A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Ashli Babbitt is disqualified from eligibility for military funeral honors under section 985 of title 10, United States Code.

Mr. President, late last week, it was reported that the Pentagon was contemplating ending critical military assistance to European partners, including the Baltic States. The program known as the Baltic Security Initiative. That is a program which I helped to create years ago to strengthen military cooperation with the Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

NATO allies themselves with a long memory of Russian tyranny are still very much in Vladimir Putin's crosshairs. The Baltic States are some of the most vibrant, dedicated members of NATO, spending well above proposed funding targets for defense. The dangerous idea to cut this assistance came just as another deadline from President Trump for Russia to end its war in Ukraine came and went without any consequence.

In fact, Vladimir Putin responded like he always does after President Trump sets a deadline and lavishes him with a red carpet treatment in Alaska. He brazenly increased deadly attacks on Ukraine. That is right. While we were trying to get Vladimir Putin and the Russians to finally agree to a cease-fire and end of hostilities in Ukraine, he did exactly the opposite. That is what happened over the weekend, during which Russia launched one of the biggest assaults on Ukraine in the entire war and then did it again this week. During these attacks on Ukraine, Russian drones entered into NATO airspace, specifically into Poland.

Do we take that seriously in Chicago? You bet we do, because Chicago is second only to Warsaw in the percentage of Polish residents living there, people of Polish descent. Polish President Tusk said there were 19 Russian drones in the most recent incursion. Imagine if these were manned airplanes rather than drones, 19 bombers, fighters crossing into NATO territory, several of which were shot down, including with the help of allied Dutch F-35 fighters.

Now this isn't the first time Russian drones attacked a NATO territory. There was a drone crash reported in Poland a few weeks ago as well. And Russia has been behind a campaign of sabotage, assassination, and mayhem across NATO, targeting weapon supplies, infrastructure, and dissidents.

So let me say clearly to President Trump: With Putin thumbing his nose at us, violating NATO airspace, and testing American resolve, this is not the time to back away from our frontline allies. It is certainly not the time to halt bipartisan congressional support to the Baltic States. We should not be fooled. Vladimir Putin is not our friend. The Baltic States and Poland have proven that they are.

Vladimir Putin responds only to strength, and right now, he and other autocrats around the world are bonding together. They sense America is getting weak, and we here in Congress should not be fooled either. We should ensure the Baltic Security Initiative is included in the defense authorization bill and pass the Graham-Blumenthal legislation to tighten sanctions on Russia.

Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children

Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2025

Mr. President, on a totally different topic, protecting our children is one of the most important duties of public service. When families send their kids

to school or let them play outside or allow them to go online, they should be confident that the kids are safe. But today, too many parents have a sinking feeling every time their kid logs on to a phone, tablet, or video game console.

They know that the internet has become a dangerous opportunity for predators looking to exploit the young and vulnerable. This is not a problem of the future; it is the crisis now. And Congress must act now.

In 2014, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children known as NCMEC, received approximately 1.1 million CyberTips about child sexual abuse material known as CSAM. That was in 2014, 1.1 million received tips.

By 2023, less than 10 years later, the number of CyberTips had exploded from 1.1 million to 36.2 million. Over 36 million reports in a single year. Each one of these reports represents a child being harmed, exploited, or degraded. It is sickening and shows the sheer magnitude of the crisis.

As I have learned more about the horrors of online child sexual exploitation, I have made it my mission in the Senate Judiciary Committee to do something about it. I will never forget the heartbreaking testimony of witnesses, parents who came and told the story of what happened to their sons and daughters as a result of exploitation on the internet.

I want to thank Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, for being the Republican lead on this bill, and my colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, who voted unanimously to advance the bill out of committee earlier this year.

Let me pause for a moment and make sure you caught that word-- unanimously. Every Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat and Republican alike, voted for this legislation to move forward. Senator Hawley, who was in the minority at the time, voted for it; now he is in the majority, he is the lead sponsor of my bill, which is entirely appropriate, and it is a bipartisan effort.

We heard the frustration of my colleague from Hawaii about the lack of bipartisanship in the Senate. This is a notable exception. I want to recognize the extraordinary survivors and advocates who fought to make this legislation possible. Your heartbreaking stories, your testimony have made the difference.

The STOP CSAM Act takes a comprehensive approach to stemming the tide of online child exploitation. Most significantly, it establishes accountability by piercing the broad immunity granted to Big Tech by something known as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The average American would flunk this quiz if you asked them what section 230 is. The advocates that come to us to support the STOP CSAM Act know exactly what it is--it lets social media off the hook for their wrongdoing.

For too long, courts have read section 230 so broadly that it has allowed companies hosting, promoting, even profiting from CSAM to be shielded from any responsibility or accountability.

That is right. They can do the wrong thing and never pay a price because of section 230. The Stop CSAM Act changes it. It opens the courthouse doors to survivors and families. I can think of no other single thing that we can do which would be more effective.

If these social media platforms can ignore parents and ignore the exploited young people and go about their business, they will have a second thought on the subject if they face the possibility of going to court. It would allow victims to sue tech platforms and app stores that promote or aid or abet online child sexual exploitation or that host, store, or make CSAM available. It puts teeth in the law.

In addition to accountability, Stop CSAM forces transparency on Big Tech. For years, Big Tech has operated in secrecy, telling parents, policymakers, and even their own users: Just trust us. But, as whistleblowers and lawsuits have shown, that trust is misplaced.

The Stop CSAM Act requires the largest technology companies to submit annual reports describing their efforts to combat child sexual exploitation on their platforms. Is that too much to ask? I don't think so.

We have all seen the headlines. Meta's own internal research showed harm to children on Instagram and in virtual reality spaces. AI and platforms like ChatGPT, Character.AI, and OpenAI are facing lawsuits for failing to prevent harmful, even deadly, conversations with minors.

This is a serious matter. The new school year is starting. In some States, in many school districts, they have drawn the line and told the kids: You don't bring your phones to school. You are going to be students here, and you are going to talk to one another instead of texting. You are going to look at the teacher and the board and what is before you as opposed to your phone night in and night out.

The Stop CSAM act also includes critical protections for survivors of child sexual exploitation. The bill bolsters privacy protections for certain child victims and witnesses in Federal court and gives judges the tools to enforce those protections.

Altogether, these reforms hold tech companies accountable, bring transparency to their practices, strengthen law enforcement tools, and put survivors and their families at the center of our bipartisan response.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has worked together on this matter unanimously, Democrats and Republicans, to advance meaningful child safety legislation. As I said earlier, the Stop CSAM Act passed unanimously out of committee. That unanimity is no accident; it reflects a shared understanding that when it comes to protecting our kids, partisanship has no place.

We have shown that Democrats and Republicans can work together to write, strengthen, and advance legislation that takes on Big Tech and prioritizes children's safety.

