Floor Statements

Mr. President, 5 years ago, our Nation and democracy experienced one of its darkest days when a violent mob--incited by President Trump--ransacked the Capitol.

Brave police officers were beaten, crushed, bear-sprayed, and maced while defending our democracy with their bare hands. The sacred Halls of Congress, including the Senate floor, where we are standing today, were desecrated. Symbols of hate were flown through these sacred halls. Worse, blood and more was smeared on the walls and floors. The certification of the election was delayed, and later that night, with blood still staining the Capitol Grounds, many of the President's allies still--still--voted against certifying the election.

I was in the House of Representatives on January 6. I was in the House of Representatives exactly 5 years ago. I was asked by Speaker Pelosi to be one of the managers of the floor debate that day, to be one of the managers opposing the efforts to decertify the electors, and I remember vividly what that day was like.

I remember being surprised to look up from my notes from where I was speaking and rebutting what others were saying to see that Speaker Pelosi was no longer presiding in the Chamber. She had been removed so quickly that I didn't even see her leave the Chamber. Then I saw the Capitol Police come back onto the floor, grab our No. 2, Steny Hoyer, and whisk him off the floor. I noticed only peripherally Members were on their phones and not in a way that they were texting but, rather, in that they were watching. What they were watching, of course, were hundreds and thousands of people outside the Capitol who were starting to beat their way into this building. Then I could hear them myself outside the Chamber as they were banging on doors and trying to get in. I remember Capitol Police officers coming back on the floor, making sequential and more serious statements about the emergency and that we needed to get out our gas masks. I remember grabbing one under my seat and the difficulty we all had in just opening them.

I remember when the Capitol Police came back on the floor and said: You need to get out. You need to get out now.

I remember waiting, as Members fled the floor, until two Republicans came up to me.

One said: You can't let them see you.

The other said: That's right. I know these people. I can talk to these people. I can talk my way through these people. You're in a whole different category.

At first, I was moved by their evident concern for my safety. Then my next thought was, if you hadn't been lying about the election, I wouldn't need to worry about my safety. None of us would.

As I walked off the floor and through the tunnels that day, I remember thinking back to when I had first been elected and how, a few months later, it was 9/11 and how we had gathered on the steps of the Capitol--Democrats and Republicans--to sing ``God Bless America.'' That tragedy had been unifying for the country, and I remember thinking, on January 6, as I walked through those tunnels, that this tragedy would not be unifying.

But little could I have imagined that the person who incited that attack on this building--the person who led that first effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power--would once again be President and that among his first acts in Congress would be to pardon hundreds and hundreds of violent attackers who beat the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police who were defending us on that day or that we would hear the rampant kind of denials that we just heard from one of my Republican colleagues on this floor--this repugnant, this dangerous, this disgraceful effort to rewrite history; to pretend that this was somehow this misunderstood, peaceful gathering of tourists on January 6.

I was proud to serve on the January 6 Committee. What really came home to me while serving on that committee, more than anything else, was a large part of what saved us on that day--what saved our democracy on that day--which were Republicans of good faith who were willing to do their duty and uphold their oath: Brad Raffensperger, who said, when the President called him and berated him for an hour to find 11,780 votes that did not exist, that he would not do it; or Rusty Bowers, the Republican speaker in Arizona, who said to Rudy Giuliani, when he was urging much the same, that what you are asking me to do is a violation of my oath, and he would not do it.

But now we are seeing a systematic effort to weed out anyone who defies the President's false narrative. In hearing after hearing on the Senate Judiciary Committee, candidates for high office and for the Federal bench cannot be confirmed if they admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Donald Trump lost. It is a prerequisite to be nominated or confirmed that you must adhere to the Big Lie. This is where we are.

Most astonishing to me after January 6 is that I would find our democracy in more danger today than I did on that day. The danger has grown along with the denial. The danger has grown along with efforts by this administration to try to succeed next time where it failed in overturning the election by seating within local elections boards diehard partisans who will ignore the law in favor of their favored partisan candidate; by pushing out election workers; by trying to rewrite election laws; by trying to sow doubt in the election system so that, if necessary, if they lose the next election, they can try to deny and overturn that too. This is the danger that we face.

We thought democracy was inevitable. We were wrong. As it turns out, every generation has its own struggle for democracy.

Our parents' and grandparents' generations went off to world war to defend our democracy. What we have to do is by comparison so much less, but it is nevertheless so very important. We have the same obligation as those that went before us to preserve this incredible legacy we have been given by our Founders.

I am grateful to Senator Padilla for organizing this special order hour for us to remember the horrors of that day, and we dedicate ourselves to making sure that something like January 6 never happens in this country again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask this body to pass legislation requiring the Department of Defense to show Congress and the American people the September 2 video of strikes that killed two survivors on a shipwrecked vessel after the administration's first strike disabled the craft. The American people deserve to see this video and to witness what is being done in their name.

The administration has proudly published the footage of countless other strikes, including the first one from the very same day, believing it could do so without compromising any sources or methods used by our military or intelligence services. This followup footage should be no different.

Since the beginning of this campaign of unauthorized strikes against boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, there has been one key feature from this administration: an eagerness to push out the videos of these attacks.

We first learned about these strikes when video of an attack was published by the President of the United States, who posted the video of it on his social media. That was video of the first strike on September 2.

In the strikes since--strikes that have killed nearly 100 people in the last few months--the attacks have been announced to the world by the President and the Secretary of Defense, posting videos of them on their social media.

Last week, we saw the administration distribute lengthy footage of the seizure of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.

So why not release the video of the second strike that the administration ordered on September 2? Why is the administration hiding it behind closed doors, sharing it with only a small handful of Members, and leaving the rest of Congress and the country in the dark? What is it about the killing of these two survivors that the administration is unwilling to let the people see?

The legality of the entire campaign of striking these boats and killing those onboard, rather than interdicting and arresting them, has been called into serious question. An attack on shipwrecked sailors is expressly prohibited by the laws of war.

The rationale for hiding this video seems far less about any nebulous claim of the need to protect sources or methods, and far more about protecting the administration from accountability and oversight that the American people demand.

This legislation is simple: Make this video available--first, in full, without edits, to all Members of Congress. Then, if there is any legitimate basis to be concerned with the revelation of some source, method, modus operandi, or technology that isn't already apparent with the eager release of all the other videos, make it public with proper redaction.

Surely, the same people who scrub and declassify every other video the Pentagon has publicly posted can be enlisted to do the same for this one.

Or is the so-called ``most transparent administration in history'' afraid of what this video would show? Would it show a clear violation of the laws of war, which use the killing of shipwrecked combatants as the textbook definition of an illegal use of force?

The truth on this is going to come out. We know that it will. Let it be

now. We already know from the reports of our colleagues who have seen the video what it shows--first, a strike on a boat; and then, a short while later, a second strike on the disabled wreckage of the boat and two survivors, killing them.

I should make clear: None of these strikes is lawful because these targets are not combatants. There is no imminent threat of invasion, and there is no legal authorization in the United States or international law for the use of military force for drug interdiction alone.

We have condemned campaigns of extrajudicial killings in other countries that have done so to allegedly combat the drug trade--like the Philippines under Duterte--and we must not engage in that conduct here.

But the second strike on September 2 compounds the illegality. It flies directly in the face of laws and values to underpin the U.S. military.

So I ask my colleagues to support this bill. Allow this legislation to pass and ensure that we are not hiding information from the American people. After all, the President of the United States said he was fine with releasing the footage. ``Whatever they have,'' he said, ``we'd certainly release. No problem.''

It is time we hold the President to his promise to be transparent with the American people. Our servicemembers and their families deserve nothing less.

Right now, we have a massive military force in the region. We have killed almost 100 people. We are beginning a blockade of a country with which we are not at war and with which the American people do not want us to go to war--not over regime change, as despicable as the Maduro regime is. The American people do not want to go to war over regime change, which is apparently the real objective here.

We should pass a War Powers Resolution to make clear that Congress does not support a military campaign that may draw us into another endless war or destabilize the region. And we can start by releasing the video of one deadly strike already undertaken, but the evidence of which has been withheld from the American people.

I urge passage of this bill.

As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk to require the release of video strikes conducted on September 2, 2025, against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Southern Command; that the bill be considered read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, first, as my colleague served on the Intelligence Committee when I chaired the committee, he should well know that Members of Congress actually don't hold clearances that can be revoked; we either serve on certain committees or we don't.

But more to the point, in listening to my colleague address this motion to release the video to the American people, I have heard very little of the basis for an objection to releasing this video except some nebulous claim that somehow this footage must be classified.

