Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to bring before the Senate a resolution concerning one of our most serious constitutional responsibilities: whether the United States should engage in armed conflict against a particular adversary.

The Constitution clearly and intentionally places the power to declare war in the hands of this body, the Congress, not with the President or the executive branch. Our Constitution's Framers, having just endured a war and having paid the toll that war always takes, wanted to ensure that our newly independent Nation would see the representatives of the people make the decision of whether and when to put American lives on the line.

In 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson about the danger of leaving that power in the hands of an executive.

He said:

The Constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has

accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in

the Legislature.

For the past month, Congress's power to authorize or refuse to authorize the use of power has been usurped by the Executive. This administration has carried out at least four military strikes against vessels that it asserts have ties to drug trafficking organizations. These strikes were not authorized by Congress. Congress has not been shown the evidence of who exactly was on board these ships, whether they were all headed to the United States or some other destination, or whether they posed an imminent danger of attack on the United States. Such strikes are not legal, and they are not made legal or constitutional by the claim--correctly or incorrectly, with or without evidence--that some or all of the occupants of these boats belong to a list of organizations kept secret by the administration.

Being put on a list by the executive branch does not deprive Congress of its vital role in approving the use of force, but such a list kept hidden from the American people, if used as a justification, may drag our Nation into an unintended war.

If it were as simple for a President--any President--to claim that war power for himself by placing an individual or a group of individuals on a list, let alone one held in secret, there would be no limiting principle to the executive's use of force--no limits whatsoever--and that is deeply inconsistent with the intent of our Framers' and the desire of the American people to be kept out of unnecessary military conflicts.

Indeed, the President has confirmed that he does not see a limit. He saw targets at sea, and now he sees potential targets on land.

Now, I know that the word ``unprecedented'' gets used so much these days that perhaps it has lost some of its value, but we need to put in context just how far from normal these strikes are.

For perhaps the first time in our history, a President of the United States ordered the U.S. military to use lethal force against individuals who posed no imminent threat of attack and who could have been stopped thousands of miles from our shore had we interdicted and arrested those on board just as they routinely are by our Coast Guard. Instead, the U.S. military used lethal force on four separate occasions, killing everyone on board.

Despite this breathtaking departure from more than two centuries of law and practice, we still know almost nothing about these strikes, some taking place as far as 2,700 miles away. It may be that there were narcotics traffickers on board some or all of these vessels. It may also be that some of these boats were being used for human trafficking and that the victims of that offense were killed along with the perpetrators, or, if not on one of the first four ships destroyed, then perhaps on the next one.

The lack of detail concerning these strikes is telling. We have learned of these strikes through social media posts from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and from the press. In fact, administration officials have offered differing accounts of where these vessels were heading. Media reports have suggested--without rebuttal from the administration--that the first vessel to be struck had turned around prior to being hit. The Secretary of State originally claimed that one of the boats wasn't even heading to the United States.

Given our Coast Guard presence in the region and with a sizable Navy deployment and expansive intelligence resources, U.S. personnel could have boarded all of these vessels, detained those aboard, seized any drugs or cash, and gathered additional information about ties to drug trafficking organizations, just as they normally do. Secretary of State Rubio even acknowledged publicly that this could have been done but said that the President wanted to send a message by killing all of those on board.

We all agree that the scourge of drugs is real and that scores of Americans die from such poison every year. We are all committed on both sides of the aisle to battling the importation of illegal drugs, even as we work to beat back addiction here at home. But we are also committed to our Constitution, to a system of checks and balances that wisely places the power to make war in our hands, not with an Executive who may grow too fond of using it.

That is why Senator Kaine and I have introduced a resolution to direct the President to stop engaging in armed strikes against these vessels or the country from which they emanate without the explicit authorization of Congress. We are here today to ask our colleagues to join us in this nonpartisan vote, in this affirmation of Congress's authority to declare war or to refuse to declare it; to authorize force or to refuse to authorize it.

We have been precise and deliberate in crafting it. This resolution does not affect the United States' ability to target terrorist groups covered by Congress's existing authorizations to use military force, including al-Qaida, ISIS or its affiliates and offshoots, or to address real threats posed by other groups, like the Houthis. It also in no way limits the United States' ability to defend our own citizens and interests or to come to the collective self-defense of our allies and our partners.

It comes down to this: The President has used our military to strike unknown targets on at least four occasions, and he is promising more. With at least 21 people dead and more killing on the way and with the President telling us that strikes on land-based targets may be next, we ask you to join us in reasserting Congress's vital control over the war power.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me just take this opportunity to address some of the remarks of my colleague who has, I think, rightly pointed out the horrors of drug trafficking and those that are engaged in that poisonous, deadly trade. I agree with that, and we should do everything we can to fight back against those who are trying to traffic that poison into this country. And I agree with him about the murderous dictator that is Maduro.