To my colleagues who have not yet signed on to the bill: Welcome aboard. We need you. Join us. Become a sponsor of the Stop CSAM Act.

There are advocates from all over the United States who are on Capitol Hill today knocking on the doors of Senate offices and asking colleagues to take a moment to consider cosponsoring this bill. I salute them. That is what democracy is all about, and that is what protecting our kids is all about.

The Judiciary Committee has done its job. The families in our States are watching. Survivors are waiting. Advocates are working day and night to protect kids at home and worldwide. It is time for the Senate to act.

During the course of my career in the House and the Senate, I have taken on some issues that have dealt with the security and safety of children. Years and years ago, I took on tobacco usage by kids. When I took on that particular crusade, about 25 percent of the kids in grade school across America were using tobacco products--cigarettes and chewing tobacco and that sort of thing--25 percent. Today, that figure is below 5 percent.

It is a lot of hard work and a lot of people stepping forward and saying: You can do what you want when it comes to adults, but for God's sake, protect our kids. Isn't that what this is all about, too-- protecting our kids from the most insidious, destructive, and threatening element when it comes to their future and safety?

I encourage my colleagues, join us in this bipartisan effort. This is something we all should agree on.

I yield the floor.

I want to thank the member of the Rules Committee for organizing this floor block of speeches. He has been a valued partner of mine on the Senate Judiciary Committee for several years and has taken on his ranking member position in the Rules Committee seriously.

Leader Thune has set in motion a rules change that will fundamentally undermine the ability of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent.

I hope my Republican friends--I use that term specifically--I hope my friends will pause for a moment and think of a way we might solve this problem and do it in bipartisan fashion.

Before the recess, Senate Democrats worked in good faith with Senate Republicans to negotiate a package of nominations to break the deadlock and move these nominations through the Chamber in an expedited, professional, bipartisan fashion. At the very last minute, however, President Trump blew up the negotiations. Rather than stand up to him, Senate Republicans are now willing to give away the Senate's authority when it comes to advice and consent.

Senate Republicans claim they are violating Senate rules just for this set of nominees. But I am afraid this is going to open the door to rushing through more extreme nominations whose only qualifications seem to be loyalty to the Chief.

Look no further than President Trump's nominees who have been considered by the Judiciary Committee. After President Trump fired his first FBI Director, he nominated Kash Patel. As a private citizen, Mr. Patel directed the purge of honorable career public servants at the FBI and then lied about it under oath at his confirmation hearing.

Mr. Patel auditioned for the FBI job by trying to whitewash January 6, calling the rioters who stormed the Capitol harassing and beating on the local police ``political prisoners.'' The head of the FBI, Mr. Patel, produced a choir of singers, including those who were prosecuted for wrongdoing on that day and some who violently assaulted police officers. This was considered to be cute, I guess, by some of Mr. Patel's followers. But the very same men and women who would beat on the police, Capitol Police and DC police who were protecting this building, were somehow supposed to be entertaining as a choir--only in the eyes of someone like Mr. Patel.

I warned my colleagues that confirming Mr. Patel would risk our national security and public safety. The head of the FBI used to be as apolitical a position as possible for a long tenure to take it out of politics. Mr. Patel has dived headfirst into politics where we stand today. Instead, my colleagues gave a green light to use the FBI's vast surveillance and investigative party to go after President Trump's critics. That is exactly what happened.

Is this the kind of nomination that should be debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate? I don't doubt for a moment that it should. It is a powerful position and will be misused.

What about Aaron Reitz, nominated to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy? In his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Reitz a very simple question: Can an elected official defy a Federal court order? Mr. Reitz refused to commit that an elected official must follow a court order.

He also holds extreme views, including that the Supreme Court opinion upholding marriage equality was a ``low point'' in the history of the Supreme Court and that ``'birthright citizenship' is not a thing'' despite what the Constitution says explicitly.

Senate Republicans dutifully confirmed Mr. Reitz with no questions asked, but he resigned after 3 months on the job to run for attorney general of Texas.

Senate Republicans also confirmed Jeanine Pirro as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Ms. Pirro is a talented person. She has been an elected official, and she has done many interesting things, but she is another nominee who auditioned for the role in the administration by declaring her blind loyalty to the President on TV for over a decade.

Ms. Pirro's repeated lies to millions of viewers on FOX about the 2020 election forced FOX News to pay nearly $800 million to settle defamation claims brought by Dominion Voting Systems.

Like Mr. Patel, Ms. Pirro has claimed that January 6 rioters were ``hostages''--people who assaulted the Capitol, broke down the doors, defecated in the hallways, beat up the Capitol Police and the DC police, and ransacked our desks here on the floor of the Senate. In the eyes of Ms. Pirro, these people were hostages, and she argued that the prosecutors handling these cases themselves should be criminally prosecuted.

Like Mr. Reitz, Ms. Pirro reads the Constitution through a MAGA lens, wrongfully arguing that the administration can deport immigrants without due process.

I have been in this Chamber for a number of years. It has been my honor and responsibility to vote on many nominees as part of the advice and consent section of the Constitution.

Let me give you some facts about filling vacancies. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we filled the vacancies--before I was chairman of the committee, we filled the vacancies for U.S. attorneys. In President Donald Trump's first term, all 93 spots were filled without a single record vote. All were done by unanimous consent--all of them.

Then what happened under the Biden administration? Unfortunately, it is something that we are still living with today, and we are seeing it manifest in this procedural action.

There was a decision made by one Senator, Senator Vance of Ohio, now our Vice President, to stop the nominations on the floor for Biden's U.S. attorneys by voice vote. He stood up and objected. He said--and quite plainly said--I want to do this to grind the Department of Justice to a halt--to grind the Department of Justice to a halt. He didn't deny that.

I came to the floor on many occasions, pleading with him to stop his effort to stop these nominations. In fact, I came to the floor on eight different occasions, asking Senator Vance and then Republican Senators: Could you give us the same courtesy under President Biden we gave you under President Trump? And the answer was: No. We are stopping any appointments of U.S. attorneys by the Biden administration at 63.

So another 30 U.S. attorneys were not determined on the floor. It was stopped. The process was stopped.

I said at the time that this was going to come back to affect this Chamber under the next President, whoever it might be, pleading with Senator Vance. He wouldn't change his position on this.

So we find ourselves where we are today--at a standoff when it comes to U.S. attorneys and other nominees because of this history.

There is a way out of this mess. There is a bipartisan solution to this. I plead with Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, who is involved in this, and with the other Republican Senators to take advantage of that opportunity to solve this problem when it comes to nominations in a bipartisan way. It is the best thing you can do not just for the Republican Party but for the Democratic Party and for both parties that serve in the U.S. Senate.