I would pose this question to my colleagues: Do you recognize that this video has already been partly displayed to the American people? The administration was all too proud to show the first part of this same video, the first attack on this ship, to the American people. There was no objection, obviously, to classification or to source of method. They showed that to the whole world. They just didn't show all of us the rest of that video; that is, they only showed the footage of the first strike. What they withheld was the footage of the killing of the survivors of the strike.

So, to make the claim here without basis that, well, somehow the continuation of that footage is confidential but that the beginning of that footage showing the first attack can be released without injury to sources or methods--it just doesn't pass the smell test.

This is going to come out. It is just a question of how long we have to fight to make this available to the American people.

But if the administration is proud of this, if the administration is proud of what it is doing in the name of the American people, it should be proud to show this video to the American people. And we should hold the President, who said: Whatever they have, we would certainly release; no problem--we should hold the President to that commitment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and celebrate a milestone of 150 years in the making--one that began long before Santa Monica appeared on a map and long before the first plots of land were sold.

When discussing the inception of Santa Monica, we often start in July of 1875. That summer, U.S. Senator John P. Jones and Colonel Robert S. Baker came together to imagine a town. What was once a vision discussed between two business partners soon became the city we know and love today. Senator Jones was a pioneer of California who settled in Trinity County in 1850 and served in elected office at the State and Federal level. Colonel Baker, originally from Rhode Island, arrived during the Gold Rush, building businesses in San Francisco before purchasing the Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica in 1872.

Together, they mapped out a future. But they were not the first to steward this land. Before the idea of Santa Monica existed, the Tongva Gabrielino people lived throughout the Los Angeles Basin and the Channel Islands. Their history, the care they held for the coastline, and their significant presence are central to the story we are honoring. In 2013, Tongva Park was dedicated in their honor. It stands as a reminder that any celebration of Santa Monica begins with recognizing the first people of this region.

Over the decades, Santa Monica earned many names. By its community, it may be recognized as the City by the Sea, the Pearl of the Pacific, or to some, the City of Inspiration. Each name reflects something true--its natural beauty, its creativity, and its ability to reinvent itself.

Santa Monica has always been a place of firsts. Early landmarks like the Arcadia Hotel and the North Beach Bath House helped shape the city's character. And even as times changed, Santa Monica has held tightly to its legacy. The Santa Monica Pier has welcomed visitors for over 115 years. The Galley, Gilbert's El Indio, and Chez Jay still serve as local favorites. The Aero Theatre, which opened in 1940, continues to invite film lovers to experience classics, blockbusters, and nights with the industry's best.

For 150 years, Santa Monica has been a hub of art, culture, sports, architecture, technology, and bold civic engagement. Through December 2025, the city will celebrate with a monthlong series of events designed by residents, artists, neighborhood organizations, and community leaders. This celebration belongs to everyone that calls Santa Monica their home, whether in their hearts or at their doorstep.

The story of Santa Monica will continue in every community space and effort to build a city where everyone feels welcome. Here is to 150 years of Santa Monica and to the future that is imagined.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th Annual Trek to the Nation's Christmas Tree in Kings Canyon National Park in California.

Also known as the General Grant Tree, it is located in Grant Grove, home to many giant sequoias, and is one of the oldest trees in the world, standing proudly for millennia. This magnificent tree stands 268 feet tall, with its lowest branch 130 feet above ground, and has a 107- foot trunk circumference. For 100 years, visitors have gathered on the second Sunday in December at the base of the tree to honor veterans and the Christmas holiday.

The trek started in 1925 when R.J. Senior, then-president of the Sanger Chamber of Commerce, and Charles E. Lee, then-secretary of the Sanger Chamber of Commerce, wandered into Grant Grove. While they marveled at the massive tree, they overheard a little girl say, ``What a lovely Christmas tree that would be.'' That statement sparked Lee to write a letter to the President of the United States Calvin Coolidge to suggest that the General Grant Tree be recognized as the Nation's Christmas Tree. Four months later, on April 28, 1926, the General Grant was officially designated the Nation's Christmas Tree by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Later, on October 1, 1949, Sanger, CA, was recognized by the Post Office Department as the Nation's Christmas Tree City.

The Tree was further recognized on March 29, 1956, when Congress designated the General Grant Tree as a National Shrine. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz represented U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in dedicating the General Grant Tree as a perpetual shrine to our Nation's fallen veterans. Members of the National Park Service join in the Nation's Christmas Tree services each year by placing a wreath at the base of the tree.

Because of the pride and dedication of the Sanger community, the Nation's Christmas Tree is known nationally and internationally.

I ask all Members to join me in celebrating the 100th Annual Trek to the Nation's Christmas Tree on December 14, 2025.

Mr. President, almost 6 years ago, I stood here on the Senate floor--I was not yet a Member of this body--and spoke as a House Member leading President Trump's first impeachment. ``We are not enemies,'' I said, quoting Lincoln, ``but friends. We must not be enemies.''

``If Lincoln could speak those words during the Civil War,'' I observed, ``surely we could say them and mean them now.''

In the 6 years since that impeachment, our country has only become further divided. It has become even more challenging for Americans to speak with each other, with our neighbors, even with members of our own families who have been alienated from one another.

How we begin to heal our present wounds and bring about a sense of common purpose that has been lost is difficult to say, as the causes of our division are many. But I suspect, if there was a common denominator to what must be done, it begins with a renewed effort to better understand each other, who we are, where we come from, what drives us.

In that spirit, let me tell you a little bit about who I am that may differ from the version that many Americans see on FOX or in the President's social media feed and what I have done to introduce myself to my 40 million new constituents because I intend to be a Senator for all Californians in the red areas and the blue and everywhere else in between.

That is one reason I sought to join the Senate Agriculture Committee--the first time in more than 30 years that our Nation's largest agriculture-producing State has had a seat at that table.

I have traveled the State on planes, trains, automobiles, even boats, visiting nearly half of California's 58

counties, including some of the most conservative parts of our State. I have toured almond orchards, cilantro fields, health clinics, food banks, and affordable housing developments. I even took part in an ill- advised game of dice at a bar in Los Banos while drinking a bitter Dutch liqueur, which I will not be repeating.

Wherever I go, I ask Californians the same question: How can I help?

It is certainly true, depending on where I am in the Golden State, that sometimes I have to break through caricatures of me on rightwing media. That can be a challenge, but it is one I very much enjoy. There is nothing more fun in politics than upsetting people's expectations.

I knew, for example, I was making progress when a farmer in conservative Butte County told me after an hour-long meeting:

I don't know why the President calls you ``watermelon

head.'' You have a perfectly normal size head.

And that comes from a farmer who knows a thing or two about melons.

Traveling across California has only underscored that it is the honor of a lifetime to serve the State I so deeply love in the Senate.

I am especially humbled to serve alongside my friend and colleague Alex Padilla and to follow in the footsteps of trailblazing giants who have gone before us--Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and our own Madam Vice President, Kamala Harris, in whose Hart office I now sit.

I am grateful beyond measure to my staff--the smartest, hardest working, best looking bunch of public servants in America--whose dedication to the people of California inspires me every day.

Of course, I am deeply grateful to my family--my strong, loving, daring, and caring wife Eve--yes, we are Adam and Eve; my children Lexi and Eli, of whom I am immensely proud; my late parents Ed and Sherrill, who taught me everything important; and my brothers Daniel and David.

Like so many Americans, I owe who I am to my family. My family owes who we have become to the opportunities this country has afforded us.

My parents Ed and Sherrill were the grandchildren of immigrants of Eastern Europe, from Lithuania and Poland; and as my parents used to say with pride: From the ``shtetl'' to the Congress in three generations--only in America.

My father Ed left high school early to join the military at the end of World War II. He tried to enlist in the Marine Corps but failed the physical--flat feet and bad eyes. Two weeks later, he went to enlist in the Army, thinking there might be a different physical standard or at least a different examining physician. As it turned out, it was the same standard and the same damn physician.

``Wait, weren't you here 2 weeks ago?'' the doctor asked.

My father said, ``Yes.''

``You really want to get in that bad?''

My father said, ``Yes.''

Just like that, Ed Schiff was in the U.S. Army.

After he left the service, my father went to college on the GI Bill. He later dropped out--one of the few decisions in life he came to regret--and went into the ``schmatta'' business--that is Yiddish for ``clothing'' or ``rags''--and sold ``schmatta'' up and down New England.

Eventually, he got promoted and moved our family from Framingham, MA, to Scottsdale, AZ, and finally to Alamo, CA. We went from working class to middle class, my father eventually getting out of the clothing business and buying a lumber yard.