But here is the thing. If my colleagues in this Congress want to go to war with Venezuela, if they want to use military force to bring about regime change in Venezuela, or if they want to wage a literal war using the military and armed force to blow up traffickers, then they need to come to Congress and seek an authorization to use military force for that purpose because our Constitution is clear.

There are, essentially, three circumstances in which we can constitutionally use force. One is if Congress declares war. We have not declared war on Venezuela. We have not declared a literal fighting war using military troops either.

Or we authorize the use of military force. We have not done so.

Now, the third circumstance in which a President is authorized to use force is in the event of imminent threat of attack from our adversaries. And that is simply not the circumstance here.

Instead, what the administration seems to be relying on is a claim that it has the power, somehow, to put organizations on a list and go after them wherever they may be, without the approval of Congress. That is what this resolution is about.

Now, my colleague also made an argument about the Houthis. Nothing in this resolution affects the ability to defend ourselves from the Houthis as necessary. The President and the former Presidents who have taken action against the Houthis have not done so on the basis of the Houthis being added to some list. Being added to a list, even the foreign terrorist organization list, empowers an administration to put sanctions on that organization. But being placed on a list by the Executive does not give any greater authority to use armed force against an organization.

The basis in which this President and previous Presidents have used force against the Houthis is the Houthis have attacked us, and if the Houthis attack us again, the President will have the article II power to defend ourselves. And nothing in this resolution touches that in any way, shape, or form.

But let me just underscore the perils of what we are discussing today. Now, this is an article that just came out. I haven't had the chance to vet it: ``Colombia president claims U.S. bombed Colombian boat in strike off Venezuela.''

So I don't know whether we have now struck a Colombian ship or what the circumstances were or who was on board, and that is exactly the problem. That is exactly the problem. Now, maybe this is real and maybe it isn't, but the fact that we don't know, the fact that the Executive asserts the authority to blow up ships without coming to Congress for the authorization of that kind of force could invariably lead to mistakes, could also lead, inadvertently, to war with another country.

This resolution says: If you want to use force against narcoterrorists by blowing up ships, come to Congress for an authorization because at this point you don't have it. If there is an imminent threat of attack, you have all of the authority you need under article II. But if you want to engage in a war with Venezuela or a regime change with Maduro and you want to use military force to do it, you need to come to Congress for an authorization. There being none, these strikes are unconstitutional and unlawful.

I would urge my colleagues to join Senator Kaine and myself in supporting this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Pursuant to Section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, and as provided under the order of October 7, 2025, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 83, to direct the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to welcome to Washington, DC, next week His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Orthodox Christianity.

His All-Holiness is a guiding light for the 300 million Orthodox Christians, including many thousands across California, from San Diego to Eureka. More than that, since ascending to his position in 1991, he has reached beyond Orthodox Christianity to be an inspiration to people of all faiths around the world suffering from religious persecution, violence, and displacement.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has fostered dialogue across the world and across religions with Christians, Muslims, and Jews. On today of all days, I note his efforts to combat international terrorism, helping lead the effort to the Brussels Declaration in December 2001 calling on leaders of all religions to condemn violence and forswear the use of religious justification for terrorism and mistreatment.

His All-Holiness is also a true champion of peace, tolerance, and defense of the environment. His coming to Washington will highlight the role that religious leaders play in pursuit of these goals and remind us to be stewards of all people and the planet before pursuing partisan and personal ends.

I congratulate His All-Holiness on the well-deserved and highly impressive honor of being awarded the 2025 Templeton Prize, which recognizes spiritual and scientific advancement. The award puts him in the company of Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, King Abdullah, Jane Goodall, and Francis Collins--men and women from all walks of life who have made contributions to understanding the universe and humanity's place within it.

In awarding the prize, the Templeton Foundation noted Bartholomew's dedication to environmental causes, for which he has earned the nickname of the ``Green Patriarch.'' The foundation said his environmental ministry is ``harnessing the power of the sciences to expand our collective understanding of humankind's place and purpose in the world'' and that ``Bartholomew has also deepened Christians' ideas of what it means to be faithful in the world today. It involves caring for all aspects of God's creation including the people around us and the natural world in which we live.''

I join American Orthodox Christians, environmentalists, and peacemakers in welcoming back to Washington and the United States His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Congress will be honored to once again host him in our Halls next week.

I urge my colleagues to listen to his message of peace, environmental stewardship, and the importance of bridging the divides between religions, nations, and all groups who spend more time on the things that divide us than those that should bring us together. We will gain from his return if we have the wisdom to listen.

Senator, thank you.