We have the right and a responsibility to ask hard questions of people who are accepting major responsibility in the Federal Government. There should never be an automatic approval. Questions should be asked, and they will be. If the questioning process is professionally done and honorably handled, we can use that to determine those rare cases where we need to have more time and an actual specific vote on a nominee. But to lump these nominees together into groups of 30, 40, and 50 and say to the Members of the Senate ``Take it or leave it'' is a dereliction of duty and an abdication of our constitutional responsibility.

There is a way to do this that is going to help this Chamber, and there is a way to do it which will be destructive. What has been proposed by the Republicans is destructive, but it can be improved, and I want to work with them in a good-faith effort to do just that.

So I thank my friend from California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for bringing this together and addressing an issue which goes to the heart of our responsibility in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, first, it is my honor to welcome my good friend Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman to the Senate and thank him for offering the morning's opening prayer.

Dr. Berman is president of Yeshiva University in New York and a longtime partner in the fight against anti-Semitism. We have worked together over the years to help upgrade Yeshiva's campus to remain a world-class institution. And as we approach the Jewish New Year, a time for renewal and recommitment for Jewish families around the world, I thank him for sharing his words of wisdom.

Foreign Policy

Mr. President, now, on foreign policy, bad news for you, Donald Trump: The Nobel Prize is slipping away from your grasp. Crises over the last 24 hours have escalated to dangerous levels, and President Trump, you seem to be leading from behind.

Donald Trump promised that he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. He said he would put an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas on day one. It is so easy, he said. Well, it is now day 234, and war rages around the world. In the last 24 hours, we have seen dangerous escalation on multiple fronts. Yesterday, Israel launched a strike against Hamas in the capital city of a key American ally in the middle of cease-fire negotiations.

Despite being handed a cease-fire by the previous administration, 234 days later, a cease-fire deal is further off than ever. Meanwhile, hostages remain in captivity, and innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza continue to suffer.

In Europe, Vladimir Putin sent drones into Poland, a NATO ally, which required NATO military action to shoot down those drones. What was the point, President Trump, of your meeting in Alaska where you snuggled up to Putin?

And Donald Trump is hesitating now to say any strong words against Putin, even after they did this. NATO safety has been at risk, and it is being put at risk even more so, and Donald Trump is leading from behind.

The latest aggression by Putin should send a shiver down the spines of every American. I warned of this scenario as the Senate debated sending more military support to Ukraine, and I warned at that point that any division, any hesitation of our resolve against Putin would be taken by him as weakness. And I fear Donald Trump's anemic weakness against Putin and other strongmen has only pushed the world closer to the brink of chaos and even war.

People don't take him seriously. People don't take Trump seriously on the world stage. That is a great danger to the United States and to peace because he bluffs and backs off. He sucks up to people, and then he doesn't do anything when they hurt him and hurt us.

I warn all Senators: History will not look kindly upon us if we stand back as Donald Trump acquiesces to Putin and cements himself as the Neville Chamberlain of our time.

Tariffs and the Economy

Mr. President, now, on tariffs and the bad Trump economy, yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the legality of Donald Trump's tariffs as soon as next month. Legally, there is no doubt the Supreme Court should strike down Donald Trump's tariffs decisively. That is the role that the Court should play, and we hope our Supreme Court Justices realize that. They are not there just to serve Donald Trump; they are there to rein in the Executive when the Executive steps over the lines and tries to circumvent the Constitution.

And tariffs are a responsibility of the Congress in the Constitution. Not only are these tariffs the definition of Executive overreach, but the tariffs are wreaking havoc on the American people and businesses. The average American may not care who is responsible; they just don't like these tariffs, and they know Donald Trump is doing them. The longer these tariffs are in place, the more damage they will cause to our economy. So the Court must act and apply the law, which clearly states the President cannot act alone.

As a result of his economic policies, it has been several days of bad economic headlines for Donald Trump. And the deluge keeps coming.

Here, look at these. Look at these, folks. Look at these charts. From your coffee in the morning to your soup at dinner, your prices are going up because of Trump's tariffs. When the American people complain about higher costs for everyday things they always need and use and consume, here it is.

Campbell's Expects Dropoff in 2026 Earnings as Tariffs Hit

Soup Cans.

The tariffs hit everything. You wouldn't think--well, soup, tomatoes; maybe they are made here in the United States. But the cans come from aluminum: Trump's tariffs.

Tariffs Are Hitting Your Morning Brew. Folgers Maker Says

Prices to Rise Further.

We don't grow coffee in the United States. There is not a competition or an unfair competition, but he raised tariffs on coffee. Everyone is paying more. My morning cup of coffee costs more. I have seen the prices rise when we shop for grounds in the supermarket.

Hormel to Raise Prices, Citing Costlier Pork, Beef and

Nuts.

So, again, every meal--from your coffee in the morning, to your soup at lunch, to your meat at dinner--your prices are going up because of Donald Trump and his tariffs. The headlines go on and on and on.

And here is the sad thing I say to my colleagues and the American people: It didn't have to happen. This is self-inflicted. This didn't happen because of the world economy. This happened because Donald Trump imposed an idiotic bunch of tariffs--unthought-out, chaotic--on the American people. And he loves them. He doesn't care that your price of coffee or soup or meat goes up. Somehow, he got it stuck in his head that tariffs are a good thing, and he is hurting average Americans. It is a self-inflicted wound, as I said. It is economic sabotage, orchestrated from the command center of dunderheads over at the Oval Office. Hardly any economist of repute knows what the heck they are doing and why.

Higher costs, rampant confusion, factories slowing--all because Trump's economic agenda boils down to chaos. He is like the drunk captain of a ship driving straight into an iceberg; and we, the American people, are beginning to take on water as our prices go up and up and up.

Government Funding

Mr. President, on government funding, the clock is ticking to keep the government open, and Republicans are sleepwalking their way through another critical week. A government shutdown once again hangs over this Chamber and this country like an ugly shadow. So what are we going to do about it? Well, it is up to our Republican colleagues to decide. They are in charge.

Democrats know where we stand. We want bipartisan negotiations, input from both sides of the aisle, and we want to undo much of the damage that Trump has inflicted on the American people, particularly when it comes to healthcare. Leader Jeffries and I have asked Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson, on multiple occasions, to sit down and talk so we can have a bipartisan agreement and avoid the Republican shutdown, but we have heard nothing for weeks. The Republican silence is concerning because if they think Democrats are going to show up at the last minute to bail them out with the clock approaching zero, that would be a big mistake on their part.

Democrats don't want to see a Republican shutdown. What we want is a bipartisan negotiation, a bipartisan bill where Democrats have input to tangibly undo the carnage Donald Trump has done to America.

And make no mistake, the carnage Donald Trump has unleashed upon this country over the last 9 or so months is devastating. He has savaged America's democratic institutions. He has defied the rule of law, defied the order of judges, and directed Russell Vought--an evil man who came up with Project 2025--to steal or cancel congressionally approved funding; hundreds of billions of dollars illegally blocked for things that Americans want--for cancer research, for programs that aid kids after school, for veterans. That and so much more gone, canceled, dead because of Russell Vought's whim and Donald Trump's desire to just do what he wants and what Vought wants.