I grew up, like so many other kids in that era, with Little League and Cub Scouts and lemonade stands; my mother ringing a cow bell to let us know when it was dinner time; the sonorous, authoritative voice of Walter Cronkite on TV; and summers spent working in restaurants or hauling sacks of concrete and roofing materials.

We lived the booms and busts of the 1970s and 1980s. At times, my father would tell us that the business was growing so fast, it was scary. Other times, he would tell us that we all needed to tighten our belts to make it through the next few years.

But because this is America, because my family settled in the Golden State in the 1970s, I was able to attend some of the finest K-through- 12 public schools in the country. That has made everything possible. I was able to become a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office in L.A. and take on everything from drug trafficking, to corruption, to Russian spies. That included prosecuting Richard Miller, the first FBI agent ever indicted for espionage, and my first introduction into the insidious influence of the Russian Government.

I was able to win elective office--not on my first try, not even on my second. The third time is the charm. And for three decades now, I have had the privilege to serve the people of California in the State senate, in the U.S. House, and now in this august Chamber.

So many of us who grew up in the postwar era share a common experience. We entered a dynamic, growing economy, one that had its ups and downs, winners and losers, but still an economy that allowed millions to climb into and stay in the middle class. We benefited from vibrant democratic institutions that, despite their many flaws and blind spots, upheld the rule of law and steadily improved the quality of people's lives.

In so many ways, California embodies that limitless future: Exciting. Entrepreneurial. Home to Silicon Valley and aerospace and Hollywood, to Disneyland and redwoods reaching the skies, the shores to the mountains. I can still remember the wonder in my friend's eyes when I announced that we were moving to the Golden State.

Yet that California, that America that made my story and so many others' possible, is today under grave threat. What was once a sturdy ladder into middle class now feels more like splintered wood.

My parents bought our first home for $18,000--what my father earned in a single year as a clothing salesman. These days, in most of California, that wouldn't cover 6 months of rent. The notion of buying a place for a year's salary is a fantasy for all but a tiny handful of the most wealthy Americans.

When my brother Dan entered UC Berkley in 1976, tuition cost practically nothing--a couple hundred bucks in registration fees, another couple hundred for books, maybe a thousand for room and board. That was the cost to attend what even I--a graduate of Cal's rival from across the bay--must grudgingly admit is one of the best universities in the world. Today, attending that same institution will cost you upwards of $50,000 a year.

I hear from Californians every day who are struggling, one health problem or car problem away from failure; the exhaustion; the desperation; the pride they take in their work and the despair that it never seems to be enough.

The man in San Diego who wrote me, telling me he will have to spend thousands of dollars more a year just to keep his health coverage or may have to drop it completely.

The young woman in the North State who did everything right--got a good education and has a mountain of debt to show for it--and who told me in tears how she is deathly afraid of getting sick because she can't afford it, how she has nothing set aside for retirement and nothing to set aside.

The farmworkers in the Central Valley who are afraid to go to work and attend church lest ICE detain them, citizens and noncitizens alike.

Is it any wonder that so many Americans believe that the system no longer works for them and that hard work is no longer a guarantee of a good life?

That sense for the first time in our history and for millions of Americans that their parents' lives were better, that their children's future is in doubt, is a powerful and destabilizing force because when our economy stops working, our democracy stops working. We have seen this movie before, over and over again.

In college, I traveled behind the Iron Curtain. As a young Department of Justice lawyer assigned to work in Czechoslovakia, I saw up close how an autocrat could exploit profound economic dislocation and inequality to divide and dominate. As a Member of Congress, I witnessed civil society activists fighting oppressive regimes around the world which impoverished their own people even as they enriched themselves.

When the political system that is supposed to address economic challenges proves itself incapable or indifferent, too many people become susceptible to the siren song of any demagogue who insists that they alone can fix it.

So we come to this perilous moment when so many of our expectations have been proven incorrect--we who watched walls coming down, new democracies being born, more people able to practice their faith, associate with whom they would, and able to speak their piece. We came to believe that freedom would be forever on the march, that it was inevitable, inexorable, irrevocable. We were wrong.

There is nothing inexorable about democracy. The moral arc of the universe is long, and it bends toward justice, but not on its own, not without effort, not without sacrifice, and not at the present moment.

If we are to preserve this great, this improbable experiment in self- governance, our press must remain free from coercion; our universities must be free to teach, our law firms to take on unpopular clients, our Justice Department to do impartial justice, our companies to hire the best talent, our legislators to vote their conscience without fear of violence or reprisal.

The health of our democracy and the strength of our economy are deeply entwined. We cannot have a strong economy without a strong democracy, and we cannot have a strong democracy if we cannot answer in the affirmative the most basic, the most vital, the most central question facing American families, and that question is this: If you are working hard in America, can you still earn a good living for yourself and your family?

To answer that question ``yes'' means putting a relentless focus on the basic needs of our constituents--food, housing, healthcare, a good job, and the dignity that comes with work. It means acknowledging our own failures of leadership and governance and calling out corruption where we see it. It means placing a renewed focus on getting stuff done.

As it so often has, I believe that California is again showing the way in the resurgence of San Francisco under a mayor who has prioritized results over ideology; in Los Angeles, where communities are coming together to rebuild from the ashes; in San Jose's data- driven governance; in Sacramento and Oakland and San Diego taking real action on homelessness, transit, and housing; in the Central Valley, the Imperial Valley, and the North State in growing the food that nourishes us and pressing on despite the hardship of not enough water and too many tariffs. Each of us, I am sure, can point to places in our States and our cities that are addressing real challenges with the seriousness, creativity, and urgency that they deserve.

So here in Washington, let us take our cue from the communities we are privileged to represent.

Let's act anew to jump-start the next housing boom in America, just as we did for returning GIs after World War II, as legislation I have just introduced would do, so that every family can afford a roof over their heads.

Let's find ways to bring down costs on groceries, on electricity, and on childcare so that a living wage means something again in America.

Let's educate and prepare Americans to thrive in a world of AI and automation while continuing to advance America's technological edge.

Let's put forward a real vision for a fair and humane immigration system that attracts the world's hardest workers, brightest minds, and best hearts--and retains them rather than kicks them out.

Let's act not just to prevent the closure of rural hospitals and labor and delivery rooms but to expand access to affordable, quality healthcare for all.

In so doing, let us demonstrate to the American people that Congress need not be the opposite of progress; that redtape and bureaucracy need not be the reason that vital housing goes unbuilt and small businesses go under; that whether an American lives on the coasts or in the heartland--in places that voted for us or against us--we see and hear them and that their voices carry more weight than a lobbyist's checkbook.

I am a proud Democrat, but I am also willing to work with anyone to advance those efforts, including that guy at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, who doesn't care for me very much and whom I am not particularly fond of either, because life is too short and the problems are too great not to seize every opportunity to make progress.

Believe it or not, I was born bipartisan. On my dad's side, I am the son of Roosevelt Democrats. On my mom's side, I am the grandson of a Republican county chair who really did like Ike.

Long before I became one of the Democrats that Republicans love to hate, I chaired the Judiciary Committee in the California State Senate. As chairman, I encouraged members to sit not by party. We considered every bill referred to committee whether it was introduced by a Democrat or a Republican. We voted alphabetically, not by seniority. We tried, in other words, to put problem-solving above partisanship.

As a House Member, I quickly learned this wasn't the way in Washington. The first time I voted at odds with my party in committee, the ranking member positively levitated out of his seat before storming over and screaming at me in the middle of the hearing room.

I told constituents after that experience that the quickest way to power and influence on the Hill was to eat right, exercise, and outlive the bastards.

(Laughter.)

But it doesn't have to be that way.

When I joined this Chamber, I was gratified that a number of my Republican colleagues reached out to reassure me that they would help California receive the aid we need to recover from this year's devastating wildfires. In fact, the very first bill I introduced in the Senate was alongside Senator Sheehy, who knows a little bit about fighting fires, to provide tax credits so that folks can protect their homes against wildfires and other disasters. I have been proud to champion legislation alongside so many of my Republican colleagues.

So, yes, you may have first met me standing on this floor as an impeachment manager. And when this President transgresses the Constitution or puts forward nominees I consider beyond the pale, uses the military to kill survivors at sea, or tries to rip away Medicaid from our most vulnerable, you will find me right here, standing up to him and standing up for the values I cherish and the people I was elected to serve.

But to anyone serious about solving real problems, no matter what side of the aisle, you will find me a willing partner. After all, isn't that why we chose public service? Isn't that why we were sent here--to make life better for the people we represent?

