very difficult moment in American history, let us stand with the American people and listen to their needs. Let us not throw 15 million working-class people off of the healthcare that they have so that 50,000 people a year die unnecessarily. We cannot allow that to happen.

Let us not raise healthcare premiums by 75 percent for 20 million Americans. People can't afford healthcare today. What happens when your premiums go up by 75 percent? Let us not endanger the children of this country by undermining modern medicine and making it more difficult for people to get the vaccines they require.

And at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, let us not give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent.

And, lastly, as we observe growing authoritarianism every single day, as we see more and more disrespect for the great Constitution of our country--which has made us an example to the entire world--let us-- Republican, Democrat, Independent--let us stand together and save American democracy.

If the Republican leadership does those things, you have got my vote.