Healthcare

Mr. President, of course, let's talk about healthcare. It is people's livelihoods. And thanks to Donald Trump, the livelihood of tens of millions is being stolen from them in broad daylight, all so Donald Trump can pay for tax breaks for the megarich.

Donald Trump's signature achievement, the one he claims is great--he calls it the Big Beautiful Bill--well, this so-called Big Beautiful Bill--which they won't even name anymore, they are so afraid of the American people knowing what is in it--is systematic starvation of our healthcare system. Let me repeat that. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill is systematic starvation of our healthcare system. That is what Russell Vought has always stood for; that is what he said he would do; and that is what Trump is aiding and abetting him to do.

Republicans want to rebrand their bill. They say: Well, Trump said maybe it was a mistake to call it the Big Beautiful Bill. That is because they are seeing that the American people hate it. But they can change the name; it is not going to change anything. You are not going to get your healthcare back because they change the name of a bill that was so mislabeled to begin with. Because it sure ain't beautiful; it is ugly.

Well, maybe Donald Trump can call it the ``Starve and Die Act.'' That would be more accurate than big and beautiful. That is what happens when health insurance is taken away from you. That is what happens when SNAP is taken away. People starve, and it is estimated that people will actually die because if you can't get healthcare, if you can't get prevention, life expectancies of people go down.

And alarmingly soon, America, the Big Beautiful Bill is going to get even worse for you. In just a few weeks, unless Congress acts, millions of Americans will start getting letters in the mail telling them their health insurance costs are about to go through the roof; hundreds of dollars, thousands in some cases.

That is because the ACA premium tax credits will expire by the end of this year. People who get covered through the ACA--and there are tens of millions--will see their premiums spike by an average of 18 percent. There are millions, depends on how you count it.

Health insurance premiums are going up by 18 percent because of Republican inaction. We tried three times to get them to repeal it in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, and three times they refused.

This would be a nightmare scenario for the American people on October 1 getting notice that your healthcare

costs will go up 18 percent for millions who are on ACA.

At a time of rising costs, as we have seen, at a time of a weakening job market, to then compound the injury by making you pay a lot more for healthcare, it is outrageous, and Republicans, again, blocked it three times.

We have heard plenty of lip service from Leader Thune and the other side about doing something to preserve these tax credits, but now Leader Thune says Republicans will walk away from the table and sit on their hands as Americans' health insurance shoots by 18 percent. Every Republican in this Senate Chamber will be responsible because all we need is a handful of them to join with us in making sure it is extended and that these costs don't go up.

And this also points to a larger theme. The Republican agenda is a profoundly broken agenda. It is a stunning betrayal of the trust the American people put in Donald Trump to fight for their interests.

So I want to be clear that Republicans--our Republican Senators--in the face of so much damage to our country, cannot just expect for Democrats to bail them out and sign on the dotted line.

What we will do is stand ready to meet Republicans and the Republican leaders face to face and negotiate a way to undo so much of Donald Trump's carnage.

That means we need to have real input into undoing a lot of the carnage that has been done by this administration. It is clear that Democrats don't want a shutdown, but Republicans who say they want to keep the government open have to show they are serious through their actions and not just craft a bill in the dark of night in a room and say, take it or leave it, because that will mean there will be a Republican shutdown.

They need to show up and work with us. That is the only way to get it done and to avoid a shutdown.

Amendment No. 3849 to Amendment No. 3748, As Modified

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this morning, I introduced a very simple amendment that directs the Attorney General to release the Epstein files. It is the same amendment as the one working its way in the House and the same one that my good friend from Oregon, who just spoke on another issue, has been so active in championing.

As soon as today--as soon as today--Republicans have a chance to take a step further in releasing the files, the same files that for years they have said they wanted released. If Republicans vote no, they will be saying to the American people: You should not see the Epstein files.

I ask my Republican colleagues: After all those years you spent calling for accountability, for transparency, for getting to the bottom of these awful crimes, why won't you vote yes?

Let me remind my colleagues of the things they have said for themselves on the Epstein issue.

Leader McConnell said:

There's no question that the accusations against Epstein

are horrendous, and I think it's good news that they are

being pursued further.

That is what McConnell said. Whatever happened to that?

The current majority leader, Senator Thune, said less than 2 months ago:

Yes. We're all interested in making sure that justice is

served and that there is full disclosure and there's

transparency.

And what about Senator Blackburn, who said:

It is imperative we figure out who was involved with

Jeffrey Epstein. That is the only way we are going to break

apart this $150-billion-a-year human trafficking, sex

trafficking ring.

Or Senator Kennedy, who said:

The alleged victims are entitled to know what happened. The

American people are entitled to know what happened.

Well, I could not agree more with all of them. To my Republican colleagues, I say, and to every Senator I say: This is your chance now. You can vote right now to give transparency to the American people and reveal the files or you can vote to hide the very files you have claimed to desperately want released for years.

The choice lies with our Republican colleagues today. If Republicans vote no, they will be saying the American people should not see the Epstein files. I say to my Republican colleagues again, I say to every Senator: If you vote no, you will be saying the American people should not see the Epstein files, plain and simple.

The American people deserve transparency. The American people are sick of Donald Trump's endless string of pathological lies and coverups when it comes to the Epstein files. Trump lied when he promised he would release the Epstein files. Trump lied when he said the FBI never told him if his name was mentioned in the files. Trump lied when he said he never wrote that gross, salacious letter to Epstein on his fiftieth birthday. And he lied last week when he called the whole thing nothing but a Democratic hoax.

It is not a hoax; it is real, and Americans want to get to the bottom of it. Americans want transparency.

From Trump, we are hearing one brazen lie after the other. From Trump, we are hearing a massive coverup.

Americans are wondering: What the heck is Donald Trump hiding?

Well, we can take back that veil. We can take a big step to releasing those files by voting yes on my amendment.

It is clear: Donald Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth to the American people, so it should be up to the Senate to do so. The Senate must force the issue.

And I say to my Republican friends: As long as you keep voting no, America is going to lose trust in government and lose trust in you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we all have a responsibility to understand the history of our country. We have a responsibility to learn from that history, and we learn from that history so we don't repeat the failures of the past.

I am here to remind my colleagues of some of that history but also am able to fill in some details that were just recently made public as a result of some of our investigative work and the cooperation we have had from the intelligence community and from the FBI.

Today, I visit with my colleagues to discuss two dates of significant importance: January 6, 2021, and January 6, 2017. Most of my remarks are about that date in 2017.

Regarding the 2021 date, it was a dark day in American history. The violence against our Capitol and law enforcement was, as we all know, a great national disgrace. First Amendment activity turned into something else.