My purpose was summed up for me decades before I entered public life--not by Jefferson or Lincoln, not by Shakespeare or Tocqueville, but by a 5-year-old boy. Earlier, I mentioned my gratitude for my brother David, and he is my brother not by blood but by choice.

David and I met through the Big Brothers program in Greater Los Angeles almost 40 years ago. It has been one of the great joys of my life to watch him grow up and be a part of his life--to go from splashing through the surf on Venice Beach together, to seeing him graduate from Yale and USC film school, to becoming a talented screenwriter and producer and a big brother himself.

What first struck me about David was his application to the program, which asked little brothers what three things they wished for. As you can imagine, most typically wished for the things kids crave: a bike, a skateboard, a room of their own. David asked for a big brother, a puppy, and ``a beautiful world.'' What 5-year-old dedicates one of their three precious wishes to something so selfless and intangible as a beautiful world? But that was who he was then, and it is who he is now.

And my wish is the same as his wish. It is the wish that drives my hopes for what can be achieved in this body and through the maddening, messy work of politics.

My colleagues, within weeks of my swearing-in, California was burning. Entire neighborhoods were wiped away in minutes, and families were sifting through ash where homes once stood. Yet, after every fire I have ever witnessed, one truth endures: When the

smoke clears and the embers fade to nothing, people come back to rebuild their lives not because it is easy but because it is necessary and because they believe in their neighborhood, their community, and in one another.

Right now, our Nation is passing through a different kind of fire--an inferno of division, of fear, of dreading the rent check on the first of the month, and watching institutional guardrails topple one by one by one. But we are not powerless--not us here in this body, not those in America who have the most important title in a democracy, that of ``citizen.'' We are not condemned to live in the ashes. We can rebuild a country where every child has a fair shot and hard work leads to a good life; where people, no matter their background, are free from want and fear, free to succeed; where government is accountable and responsive to the people; and, yes, where right and truth and decency matter.

It is the country my parents believed in when they brought our family to California, and it is the America I still believe in with every fiber of my being. If we fight for it, if we refuse to give in to cynicism or fear, that beautiful country, that beautiful world, is still within reach. That is the future I am committed to seeing. That is the future I ask your help to bring about. And from the bottom of my heart, I thank the people of California for sending me here to take up that charge.

(Applause.)

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 632, H.J. Res. 131, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision.'' On rollcall vote No. 632, had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 9 minutes and Senator Schumer for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, today's vote will determine how much methane polluters are allowed to belch into the air. It will determine how many asthma attacks Americans suffer. It will determine how many Americans will die because we relaxed the standards on how much methane oil and gas companies are allowed to leak into the air that we breathe.

On July 31 of this year, the EPA decided to delay the enforcement of the Agency's own standards of methane pollution from oil and gas companies. For those who aren't aware, methane is a superpollutant. When it comes to making our air dirtier and contributing to climate change, it is 80 times worse than carbon dioxide.

EPA itself estimates that their new rule or, more accurately, their new license to pollute will pump 3.8 million tons of methane into our air--about the same amount as if we put 66 million more cars on the road.

It is really staggering when you think of it. By the EPA's new rule-- the rule that we are right now, through my resolution, trying to repeal--EPA has decided to allow the same amount of pollution as 66 million cars. That is one hell of a rule. That is one hell of a gift to polluters. That is also really bad news for people who breathe; that is, all of us.

The decision by the EPA to put forward this polluter-friendly rule is perfectly emblematic of the administration's approach to our environment and the Environmental Protection Agency's hostility to rules protecting the environment. We are going to have to rebrand the EPA, if it keeps this up, to be the ``Environmental Polluting Agency.''

So how did we get here? It begins during the Biden administration when an EPA that was concerned about our air quality standards moved to significantly reduce methane emissions from new and existing oil and gas operations under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA didn't just put out new standards and say ``good luck''; the Agency used $1.55 billion in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to help companies get into compliance with these new methane pollution standards. Having made that investment, this action by the Trump EPA makes even less sense.

Before and during the formulation of EPA's methane standards in the last administration, several prominent oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Occidental, Pioneer, and Devon, acknowledged the need for Federal standards for methane emissions. That is because leaking methane isn't profitable for companies. It is certainly not good PR.

Methane, in fact, is a commodity that can be sold by these companies. Leaked methane represents billions of dollars in lost profits for the oil and gas industry because methane is the main ingredient in natural gas.

By halting our Nation's methane standards, the Trump EPA will help the worst polluters--those who don't want to bother to control methane leaks and who therefore waste the very same energy resources that the Trump administration claims it wants to produce.

What is more, companies already know how to stop methane leaks, and both the private and public sector have gotten really good at detecting leaks with advanced technologies, like satellite imagery.

I am very proud that California has been a national leader in using satellite imagery to protect the environment. In the face of Federal environmental retreat, California launched its own satellite in March of this year to help detect and to help stop methane leaks. Just this year, California has used that methane-tracking satellite to close 10 large methane leaks. I congratulate Governor Newsom for his innovative leadership on this.

Many companies don't just acknowledge there should be a standard, they are already complying with the new standard and have been for almost an entire year.

To summarize, the Biden EPA promulgates new limits on methane emissions. It provides $1\1/2\ billion for companies to adapt to the new rules. Many major oil companies do adapt, and now the Trump administration wants to repeal these rules and let the oil and gas industry go back to polluting like they did in the not so good old days. It makes no sense. It makes no sense--that is, unless your real agenda is to attack climate science, to give industry free rein to pollute our air, and to pay back an industry that President Trump promised to reward if they gave $1 billion to his Presidential campaign.

EPA concluded 16 years ago that the Agency legally had no choice but to regulate greenhouse gas pollution because this pollution endangers the public health and welfare of the American people. Let me say that again. EPA's own scientists closed the case on this 16 years ago, but this administration is obsessed with reversing the progress we have made and taking the country backwards.

This isn't just about greenhouse pollution, which fuels wildfires, supercharges hurricanes, floods communities, and kills crops that feed us; cancer-causing benzene and volatile chemical compounds that form smog and choke our air are emitted alongside leaked methane pollution.

If we all vote today for this resolution and restore EPA's smart methane standards, then we will be voting to avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and to prevent premature deaths of Americans across the country.

In addition to all the health and environmental concerns with the rule we are trying to repeal today, President Trump and Administrator Zeldin's EPA also failed to issue this rule in compliance with the law. EPA, as Senator Whitehouse made clear, neglected to solicit public comments and decided to move directly to a final rule, violating both the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Clearly,

the Trump EPA does not want to hear from the American people.

This isn't good policymaking; this is extreme ideological obsession, with dire consequences for the health and welfare of the American people.

So this measure today will put every Member of this body on record about how much methane we want released into the air, but it is also, I think, worth noting that my Republican colleagues have used the Congressional Review Act against Democratic States, like my home State of California, when they repealed our State's clean air rules. My Republican colleagues have used the CRA even when the Parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office said they could not legally do so, and my Republican colleagues have used the CRA against Agency actions that have never been targeted before.

It is worth noting that we on the Democratic side are going to be making a list of a lot of the Agency actions of this administration because there will come a time when we are back in the majority, and when that time comes, we will be advocating forcefully for the interests of communities all across the country, and we will not hesitate to use the CRA in the same way that our Republican colleagues are now using it. But instead of making America pollute again, we will make our air clean again, and we will make our water clean again.

I urge Senators to vote yes and to continue the fight against dangerous and wasteful emissions of methane into our air.

The leader is on his way, and he will be here shortly.

With that, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 162, S.J. Res. 76.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, colleagues, I rise in support of this proposal to extend the ACA tax credits, extend the existing law for another year, reopen the government, and give us time to negotiate the longer term extension of the Affordable Care Act.

This whole discussion and, frankly, the whole debate we have been having over the last several weeks over the Affordable Care Act brings me back to the immediate aftermath of the passage of that bill when I was doing sidewalk office hours inside the Glendale Galleria. I had my little coffee table set up there.

I had someone come up to my table and ask me how I voted on that bill, how I voted on ObamaCare. When I told him that I voted for it, he was indignant.

He said: What could you possibly have liked? What could you have possibly liked about that bill?

I said: Well, actually, there were a lot of things I liked about it. I liked

the fact that if you had a preexisting condition, you could get healthcare.

I remember another of my constituents saying that he was 65; he was a preexisting condition.

I liked the fact that if you had a kid who was 26 or under, you could keep them on your insurance policy if they didn't have one.

Then I said: I liked the fact that tens of millions of people that can't otherwise afford healthcare are going to be able to get healthcare.

He looked at me and said something that I never imagined I would hear. He said: And you really think that is such a good idea?

That is, that millions of people who can't afford healthcare would be able to get it.

I said: Well, yes, I do. Don't you?

He said: No, I don't. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't have it.

And I recognize the moment he said it that he was speaking for millions of people.

I had had one of those huge townhalls with 3,000 people, and no one would say that even at those screaming townhalls. But his view was that if they can't afford it, they shouldn't have it, and I think that view is really at the center of this debate.

In the wealthiest country in the world, doesn't the government have any responsibility to make sure that healthcare is accessible to people? I think we do.

Now, who are these millions of people that are going to lose their healthcare if we don't extend the ACA tax credits? Well, let me just share the stories of two of them, my constituents who wrote to me.

The first one said:

My bronze HMO high deductible plan is $752.23 per month,

and using most, but not all of the tax credit, my monthly

premium is $200 per month and that is using $552.23 worth of

credits.

I'm currently single and retired so my income is well

within the limits to qualify for the credits. [But] if all

the credits go away for 2026, this will wipe me out and I

will likely go without insurance even though I know it is not

a good idea.

Here is the story from a second constituent:

Anyone else gotten their health plan rates for 2026? I did

today, and I will have to cancel mine. With chronic

conditions requiring daily prescriptions, weekly doctor

visits, current quarterly labs and biannual mammograms, my

share of cost will go up well over $1,000 per month, and as a

senior on a fixed and low income, I could not possibly come

up with a thousand dollars a month. Sadly, there are so many

seniors who will be in this position.

That is who we are talking about here. These are some of the millions of people that will lose their access to healthcare if we don't extend the ACA.

So I urge support for this. As Leader Schumer said, we can reopen the government today if we can simply extend the tax credits for another year and give us time, through a bipartisan commission, to work on a more permanent extension. I urge support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Paul in introducing this War Powers Resolution that provides that we have not authorized the use of force against Venezuela.

We meet at a precarious moment, when we might be on the precipice of war with that country. Today, in the Caribbean or on its way to the region, are the following military assets: Three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the USS Gravely, Jason Dunham, and Sampson; the USS Lake Erie, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser; the USS Newport News, a nuclear attack submarine with torpedoes and Tomahawks; the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship equipped with a flight deck for F-35s, Ospreys, and attack helicopters; the MV Ocean Trader, a floating base designed for special operations; reaper drones, Harriet jets, and fifth generation fighters--incredibly lethal aircraft.

But this is not all. The largest aircraft carrier ever built, the USS Gerald R. Ford is on its way right now from the Mediterranean. This means we will see upward of an additional two dozen Super Hornets and two dozen additional F-35s. This warship will be accompanied by three additional destroyers, bringing at least 10 of America's best naval warships within striking distance of Caracas.

All told, there will be more than 400 missiles and vertical launch systems on Nicolas Maduro's doorstep--115 Tomahawks alone, with an additional 70 coming with the Ford.

Are we supposed to believe that this is only about striking speed boats? If so, why would there be 10,000 American servicemembers in the vicinity? Why fly three B-52s from the United States to the region? Why have B-1 supersonic bombers flown off the coast of Venezuela in just the last few weeks for a so-called ``bomber attack demonstration''?

That is not my definition of the mission. That is what the Pentagon called it. Bomber attack demonstrations for what--to blow up fishing vessels?

We all need to see that this has quickly become so much bigger and so much more dangerous. And maybe that was the point, to focus the narrative on drug trafficking so we don't recoil from what may be right around the corner with Venezuela, and that is the use of force to achieve the goal of regime change.

I understand the President, this weekend, said he was not ``inclined'' along those lines. But I urge my colleagues to look at the administration's actions and not merely its words, because if it walks like a military buildup and talks like a military buildup, it might just very well be a military buildup.

Two weeks ago, the President said:

We are certainly looking at land now, because we've got the

sea very well under control.

And now we have the buildup I just described.

People may be putting a lot of stock into the President's most recent words saying he would not strike Venezuela when he was on ``60 Minutes,'' on Sunday. When asked if the leader of Venezuela's days were numbered, he also answered: Yes, ``I think so.''

That is what our Commander in Chief said, with the largest warship the U.S. has sailing close to Venezuela. If any other world leader moved this kind of firepower to another country's doorstep, we know what we would believe was taking place.

The bottom line is this: Americans do not want another war. They don't want American servicemembers put into harm's way, either flying missions or with boots on the ground, for a war not authorized by Congress. Mothers and fathers of American sailors, marines, soldiers, and pilots do not want to lie awake at night wondering if their kids will be the ones who have to be deployed to yet another armed conflict, this time in South America.

Last month, we came to this body with a resolution to end the unlawful strikes that this administration had been taking against boats in international waters. We came up a few votes short. But while we remain concerned about those ongoing strikes,

this debate is about a different resolution. This resolution is tailor- written to stop one thing: a war with the nation of Venezuela. The Trump administration has not asked Congress to authorize such a war, but the administration appears to be laying the groundwork for one anyway. If they believe a war is necessary, let them come to Congress to make the case for one.

Maduro is a murderous dictator. He is an illegitimate leader in having overturned the last election by the use of military force. He is a bad actor. But I do not believe the American people want to go to war to topple this regime in the hopes that something better might follow.

If the administration feels differently, let them come to the Congress and make the case. Let them come before the American people and make the case. Let them seek an authorization to use force to get rid of Maduro. But let us not abdicate our responsibility. Let us vote to say no to war without our approval. We don't have to wait, nor should we wait for that war to begin before we vote. The War Powers Resolution very clearly and intentionally gives Congress the ability to prevent a President from going to war in the first place. The legislative history of the War Powers Act makes that abundantly clear.

My colleagues might object: Well, these aren't yet hostilities.

Yet people are already dying.

They might object: Well, this is not yet imminent.

Yet with the kind of military force being brought to the region, there is a danger to our sailors, our marines, and our soldiers, as Senator Kaine outlined, because if Venezuela believes we are on the precipice of war, they have the capability to take action against our ships. That clearly meets the definition of ``imminent.''

Our predecessors in Congress designed this law precisely to respond to the very type of military buildup that we see here and act in advance of the U.S. being dragged into another war without Congress's authorization.

We in this body serve our constituents, who have told us for years-- now for decades--no more war, no more use of military force for regime change.

We must reassert our constitutional power, our duty to have the sole decision when American lives could be on the line, when war is on the line.

I share my colleague Senator Kaine's concerns in having read the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel. Regardless of what people view of the merits of that opinion, what we are talking about here is a wholly other matter. What we are talking about here is potential war with Venezuela. What we are talking about here is a massive military and naval buildup in the region, where hostilities may be imminent under circumstances clearly contemplated by Congress when it passed the War Powers Resolution.

I have debated Senator Kaine whether this is our most important power--that is, the power to declare war or to refuse to declare war-- or whether it is the power of the purse. It may indeed be a bit of both in the sense that one way of cutting off a military campaign is by cutting off support for that military campaign.

We have already abdicated our power of the purse in this institution. Should we also abdicate our responsibility to declare war and allow the administration or any administration or any President to usurp that authority? It would be antithetical to what the Founders intended and what they wrote.

As the Founders wrote, the power was given to the legislative branch to declare war because the power to make war was something that an Executive might grow too fond of. So the power was given to Congress, to this legislative body. Let's use that power. Let's reassert our authority. Let's say through this resolution that if the President or the administration wants to go to war for the purpose of regime change or any other purpose, that it must come to Congress and make the case to us and to the American people.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Warren's resolution condemning President Trump's decision to pardon Changpeng Zhao.

Last week, President Trump once again put his wealthy allies, family members, and business partners ahead of the public trust when he granted a pardon to the founder of Binance.

In 2023, Mr. Zhao was sentenced to prison after his company pleaded guilty to serious crimes, including failing to prevent money laundering and letting billions of dollars flow through Binance to sanctioned regimes and criminals, to facilitate child sex abuse, drug trafficking, and terrorism.

At the time, the Treasury Department estimated that Binance had allowed over 1\1/2\ million currency trades that violated American sanctions, including hundreds of millions of dollars that shirked sanctions against Iran, against Syria, against Cuba, and against Russia. For these crimes, Binance paid one of the largest fines in U.S. history: $4.3 billion in fines. Yet, after serving only a fraction of his sentence, President Trump stepped in to grant Zhao a pardon and wiped his slate clean.

Why? Why do such a thing? Because Mr. Zhao is part of a wide web of financial interests tied to the President and his allies--that is why-- including a crypto venture that poured billions into Binance.