The latter date, January 6, 2017, is a date many in this country may not remember or care to remember, but I think it is important that we remember. It is a day that signifies a much larger systemic attack on our Republic.

On that date, as the Obama administration planned its exit from its Presidency of 8 years, it put into motion its final traps against the incoming first Trump administration. To fully understand January 2017, we must revisit March and July of 2016.

But one could argue that it all started June 16, 2015, when Trump declared his candidacy. Around March and July of 2016, the FBI received particular intelligence information. Notably, July 2016 is the very same month that FBI Director Comey opened the discredited Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That intelligence information consisted of reports that the Clinton campaign, with Hillary Clinton's approval, created a plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia. That information was made public this year when I released the Durham annex and the Clinton annex.

The Clinton annex showed the FBI had evidence necessary to do a complete investigation into Hillary Clinton and the FBI failed to look at that very evidence and perhaps they intentionally decided not to follow up. So the FBI swept the evidence against Clinton under the rug as they planned to advance the Crossfire Hurricane against Trump. Regarding the intelligence about the Clinton campaign's plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia, the Durham annex notes that ``FBI was fully alerted to the possibility that at least some of the information it received about the Trump campaign might have its origin either with the Clinton campaign or its supporters, or alternately, was the product of Russian disinformation.''

The Durham annex concludes, in part, that ``despite this awareness, the FBI appears to have dismissed the [intelligence information] as not credible without any investigative steps actually having been taken to either corroborate or disprove the allegations.''

In other words, the FBI didn't do what the FBI should do, and that is, follow up on the facts.

So just as with the Clinton annex, where Comey's FBI didn't investigate evidence that might have been bad for Clinton, the Durham annex shows the Comey FBI didn't investigate the intelligence that the Clinton team wanted to falsely tie Trump to Russia to destroy his candidacy in favor of her candidacy. I refer to the Durham and the Clinton annexes because they were just recently declassified, so this information is available. Folks, that is what I have just described as a coverup.

So the question is, What was the main purpose of the coverup?

The answer: to weaponize the Federal Government to destroy Trump's candidacy and Presidency to favor Clinton. You see, Clinton, to the people in this town, was not a threat to the status quo, and they saw Trump as that threat.

In August 2016, President Obama and Vice President Biden met with three high-level people--or probably more than three. But the three that I name are CIA Director Brennan, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, and FBI Director Comey. They discussed the intelligence relating to the Clinton plan. They were aware of the possibility that the Clinton campaign had dirty tricks up its sleeve designed to impact the election.

So let me ask: Did that stop the Obama administration's effort against Trump?

Well, we know that it did not.

Then, on December 9, 2016--so this is after Trump had been elected-- President Obama's national security team gathered. That meeting included Director of National Intelligence Clapper, CIA Director Brennan, FBI Deputy Director McCabe, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary of State Kerry, Attorney General Lynch, and others.

After that meeting, Clapper's office transmitted an email to the intelligence community leaders titled ``President of the United States Tasking on Russia Election Meddling.'' Clapper asked his personnel to create an ``assessment per the President's request.'' The new assessment was an intelligence community assessment.

Per the good investigative work of the House Intelligence Committee's report

Unlike routine intelligence community analysis, the

intelligence community assessment was a high-profile product

ordered by the President, directed by senior intelligence

community heads, and created by just five analysts, using one

principal drafter. Production of the intelligence community

assessment was subject to unusual directives from the

President and senior political appointees and, particularly,

the Director of the CIA.

This is from the House Intelligence Committee's report.

Again a question, Why go through all this effort to create a new product?

Well, according to the good work of Tulsi Gabbard on the House Intelligence Committee, CIA officials didn't have credible and verifiable information showing Putin wanted to get Trump elected, and the intelligence at the time showed that Putin withheld information that would have been damaging to Clinton and, therefore, would have helped Trump.

Obviously, these fixers would not do anything to hurt Clinton. So the Obama administration needed their fixers.

On December 22, 2016, the National Security Agency Director emailed Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. That email noted that the National Security Agency didn't have enough time to review the intelligence for purposes of the new intelligence community assessment Obama ordered, and they wanted to get it done very, very quickly.

So this is how Clapper responded to the National Security Agency:

We may have to compromise on our normal modalities; [that]

more time is not negotiable; [and] this is one project that

has to be team sport.

In other words, we need this very quickly. Don't go through the normal process.

You will see here that the deep state wanted a new intelligence product created from the top down, not from the bottom up as is usually done, and they wanted it done so badly that they were willing to cut corners even if it put the country into chaos.

What was this new product? It was the December 30, 2016, intelligence community assessment tying Trump to Putin.

It stated, in part:

We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help

President-elect Trump's election chances, when possible, by

discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her

unfavorably to him.

Him, meaning Trump.

In their partisan rush--and it was a rush--that intelligence product was published on the date that I previously referred to. It is a date that ought to be remembered: January 6, 2017.

That same day, then-Director of the FBI Comey briefed President-elect Trump on the discredited Clinton campaign-funded--that we call--famous Steele dossier. The new intelligence assessment said Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton even though earlier intelligence had shown Russia simply wanted to cause political chaos in the United States, and it didn't matter whether the President were a Clinton or a Trump.

The new intelligence assessment is exactly what the Durham annex said the Clinton campaign wanted to accomplish. The Durham annex also noted existing intelligence product said the Clinton campaign believed elements of the Obama administration would help them achieve their political ends against Trump. Based on the available evidence, there is no doubt the new intelligence assessment was a political hit job that had been ordered by President Obama.

Let me remind folks that Senator Johnson and I got Annex A to the new intelligence assessment declassified way back in 2020. Annex A was a summary of the discredited Steele dossier. Comey and Brennan worked hard to make sure it was included, even though it was unverified and didn't meet the standard for inclusion. Now, how convenient do you see that is for them?

This next part is very important.

In 2020, Senator Johnson and I publicly released additional information that we had been able to get declassified. That declassified information showed that the Russians knew of the Steele dossier at least as early as July 2016 and before the FBI began Crossfire Hurricane.

The declassified information also stated that the FBI received information that an individual ``central in connecting Trump to Russia'' was very likely a Russian intelligence officer.

The declassified information also showed that the FBI received an intelligence report on January 12, 2017, warning of false information in the dossier and that the material was ``part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.''

On the very same day, January 12, 2017, the FISA warrant on Carter Page, which used the discredited dossier, was renewed for the first time.

The Steele dossier served as a gift to the Russians--a vehicle to pack false information in the hopes the Obama administration and Comey would fall for it hook, line, and sinker or that Obama and his minions saw the obvious and proceeded anyway, believing nobody would ever get all this information declassified for the public to see.

In any event, with all of these red lights flashing ``stop,'' the Obama administration went full speed ahead, and even with Trump as President, Comey gleefully ran every stop sign. The Comey FBI still used the discredited Steele dossier to get a FISA warrant and multiple renewals on Carter Page, and the political hit job continued with the Mueller special counsel investigation.