The President's pardon came after a stablecoin from World Liberty Financial--the Trump family crypto venture--was used to purchase a $2 billion stake in Binance, marking the most

significant use to date of that Trump Binance stablecoin and once again increasing the value of the Trump family holdings.

That is not the use of a pardon to correct an injustice; that is the use of a pardon to commit an injustice. That is corruption of the most blatant kind, and it is illustrative of the same message Donald Trump continues to send donors and friends: If you have got enough money or the right political connections, the law simply doesn't apply to you.

The President isn't using the power of his office to ensure hungry families have access to food next month. He is not using the power of his office to make sure that Americans can afford to pay for their healthcare. He is using the power of his office to pardon a convicted billionaire and one who just happens to be doing business with the Trump family crypto platform, World Liberty Financial.

We have seen this story before. And this is just the latest example of the President's use, abuse of the pardon power as a means of rewarding wealthy donors, family members, allies, and benefiting himself personally.

We saw it when Trump pardoned corporate executives convicted of bribery and campaign finance crimes as a thank-you for donating millions to his campaign. We saw it in his first term when he pardoned operatives like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Steve Bannon who helped him or his allies evade accountability. And we saw it when he issued sweeping ``unconditional'' pardons for 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 attack on this Capitol, including many who were convicted of violent crimes, violent acts, against law enforcement.

In fact, the President even stacked the offices tasked with reviewing pardon applications with his allies, installing Ed Martin as pardon attorney at the Justice Department after his failed nomination to be U.S. attorney for DC.

In case after case after case, the message has been clear: Loyalty to Donald Trump is more important than the rule of law; it is more important than anything in the public interest.

This is not what the Framers intended when they gave the President the authority to grant clemency. And they certainly never envisioned it as a ``get out of jail free'' card for political allies, campaign donors, and business partners.

But this administration has turned the pardon power into a tool for corruption and self-dealing, which is why Senator Warren and I have introduced this resolution to shine a light on the rampant corruption of this administration and to hold those responsible accountable.

I urge my colleagues to join us in sending a clear, bipartisan message that the U.S. Government should act in the public interest, not the financial interest of the President, and that the pardon power must not be for sale.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 466; further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I just want to join in raising a few points in response to our colleague. First, the pardon power is not absolute. If the pardon power were absolute, a President could order vast branches of the U.S. Government to break an infinite number of laws and then simply pardon all of the offenders.

The Constitution is not interpreted as a matter of constitutional law so as to negate all other sections of the Constitution. If it were absolute, it would negate all other sections of the Constitution. It is not absolute.

But we are not contesting whether the President has the power to grant this particular pardon. What we are contesting is the morality of doing it. What we are contesting is whether we should sit blindly while the pardon is used in such a corrupt fashion toward friends and allies and to enrich the President's family.

The fact that he may have the power to do it doesn't make it right to do and the fact that he may have the power to do it doesn't prevent us from condemning it.

And by the way, vis-a-vis President Biden, I did condemn the use of his pardon, but that certainly does not justify the use of the pardon here.

It simply cannot be, should not be the case that a President gives a pardon to a convicted criminal who has helped launder money to avoid sanctions on our adversaries and that we

simply shrug and say: He has the power to do it, and we shall not condemn it.

We should condemn it. And the absence of condemnation, I think, will only be an encouragement for the President to continue abusing the pardon power.

Mr. President, I urge support for the resolution, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for offering it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Stacey Mortensen, who is retiring after nearly 30 years of outstanding public service, including her noteworthy tenure as executive director of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission.

A Fortuna, CA, native raised in Concord, Stacey developed a passion for transportation early on in her professional career. After earning a degree in environmental planning and management from the University of California, Davis, she began her vocation by conducting traffic counts with the city of Vacaville, a humble beginning that led to Stacey's pioneering role in shaping rail service across California's Central Valley and beyond.

Stacey was at the forefront of initial efforts to develop rail service between Silicon Valley and Stockton. She was working at the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works when the manager of the rail planning section departed suddenly. Stacey stepped into that role and was soon chosen as executive director of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. In 1998, under her stalworth leadership, the Altamont Corridor Express, ACE, was launched. ACE connected San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties with a new model of regional rail service. Stacey oversaw ACE's design, procurement, funding, negotiations, and infrastructure development.

Among her many accomplishments, Stacey was essential in the creation and expansion of the Valley Rail Program, which united more than 20 regional agencies to expand passenger rail service across Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Sacramento Counties and led to the formation of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority.

In addition, Stacey helped formulate the Stockton Diamond Grade Separation Project, one of California's largest rail infrastructure projects that aims to eliminate one of the country's most congested rail crossings. She also assisted with the launch of the Rail Academy of Central California, a workforce development program that trains the next generation of rail professionals.

Under Stacey's exemplary guidance, the rail maintenance facility, operated by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, became a national model for environmental standards and efficiency. Along with supporting ACE operations, the facility provides maintenance for many different trains, establishing a regional hub of rail knowledge and expertise that employs over 200 people.

As Stacey leaves her position with the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, her legacy as a transformative force in California's transportation arena will continue through the innovative, enduring impact of her work. I ask all Members to join me in thanking Stacey Mortensen for nearly three decades of leadership and excellence in California's regional transportation network.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for leading this special order opportunity on the Senate floor, on such a vital issue, at such an important time.

I stand in this well in support of my colleague's request as the Senator representing both the State first impacted by the President's abuse of our military and one against which he has threatened further action and deployment.

So here we are. The President deploys thousands of members of the California National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles, against the wishes of the mayor and Governor. Here we are. The President tells the Marines--those who have trained to land on beachheads and be the tip of the spear--that their next mission will be Los Angeles.

These might sound like hypothetical scenarios or the futuristic plot of some film, but this is what actually happened.

And the President did not stop there. From Los Angeles, he turned to our Nation's Capital. He put the National Guard on corner after corner and even called on them to, well, pick up trash--because this has never been about crime or quelling some kind of rebellion or insurrection for the President who refused to act when our Capitol was under actual insurrection on January 6. This has never been about public safety. It has been about control. It has been about crushing dissent. It has been about using our troops as political pawns to show anyone in any city in America that the President is not to be crossed.

But such deployments of our servicemembers are dangerous. They are destructive, and they are illegal.

We are grateful to our National Guard to lend a hand in times of natural disasters like fires and floods--and we have all too much experience of both in California. But it is plainly not permitted under the law to use the Armed Forces to assist the President in some ambiguous campaign of fear or domestic policing or indiscriminate immigration raids.

That is not the purpose of the military. That is not the function of the military. That is not a lawful use of the military.

Courts around the country have recognized the lawless nature of these deployments and the false representations made to justify them or try to, as one judge in Portland observed that the administration claims are ``untethered to facts.''

Because the legal justification for these deployments has been found legally wanting, the President and his administration, including the chief architect of this campaign of suppression, Stephen Miller, have dusted off and may be prepared to deploy a different archaic law to form an even more dangerous and expansive legal basis for these deployments, and that is the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act was originally enacted in 1792 during a very different era, when our Republic was in its infancy. It was intended to provide the President, in only the rarest and most extreme circumstances, with the ability to federalize our military to respond to and ``suppress'' a ``rebellion'' or ``insurrection'' against the authority of the United States. It was not enacted to empower the President to deploy the military to pick up trash or to engage in domestic policing or do things that local police or law enforcement could do on their own--no. It was enacted to suppress a rebellion against the government or an insurrection against the government. The law was, in fact, intended by Congress as an exception to another law-- the Posse Comitatus law--that otherwise forbids the military from undertaking domestic law enforcement.

The Insurrection Act, therefore, must be understood as an authority that Congress enacted at the outset of our Republic for a President to use only in the narrowest and most exceptional and extreme of circumstances where all other means of protecting our country and enforcing our laws have been exhausted. That is clearly not the case here.

The history and purpose of this law is clear and should not be abused by any President. It should only apply to cases of demonstrable insurrection or rebellion against the United States and where all other means of protecting Americans and enforcing our laws simply do not exist.

Now, let's look at the plain facts of the matter. There is no rebellion or insurrection--not in Los Angeles, not in Portland, not in Chicago, not in San Francisco, not in Washington, DC, nowhere to be found.

So what is really going on here? Well, I think the President admitted it very plainly when he spoke to generals and admirals last month at the Pentagon when he spoke of an ``invasion from within.'' And he spoke of his real goal, which was that ``we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.'' But our cities are not military training grounds, and there is no way to assert an insurrection like the Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion that had occurred shortly before the Insurrection Act was passed in the 1790s to justify today the unjustifiable. There is no disorder in this country that cannot be dispersed by State and local law enforcement.

But despite the clear letter of the law not being met here, the President continues to flirt with invoking the Insurrection Act anyway because the President's goal here is not to prevent disorder but to create it; not to quell unrest but to provoke it; to enlist the Nation's military in a civil dispute against his perceived enemies, against community organizers, against American cities, against clergymen, against those who fight to uphold the checks and balances in our Constitution, against a free and fair press, against journalists, against our courts, against anyone who dares to raise their voice against him.

It is no accident that this President and his administration have deliberately tried to paint all of his opposition--political opposition, everyday citizens out protesting on No Kings Day--he would paint them all--all who stand up for our Constitution and our rights as Americans--he would paint them all as some kind of terrorists or extremists. That is the language we hear from the White House, and that is the language we hear from authoritarians who use it to justify using the

awesome power of the state, including its military, against its real or perceived domestic opponents.

We should not take this President's threats idly. We should make clear, as Senator Blumenthal would do with his legislation, that the President's flirtations with this law are not within his powers; that the military is not his to deploy for pageantry, political theater, vengeance, or intimidation.

In the President's words, he calls this law ``unquestioned power,'' and that is really what the President is after--unquestioned power. Does that sound like a President who believes in a system of checks and balances? Does that sound like a President who believes in democracy? Or does that sound like a President who wants to be a King and will use any law, archaic or otherwise, as a pretext? Because the use of this law could forever erase the line between an apolitical military and the political whims of the Oval Office.

Now, Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to pit State against State and deploy the Guard from one State against another State, and this not only tears at the social cohesion of our Nation but also undermines our military, which has the broad trust of our people, and squanders that trust.

When you consider the sacrifices that are made by men and women in uniform, to squander that sacrifice by deploying the military against our own citizens, to take them away from the focus of their job, the mission of their job, which is to protect our country from foreign enemies and adversaries, it is not only dangerous to our people but also disastrous to the military.

I say to my colleagues here: Even if your city is not Chicago, like Senator Durbin's, or your State is not Connecticut, like Senator Blumenthal's, or your State is not California or Oregon and may not be on the tip of the President's tongue now, there is nothing that will protect you when he turns against your State next--not if you don't stand up now. This slippery slope only gets steeper.

The voice of dissent must get louder. We must stand now, before the troops are quartered in every city, pulling your community's families out, hog-tying the children in your cities in front of their parents; before Black Hawk helicopters are landing on your roofs; before your citizens are being asked for their papers and paying fines just to go about their lives.

Now is the time to speak louder. Now is the time to insist on adherence to the law. Now is the time to push back against even greater abuses of the law like we would see with invocation of the Insurrection Act.

I thank my colleague for leading this debate.

I yield the floor.

Yes. Would the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator for yielding and for your extraordinary speech and all that you have elucidated today and for your powerful advocacy on behalf of our democracy.

I think there are any number of signs of when a democracy is in trouble, when a country is descending into a kind of dictatorship. Books have been written about this subject. No one account, I think, can comprise all of the elements of the deterioration of democracy, but there are certain telltale signs that I think we are seeing all too clearly.

And my question goes to some of the things that we are witnessing that I think are hallmarks of the decline of a democracy and that ought to be sounding a three-alarm fire for the American people. Let me begin with a few of them.

First is the misuse of the military at home and abroad. When a President begins to use a military for unpurposeful purposes, when a President deploys American forces in violation of the law to American cities, when a President assembles top leadership--flag officers, generals, admirals--and tells them that our cities are to be military training grounds, that there is an enemy within, it is as sure as anything a sign of a democracy in trouble, of a democracy in decline.

When troops are repelling in Black Hawk helicopters, not in Somalia but in Chicago, it is the most visible sign of a democracy in trouble. This is, as we all know, in violation of the law which prohibits the use of our military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Likewise, the misuse of the military abroad, without the authorization of Congress, is another sign of the deterioration of our democracy.

When a President arrogates to himself the power to blow up ships in the Caribbean or now in the Pacific without any authority, in violation of law and Constitution, it is another sign of the President arrogating the military power to himself--to the person of himself, not to the Constitution, not to his core responsibilities, but to himself.

No. 2, among the dozen or so most virulent signs of the decline of our democracy, at the risk of an authoritarian regime taking hold of this country, are the attacks on our universities. We see this in Hungary and elsewhere. When rulers start to attack the independence, the academic freedom of our universities, it is a sure sign of a democracy in trouble. When a President tries to dictate by withholding Federal funds--the lifeblood of research universities--and withholds those funds unless an academic institution agrees to adopt his cultural agenda or fire certain faculty or allow it to have some kind of a monitor, some kind of a Big Brother overseeing what takes place in our universities, it is a sign of a democracy in decline.

No. 3, when an administration, when a ruler goes after the right of representation by attacking lawyers, law firms, legal professionals and says: Thou shall not represent this cause which is deeply unpopular to me, you shall not take on this client who is antagonistic to me, you shall not hire this lawyer who is a personal enemy of mine--that is antithetical to the history of our democracy and all democracies.

John Adams, prior to becoming President, took on one of the most unpopular cases in American history, representing British soldiers who had participated in the Boston Massacre. Why did he do that? Why take on such an unpopular cause? Because he understood the importance to a democracy of the right of representation.

No. 4 of the signs that our democracy is in deep, deep trouble is the abuse of the Justice Department to go after the President's enemies and to protect his friends. It is in actions like, in the State of Virginia, the firing of a U.S. attorney who believes that a prosecution is not warranted, notwithstanding the personal injunction of the President that ``thou must prosecute these people.'' That prosecutor was fired and another was brought in to implement the President's will to go after his enemies.

But it is also, likewise, a sign of the loss of democracy when the powers of the Justice Department can be used to protect the President's friends, when a Justice Department can be told: You shall not look further into the $50,000 in bribe money taken from a top White House official; close down that investigation. You shall look no further into the corruption of the mayor of New York; close down that investigation because that mayor is useful to the administration politically. That is as sure a sign as anything that we no longer have an independent Justice Department but one in the thrall of the White House.

No. 5, suppression of free speech. Suppression of free speech, something not just in any amendment but in our First Amendment. When an administration uses its power to force ABC to pay him personally or to force CBS to pay him personally for the right to continue its broadcast license or for the opportunity of its parent to have a merger, these are overt efforts to censor the press.

When it uses its regulatory power and threats to try to take off the air a comedian or two comedians, it is a sure sign of the loss of press freedom.

And, equally, we see in other requests of regimes an effort to concentrate power, to concentrate the media itself in the hands of friendly oligarchs or to create a kind of state-run media, which we are deeply at risk of and see in the development of TikTok, and the course of power of the government to decide who the future owners of TikTok will be, to make sure they are of the same political persuasion as the President; or we see reflected in the oligarch control of Twitter or now X; or we see in organizations that are buying up stations like Sinclair and using its vast power for the purpose of censorship.

Next, in a declining democracy, in a budding autocracy, we see the demonization of vulnerable communities. And what could be more visible in America today than the demonization of immigrant communities by this administration or the demonization of the other, the false portrait that people who come to this country are all murderers and rapists and drug smugglers? The demonization of some of the most vulnerable people in America are also in the LGBTQ community and the trans community. We see this time and time again in history in countries becoming dictatorships, that they build their power on the backs of people they dehumanize.

You are seeing at home another powerful sign of a budding authoritarianism--a growing authoritarianism--and that is the use of propaganda, the use of taxpayer money for propaganda. You see banners with the President's glowering face now on public buildings in violation of law. You see Kristi Noem doing Hollywood-looking produced ads that are played at airports, falsely blaming Democrats for the shutdown--political propaganda paid for by you, the taxpayer; or highly-produced immigration videos featuring Kristi Noem thanking the President--more political propaganda.

Another sign of the decline of our democracy, of the growth of our authoritarian regime, is the corrupt use of government power for self- enrichment. This we saw from the very first days of this administration: the meme coin dinners in which the premises of the White House are used but private donors are encouraged to buy the President's meme coin, a cut of which the President gets; using the power of the prestige of that office--sometimes even the venue of that office--to enrich himself; the receipt of aircraft, a $400 million aircraft from Qatar, a nation that has a keen interest in U.S. policy; the President acquiring a plane in plain violation of the emolument clause; soliciting private donors for ballrooms; real estate deals in the Gulf; the rampant conflicts of interest with crypto money coming in from the Gulf to the First Family; the use of government power and position for corruption and self-enrichment.