Now, with the public having seen all of this declassified information kept in the dark for all of 10 years, there is no doubt that the Mueller investigation or review was totally unnecessary. As this continued to evolve, the Mueller fiasco was just the deep state trying to get another hit job on Trump. Then the Biden administration entered the office to continue the partisan political dirty work.

For example, Senator Johnson and I released records relating to Arctic Frost. That is the FBI case that anti-Trump Special Agent Thibault created with the help of partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors.

Based on emails that I have obtained from whistleblowers, we know Thibault opened and even approved the case, in violation of FBI rules.

According to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, as defense counsel for

Trump, Jack Smith and his team withheld these emails from the Trump defense team. Arctic Frost conveniently became one of Jack Smith's cases against Trump and was politically infected from the very start.

Based on more emails whistleblowers have given me, we also know that Thibault, Supervisory Special Agent Blaire Toleman, Special Agent Walter Giardina, and partisan DOJ prosecutors focused their efforts and resources on Peter Navarro.

When Department of Justice prosecutors under Merrick Garland's authority decided to prosecute Navarro, Thibault said:

Wow. Great.

You see how determined these people were to do anything underhanded to get Trump.

From the time then-Candidate Trump came down the escalator in 2015 to this very day, it has been a decade of political weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence community activities. The examples I have given today are that--examples. I could speak for days on end about my investigative work, what it has uncovered over the years, and the fact that political bias has so deeply infected this country's law enforcement and intelligence community agencies. What all that has added up to ought to shake everyone in this country to their very core.

If the government, including the Department of Justice's so-called public integrity unit and an elite FBI public corruption squad, can do that to the President of the United States, just imagine what the government can do to you, the very citizens of this country, if it decides to give you its full and undivided attention.

January 6, 2021, was a single day--a day that we shouldn't forget. January 6, 2017, was a day that was meant to topple a Presidency, and it should certainly outweigh January 6, where a ragtag mob stormed the Capitol with zero chances of succeeding.

To be intellectually honest and fair, we can't ignore the decade of weaponization by taxpayer-funded law enforcement and intelligence community agencies against Republicans, not just the President.

What is so disgusting about the Obama and Biden administrations' partisan conduct that I have just told you about is that their personnel didn't care about the longlasting damage to this great Nation, including eroded trust in American institutions. And the partisan media went right along, no questions asked. Those journalists in this town and around the country are supposed to be policing the political system to make sure that everything is aboveboard. They didn't do it in this case, and they aren't doing it today either. In this case, no questions were asked.

This behavior is an existential threat to our Republic because it creates a systemic, insidious infection that grows in the dark, behind classified walls and bureaucratic redtape, far away from the eyes of the American public and the Congress. And all this behavior was paid for by the taxpayers of this country.

I am thankful to Attorney General Bondi, Director Patel, Director Gabbard, and Director Ratcliffe for their aggressive transparency efforts. Making all these classified documents public may prevent further dangerous conspiracies from recurring again.

For my part and for ``we the people,'' my investigative work will continue to shine light on those very dark corners of government because, as I said when I opened my remarks, you have to know about the history of the country to appreciate what we enjoy today. If you don't learn from the mistakes of the past, they are going to be repeated.

So I have come to the Senate floor to tell my people what has been discussed today that was previously classified and go through the entire story so this country doesn't make the mistake again of letting all the powerful forces of the American Government--the FBI, the intelligence community, people who operate behind closed doors--that that political strength and weaponization never continue again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the Senate process and specifically the challenge we have in exercising our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on nominations.

But I just heard moments ago about a shooting of a podcaster. Each and every assault on any individual is outrageous, and assaults that are motivated by suppressing viewpoints is so horrifically against the vision of our country, where we believe in the power of free speech, we believe in the power of protest, and we believe in the power of assembly. Let the best arguments win the day, not in violence to suppress any viewpoint.

So I hope the individual who--I have not heard the details yet--is going to be OK. I hope he is going to recover.

But let's all remind ourselves, as we carry on a debate and often carry on that debate passionately, that the place to decide issues is through speech, debate, and our democratic Republic, electing people to represent your viewpoints, having them cast votes in the House of Representatives down the hall and having them cast votes here in the Senate.

So let's talk a little bit about what has unfolded, basically, since 1975.

I put up this chart about something called the cloture motion. ``Cloture'' means a motion to close debate.

Early in the Senate, there was no such thing as a cloture motion, but there was the guidebook that Jefferson put forward for how the Senate should be conducted. That guidebook said do not speak superfluously. Get right to the topic. Make your point. Listen to others and get to a simple majority vote. Everyone should be heard, and then you should make a decision. And, always, it should be the majority making the decision, not the minority, because to do otherwise is to turn democracy on its head.

But along came the 1830s and tension increasing between the northern manufacturing economy and the southern slave economy, agricultural economy--particularly, the production of cotton and tobacco.

Those tensions, really, were manifested around the tariffs. The North wanted protective tariffs in order to enhance the success of their manufacturing, and the southern part of the United States was concerned about retaliatory tariffs against cotton and tobacco that would hurt the economy of the South.

This came to the point in which Calhoun called these the ``Tariff of the Abominations,'' was the phrase, like that is scary and damaging to the South that these tariffs were an abomination.

There was a concept exercised that possibly States could decide that a particular Federal bill would not apply in their State. Now, this was not some crazy theory. This, in fact, went to the tension between the United States and whether it was an association of States or it was a single Nation. Jefferson and others had argued that, in fact, States should be able to nullify Federal laws that didn't work well in their State--nullification.

So as this debate unfolded on the tariff of the abominations, South Carolina decided to actually pass a nullification law. Calhoun, who had been Vice President with Jackson, had gone back to the Senate and advocated for South Carolina to do this. But it didn't unfold as Calhoun expected because President Jackson, who was a slaveholder, who was from a slave-owning State, proceeded to say: No, nullification is not in concert with the U.S. Constitution, and, therefore, if South Carolina persists, the United States will declare war on South Carolina.

And that happened right here. The United States declared war on South Carolina; South Carolina relented; and that was the end of nullification.

But then the question became for Calhoun and others: How do we stop bills that we don't like? In the beginning, the conversation was about tariff bills, but as it unfolded over time, it became about civil rights bills because the South did not want Black Americans to be voting; thus, came the idea that really gained traction in the 1850s of talking a civil rights bill to death, continuing floor speeches until everyone was exhausted and you couldn't get to conclude debate and have a vote.

That is the beginning of the idea of a filibuster. ``Filibuster'' is a word coming from the Dutch word for ``freebooter'' or ``pirate.'' So piracy overcame the Senate; that is, you had Jefferson laying out that everyone should speak succinctly and to the issue, get to a simple majority vote; and then you had southern Senators saying: Wait. Wait. We want the opposite. We want to celebrate lengthy speeches as a victory for free speech, the First Amendment, glorification of long speeches here as a way to stop bills from getting passed.

That is where the filibuster comes from.

Why do I tell you all of this? Because that is how we came to have a motion called cloture here in the U.S. Senate because in 1917, there was a debate over putting armaments over commercial ships. And a group of Senators said we are going to talk that bill to death because that is the equivalent of declaring war, and declaring war is our responsibility under the Constitution. We haven't done it. Therefore, since we haven't done it, we shouldn't arm the ships, and honoring our constitutional responsibility, we are going to talk this bill to death.

That was a national outrage, and President Woodrow Wilson rallied the Nation to condemn that small group of Senators who were standing in the way of arming our civilian ships back in 1917.

In fact, the day after the transition from one Congress to the next-- the next day, essentially--the Senate acted, and they acted and created a cloture motion to close debate.

Here, I have for you a chart for cloture motions. You can see that in the entire history from 1917, when that motion was created, on through 1974, it was only done 125 times; so less than twice a year.

The motion was thought to be an occasional way to interrupt lengthy process by a few Senators to get to a vote, and, therefore, it was created with a lot of time associated with it. Initially, you filed a motion. You have to wait 2 days to vote on it. Even if it succeeds to close debate, you debate for another 100 hours on a bill. Well, that is a very, very lengthy process. It means a single cloture motion takes up several weeks. But when it only happened once or twice a year, that was acceptable to the Senate.

But let's fast forward and realize that that started to change, and this change really began in 1965. In 1965, 1964, we passed the civil rights bill, and we passed the Voting Rights Act. And as a consequence, the cloture motion--or the filibuster, which had been used primarily to block civil rights bills, lost some of its racist tint because we finally passed a civil rights bill, and we finally passed a voting rights bill.

People started saying: Well, maybe we will talk other issues to death, not just civil rights issues. And maybe rather than just using it on final passage of bills, we will also use it on amendments and we will also use it on motions to proceed to bills and we will also use it on nominations, which brings me to this next chart.

This chart displays how the use of cloture motions on nominations has accelerated in recent years: rarely used in the past on nominations. Even when it was filed, it rarely had to be voted on. And now in the decade from 2010 to 2020, 545 times. And only halfway through the next decade, if you include the additional uses of cloture on nominations that have happened just this year, which are not on this chart, we are already exceeding the previous decade, and we are on pace to double it.

This reflects the kind of growing tension between the parties and the growing use of this tool to slow down the process in which people fill the executive branch.

This is not good for our country to make it so difficult to debate and vote on a nomination, make it so difficult that there are more than 100 sub-Cabinet nominations awaiting action in this Chamber. It was not good when the Republican majority really initiated this strategy during the second term of President Obama, which led to a 2013 change, where we went to a simple majority to close debate on most nominations except for the Supreme Court. Fine, but that still required the cloture motion to be gone through, even with the simple majority. And it still meant significant delays.

That process kind of just has continued to increase in the tension between the parties. Now we have about 150 sub-Cabinet nominations awaiting action on the floor and dozens more that are likely to come out of committee in the next few weeks. And my Republican colleagues are saying this is unacceptable.

Indeed, if we turn the tables--if it were the Democrats in charge and the Republicans doing the same thing--it would be unacceptable. We are spending way too much time in this Chamber on nominations; way too much time that takes away from considering bipartisan bills; way too much time from addressing the fundamentals of healthcare and housing and education, investment in infrastructure, the creation of good-paying jobs, strategies to reduce pollution in our Nation. Therefore, we need to work together across the aisle to improve the process.

I and others have been in conversation with our colleagues across the aisle--my Republican colleagues--to say we understand there is a problem afflicting this body, and we are ready to work with you to accelerate the processing of sub-Cabinet nominations.

In fact, there is also a kind of sword of Damocles hanging over this body at the moment, where there has been a proposal put forward for a nuclear option that is not done in a bipartisan fashion that would severely damage the ability of this Chamber to well represent our States when it comes to nominations. And this idea--which I fiercely oppose--is to vote on big blocks of nominations.

Here is the problem with that: The bad apple gets thrown in with a pile of good apples, and there is no accountability to our constituents or to our Nation, and, therefore, we fail the test that we are placed with by being Senators of advice and consent on nominations because we don't consider the pros and cons of a particular nomination.

Second of all, if you do block nominations, that would just expand and expand. And the first thing you know, it is like 1 vote; it is 100 nominations. There is no scrutiny. And, again, we fail our constitutional test.

The third problem, if this Chamber is led by a majority as the opposite Chamber from the President, it will be tempting to use that same block process in order to extract kind of big action by the President. That use of the advice and consent as to blackmail the President, that is not healthy. That was certainly not the intent of our constitutional responsibility.

So if we look at all of those pieces, there is a better way. There is a better way. We can accelerate massively the consideration of sub- Cabinet nominations. We can consider a set of tools.

One is you don't have to go in and out of executive session to consider them. The second is, you can have a set time for consideration of a nomination or a debate period for a combination of a group of nominees. And because it is a set time, you don't need a cloture motion. If you don't need a cloture motion, you don't need an intervening day. If you don't need a cloture motion, you don't have to carry out that extra 20-minute vote.

And, in addition, we could greatly accelerate the votes that occur at the end of a debate time for a group of nominees so that those votes happen rapidly, one after the other after the other.

These are all things we could consider in dialogue. But let's have that bipartisan dialogue. Let's not have a nuclear option that blows up the responsibility of all of us as Senators under the Constitution.

Mr. President, I was listening to the majority whip, and I have got to say, I have a little whiplash. I mean, I was here. I was negotiating. It was late July. We were passing paper back and forth between the Democratic and Republican caucus. The cloakrooms were working together, and we had a deal. That is the way you get nominations confirmed in batches.

The majority party wants to get them all done, fair enough. It is their President. And the minority party has this really unique authority in this place, which is to slow things down. And the rhythm of this place is that the majority party goes to the minority party and says: What is it going to take for us to confirm a batch of these nominees? We have got a backlog. We have got to get some of these through.

And so there are a couple of ways that that normally happens. First of all, you pair Democrats and Republicans together so that each party is getting a little bit of what they need.

The problem with pairing in the Trump era, and it is different from Trump 1.0, is that President Trump hasn't even nominated Democrats to Commissions like the SEC, the FTC, the FEC, the CFPB. All of those Agencies usually have Democrats and Republicans nominated, and then they kind of languish on the floor until we cut a deal and we confirm them all.

We had no deal space because there were no Democrats to deal out. And by the way, many Republicans with whom I talked said: Yeah, that is a fair point. Let me go and talk to the Chief of Staff of the President. Let me go talk to the White House team. We should get you some Democrats so that we can do some nominations in what they call the wrapup script, right?