Another powerful sign of a democracy in decline is the usurpation of Congress's power of the purse, the illegal withholding of funding, the impoundment of funding, the illegal rescission of funding, the illegal termination of grants, and, I would say beyond that, the mass firing of Federal employees--the lawless firing of Federal employees--the use of Congress's power to appropriate money, one of the most important powers--arguably, the most important power we have--now taken by the administration and without a fight in this body, certainly not

a bipartisan fight. That is surely a sign that we are losing our democracy.

The undermining of elections and voting is another key ingredient in dictators around the world. Cementing their position and power is the undermining of the foundational right to vote. We see it in its various forms now. We see it in this push to engage in gerrymandering around the country. But we see it in closing down polling stations in urban areas. We see it in efforts to suppress the vote of certain communities. We see it in the purging of voter rolls. We see it in affirmative efforts to discourage people from voting. We see it in the demonization of election workers, the interference with election boards.

Finally, although the list is much longer, I would end with this: the attack on truth itself, the attack on facts, the attack on science, the purging of people from our scientific agencies, the rabid falsehood, the firehose of falsehood coming out of the White House and our Agencies, daily--provable, palpable falsehood, eroding the very idea of truth and fact.

If you can persuade people that nothing is true, then what are we to use to decide who should govern?

If there is no shared experience, then how do we decide what the policies should be?

How do we avoid just falling back on political tribes or, worse, political violence, if there is no truth? if there is no fact? if there is no accountability?

So I thank Senator Merkley for shedding light on the risk--the risk to our precious democracy and the risk to this incredible inheritance from our Founders.

Part and parcel of saving our Republic and part and parcel of saving the country is to understand the dangers so that we can confront them. Future generations are going to ask what we did in this hour when our democracy was most vulnerable. Our parents and their parents went off to world wars to protect our democracy. Our task is far easier, on the one hand, but no less important on the other.

So I ask you: Are you seeing these same signs I am seeing of the danger to our democracy, of the degradation of our democracy, and what do you feel we can do to save this inheritance?

(Mr. SCHMITT assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I want to take a look at the last 9 months in this country, at the first 9 months of this administration, and see just how far we have traveled down the road toward dictatorship in 9 months. So let me see if in less than 9 minutes I can summarize 9 months.

First, let's look at the President's early attacks on our universities and the President withholding Federal funding from universities that are using a curriculum he doesn't like or employing professors he doesn't want or that are unwilling to make changes that sacrifice their academic freedom and that suit the ideological predilections of the administration. An attack on our institutions of higher learning is unprecedented in our history. Some of the first attacks on the freedom of the American people were attacks on our universities.

They were, in quick succession, followed by attacks on law firms; that is, the President of the United States telling law firms that you must not represent these unpopular clients--unpopular to the President--because they took action against the President or they spoke out against the President or they belonged to the Justice Department when the Justice Department was investigating the President's corruption. So the President has tried to dictate to the legal community who it can defend and who it cannot.

In our country, our Founders underscored the importance of the right of representation, of the right to a jury trial, of the right even for unpopular causes to have representation. Indeed, John Adams took on one of the most unpopular cases of his time and represented those clients because he wanted to establish the principle in American jurisprudence that everyone is entitled to counsel, but under this administration, that is not true.

This administration has attacked law firms and said: You shall not represent these clients, and if you do, we will cut off your access to courthouses or we will cut off your access to Federal contracts or security clearances that you would need to represent your clients.

Sadly, as in the case of universities, many law firms have crumbled. Having given years of lip service--decades of lip service--to the idea that everyone is entitled to vigorous representation, they have crumbled.

But the administration wasn't content to try to silence universities or professors or to silence law firms. The censorship and the intimidation campaign continued in the President using the power of the regulatory body of the Federal Communications Commission to try to silence late-night comedians because they told jokes about the President. Effectively, with Paramount, which wanted to merge with Skydance, it was made abundantly clear that that merger--that multimillion-dollar merger--wouldn't go forward unless you paid off the President in his litigation against CBS. Unless you paid the President millions of dollars, personally, that merger was not going to go through. And what is more, that pesky, late-night comedian Stephen Colbert needs to go. So Stephen Colbert gets his show canceled. Jimmy Kimmel gets his show canceled. His show was, thankfully, brought back, but the administration is using regulatory power to censor late-night comedians.

He is going after the press, the freedom of the press, telling the AP: If you don't use my Gulf of America lexicon instead of the Gulf of Mexico, you are not going to be able to cover certain things at the White House. You are not going to be able to accompany the President on certain trips.

He is suing the Wall Street Journal because they are reporting about his contacts with Jeffrey Epstein.

He is trying to silence the media, intimidate the media, chill the media, and it is working. You see the Washington Post change their editorial policy. You see the LA Times withhold its editorial of the Presidential election. The censorship is working.

But it is not just the press. It is not just late-night comedy. It is not just universities. It is not just law firms. The President is telling corporate America: You can't hire this person. Microsoft, you can't hire this person.

The threat is, if they do, they won't get government contracts.

The President is saying to other companies: You want to export your product? You have got to give the U.S. Government a share. You have got to make the U.S. Government an equity partner in your company.

And if under Bill Clinton the era of Big Government was over, the era of Big Government is back with Donald Trump--a Big Government that can make decisions about whom corporations can do business with and where and what they can export and whom they can hire.

But it doesn't stop there, of course, because now the President is using the

Justice Department to go after his political enemies. This week, it is James Comey. Next week, it will be someone else, and the week after that, who knows? It is a long and growing list of enemies with the President tweeting out whom he wants prosecuted, whom he wants investigated--commanding, dictating vindictive prosecutions almost every day--abusing the Department that I once served in for almost 6 years in a way we have never seen before in this country. He is threatening to take people's liberty away from them if they stand up to the President.

Now we have this--what brings us to the floor tonight--and that is the unprecedented use of the military, the U.S. military, and our Guard against our own people.

You have the President telling a roomful of generals and admirals that there is an enemy within, and that enemy is the American people or at least those American people who didn't vote for him. They are the enemy within, and he is going to go after them. He wants the military to use those American cities that didn't vote for him as their training grounds. No sooner is it said than we see helicopters over the skies in Chicago, and we see military troops rappelling from Black Hawks. We see the military being used against their own citizens. We see children shackled, crying for their parents in the middle of the night. We see signs of horror and chaos.

We see a President so determined to use the military against our own people that, when a Governor says: No, you cannot use our National Guard in this lawless way, he commandeers the military anyway. California was the test case. We were the first. Los Angeles was the first. Over the objections of the mayor of Los Angeles and the objections of the Governor of California, the President of the United States commandeered California's National Guard to be used against our own people to increase the risk of violence and disorder so that the President might have a pretext to order in more military troops.

Now, in California, like in most States, we revere our National Guard for what they do for us during good times and hard times; how they protect us from fire and flood. So to abuse the Guard in that way, to try to breach the trust the Guard has with our own citizens, is a calamity. It is gravely damaging the morale of the troops in the Guard even as it is damaging the trust of the people of the State in their Guard.

Now we see this replicated in Portland--this militarization, this attack on American cities. We see this in court in Portland, wherein the judge, in hearing the government's case for the use and misuse of this military force, says that its presentation is untethered to fact-- untethered to fact; that there is no lawful basis, no factual basis, to use the military in this way.

Now they are doing the same in Chicago, and they are threatening San Francisco. And if they can't get a State's own National Guard to be used against its own citizens, they are now inviting the Guard from other States, like Texas, to leave their State, with a willing Governor, to send them to another State.

I was grateful to hear the Republican Governor of Oklahoma speak out against this terrible abuse of the National Guard, which not only undermines the military readiness of our forces to be abused in this way but is so deliberately divisive that we would have one State now turn against another State; that we would have Texas against Illinois and deploy Texas's military in that way--its Guard in that way--was previously unthinkable. It should be unthinkable today.

Today, it is California. Today, it is Illinois. Today, it is Oregon. Where will it be tomorrow? Where does this end? I will tell you where it ends. It ends in more civil strife. It ends in more morale problems in the military. It ends in a lesser democracy. If we are here in 9 months, where will we be with 4 years of this? I will tell you this: We will not be a democracy. At the pace we are going, in 4 years, we will not be a democracy.

But today, 9 months into this, it is not too late to put a stop to this. All that it would require is a handful of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to say: Enough. Enough already. Enough of the attacks on our universities and our press. Enough of the attacks on our cities. Enough of the weaponization of our Department of Justice. Enough of the lawlessness. We are going to be Senators once again. We are going to assert the power of Congress once again to put an end, to put a stop to this lawlessness.

That is all it would take, is a few people of conscience to stand up to this President and say: Enough.

I yield the floor.