Second thing is on the ambassadorships, usually, we are able to confirm a bunch of the career State Department officials, people who work in the Foreign Service who are not political at all; and then it is the donors and the friends of the President. And I think the whole process of how we decide our ambassadorships is totally bananas, but both parties do this where donors and friends of the President are the political nominees for ambassadorships. OK.

So those are the ones that we usually require a vote on. And the civil servants--the longtime, some charge d'affaires for Mozambique or whatever it is--like, we are not going to fight over that, and we just confirm that. The problem is there were, like, I think, fewer than five career State Department people nominated to these positions. And so, again, not a lot of deal space.

But, still, we found 35 that we were willing to do in exchange for things--

and we did not ask for anything that was unreasonable in the sense of something that would be objected to by large numbers of Republicans. This was NIH funding and releasing funds for--even when we did that rescissions package, now about 6 weeks ago, on the foreign aid stuff. There were a couple categories on the foreign aid that everybody said they liked.

And so we just said: Why don't you release the previously authorized and appropriated funding because people are literally dying around the world? And you guys say UNICEF, PEPFAR, the World Food Programme, you are still for that. You didn't like the stuff happening at USAID, but there are categories of foreign aid that you are still in favor of. So we found these relatively small discrete things that everybody in this place--maybe 95 of us--are in favor of in exchange for 35 nominees. Great, looks like we have got a deal. We are trending towards a deal.

Donald Trump gets on the phone with the leadership of the U.S. Senate and says: Everybody go home. Everybody go home.

And so the reason we don't have all of these nominees confirmed is the lack of the ability to conduct business in the U.S. Senate. And there are a lot of talented legislators, but what they have done is removed their frontal lobe and just substituted Donald Trump's judgment for their own. And so they don't want to cut deals with Democrats anymore.

And that goes for the Big Beautiful Bill. That goes for their approach to appropriations. That goes for their approach for basically everything.

And so it is true that we put some sand in the gears on purpose. That is what minority parties are supposed to do. That is how the U.S. Senate is supposed to work. And the way you untangle that is through the hard work of negotiating across the aisle, and they just didn't want to do it.

Like, I have been in many bipartisan negotiations over the last 3 or 4 months, and they have mostly all failed because, in the end, we can only find a handful of people who are open to a deal. And this time we had everybody saying: OK, this looks like a reasonable solution. And then Donald Trump himself blew it up. Why? Because he doesn't want expediting the Senate's consideration; he wants to adjourn. He wants this place to adjourn.

Now, why is that a big deal? Adjournment sounds like something you just kind of do to, like, OK, we will see you tomorrow. No. Adjournment for the month of August would have meant that Donald Trump himself would have been in a position to appoint whomever he wanted to any Senate-confirmed position; by the way, remove any member of the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet; and then appoint that person, and then that person could serve till the end of the Congress without the Senate ever weighing in. That is what he wants.

And, you know, it is kind of part of a piece, isn't it? He finds the Senate to be a nuisance. And I remember this, I wasn't in the Federal Government executive branch, but I was in the State government executive branch. And once you are in the executive branch, you find legislators to be annoying, to be an impediment to the kind of stuff you want to do. But the architecture of the Constitution provides that we are supposed to be annoying, we are supposed to put sand in the gears, and then we are supposed to deal with each other.

And so what is going to happen this week or next with this rules change is the result of two things: It is an abject failure of the willingness to negotiate at all, of the willingness to interact with Democrats for fear of being seen as too soft and insufficiently compliant with Donald Trump.

The other thing I would just like to say is, it is a little rich, it is a little rich that we fly out at 1:45 on a Thursday, and our first vote is at 5:30 on a Monday. And I know Senators work hard. I am not trying to say it is terrible that people go home. They should go home. They should interact with their constituents. But these are 2-hour nominations. We should probably exhaust the possibility of working Fridays and Mondays before we go through with changing the rules on a partisan basis.

We should probably consider, Do we need a 5-week home work period in the summer, or could we do a 4-week home work period and plow through nominations?

And so it is true that there is a big backlog, and it is actually true that Democrats helped to create it. What is different about this year is that there is just no effort to untangle the backlog.

When we were in the majority, I would walk over to Chuck's nominations staffer, figure out what was stuck and walk over to the other side and try to make a deal every week to try to get some of these confirmations.

And as I had a blanket hold on State Department nominees, not a single person approached me once. Once, Jim Risch talked to me, that is fair. But I don't know if it is a muscle memory thing or if it is a Donald Trump thing but they have simply forgotten how to work with Democrats.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the senior Senator from Texas Senator Cornyn be recognized.

Mr. President, the numbers do not lie. The job market is practically frozen. Unemployment is at its highest level in 4 years. Inflation is rising. Homebuilding is stagnant. The manufacturing sector is shrinking.

To top it all off, Trump is raising the price of everything. Vegetables are up 40 percent; coffee, 15 percent. Everything from toothpaste, to detergent, to shoes, to video game consoles costs more. More price hikes are on the way this fall and holiday season as businesses exhaust their inventories and give up on eating billions of dollars of added costs.

This is America's golden age under Donald Trump.

If it wasn't clear before, it is abundantly clear now that unless you are a billionaire getting enormous tax cuts and generous corporate giveaways, this economy sucks. Costs are piling up, saving money is nearly impossible, and just getting by, let alone buying a home or raising a family, is a lot harder.

The worst part of it is that there was actually no reason for any of this. There is no pandemic. We are not in the middle of a war. There is no ongoing emergency. This is a crisis of the President's own making, and we are all paying the price.

Donald Trump has made shortages the cornerstone of his economic agenda, and it is working. We now have shortages of nearly everything-- food, electricity, healthcare, workers. With less supply to go around, everything costs more. It does not take a genius to work that out. In fact, people have worked it out. Trump's approval rating on inflation and the cost of living is 24 points underwater. His approval rating on the economy overall is at negative 13. More than half of Americans think the economy is getting worse, and less than a quarter of Americans think it is improving.

We are on a speedrun to become Venezuela, and people can see it.

This is a deliberate economic program. There is this sense that he just wakes up in the morning and does whatever he feels like doing. And to some extent, he is improvisational, but make no mistake, he has a coherent economic theory, which is, we should shrink the supply of everything. He thinks it strengthens the dollar, he thinks it helps with manufacturing, and I think he thinks that the less there is of stuff, the more people have to go and petition the King for mercy.

This is a deliberate economic program predicated on shortages across American society. In turn, the United States is set to shrink for the first time in our history. Think about that. The United States--the greatest Nation that the world has ever known, the indispensable Nation, the leader of the free world, the leader of the world--is shrinking. We are becoming smaller and weaker in more ways than one under Trump. But in this way, we are quite literally following Donald Trump's plan, and there is no escaping the consequences.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment numbered 3854 to amendment No. 3849 to the desk.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.