There are lots of extraordinary and suspicious happenings around the Epstein case in the last few months. But just by way of background to those who may not be following each development, you have Epstein at one point describing himself as one of Donald Trump's closest friends. You have Donald Trump saying at one point that he shares a bond with Epstein over their mutual like of attractive women and pointing out that, in the case of Epstein, they tend to be on the younger side. You have the President recently acknowledging he is upset with Jeffrey Epstein for stealing young women from Mar-a-Lago--by Epstein--for purposes that he did not disclose--the President did not disclose.

Tragically, in April, one of those women--one of those children, underage women--working at Mar-a-Lago committed suicide. She was a victim of the Ghislaine Maxwell-Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking. Just this past April, she took her own life. But she was one of those women, apparently, that Trump was upset that Epstein was taking away from him at Mar-a-Lago. It certainly begs the question of, what did Trump think Jeffrey Epstein was doing with these young women he was taking from Mar-a-Lago?

So these are just some of the questions we hope will be answered, but, of course, after promising the MAGA base that he would disclose these files, after Bondi promised and Kash Patel promised and Trump promised, they have reneged on this.

So this is the backdrop in which Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche goes to visit the No. 1 coconspirator, Maxwell.

The other background piece of this is that Todd Blanche isn't just some Deputy Attorney General; Todd Blanche is Trump's former criminal defense lawyer. Todd Blanche is the guy who sat in the courtroom in Manhattan helping to defend Donald Trump against the Stormy Daniels allegations against him, for which Donald Trump was convicted of multiple felonies.

As you will remember from the Judiciary Committee when Blanche came for his confirmation hearing, you and I were both concerned about whether Blanche would be able to shed his role as Trump's criminal defense lawyer when he adopted the new role of being the No. 2 person in the Justice Department.

All of this begs the question of, when this very unusual thing happened where the No. 2 person at the Justice Department goes to talk to the coconspirator, this child sex predator, is he acting as Trump's defense lawyer or is he acting as a Deputy AG?

As you were alluding to, if this wasn't bizarre enough, for a top person like that to go interview a witness is unprecedented. For them to do it secretly--and we don't know if this was recorded; we don't know if an FBI agent was present. It would be unthinkable to do this in the absence of an FBI agent taking down the statement, but there is no evidence that took place.

The only thing we do know is that this interview lasted 9 hours, and after the interview, Ghislaine Maxwell got the special treatment of being moved from her prison in Florida to a minimum security prison in Texas that is like a camp, to which sex predators are not supposed to be sent. So why did she get that special treatment?

Finally, one other point I would make before I yield back to you about how unusual all this is, is the defense attorney representing Maxwell is friends, apparently, with Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, and when Maxwell was asked ``Are you hoping for a pardon out of this? he basically said ``We didn't ask for one, but of course the President has said he has the power to do it.'' They obviously want some special treatment. They are already getting it. But we have no record of any of this.

So, yes, this is so unusual, extraordinary, and unprecedented. And if they think this is going to somehow answer the questions that have been raised by their refusal to turn over these documents, it is the furthest thing from that, wouldn't you say?

Can I make one last point, with your indulgence?

One other extraordinary fact about this is that none of the prosecutors who actually worked on prosecuting Maxwell were present. The reason you would want them there is, they know the facts. Blanche doesn't know the facts. So when you are interrogating this person, when you are taking their statement, you want somebody who knows the facts, who can attest to whether they are being forthcoming, telling the truth or not.

Also, a defense lawyer representing 20 of the Epstein victims asked to be present, and they were turned down.

This just stinks to high heaven.

I yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. President, the Senate this week is considering a nominee so patently unfit to be a Federal judge, so lacking in the temperament, integrity, and judgment to serve as an arbiter of the Nation's laws, that the chorus of opposition has grown deafening and the facts revealing his unfitness for office are too voluminous to be ignored.

I am speaking, of course, of Emil Bove, the lawyer whose misconduct was so egregious, his fellow prosecutors in the Southern District of New York thought he should be demoted; someone whose management of cases was so flawed that a Federal judge not only concluded that his team had misled the court but that it withheld exculpatory evidence. The court then ordered the case dismissed, and the Southern District prosecutor's office didn't even bother to try to refile the case. It was that tainted by Mr. Bove's leadership of that team.

After Bove left the U.S. Attorney's Office under the threat of demotion, he became one of Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyers, losing the hush money payment to a porn star case in which Donald Trump is convicted of dozens of felonies.

Bove, though, turned that loss and his blind obedience to Trump into a top position at the Department of Justice. And now, for the past months, it seems like every time there has been an abuse of power at the Justice Department, Emil Bove either directed it, supervised it, or carried it out himself.

When Donald Trump wanted to purge the Justice Department of prosecutors who worked diligently to investigate the January 6 insurrection, Bove was the instrument of his vengeance. When Trump wanted to purge the Department of prosecutors who proved to juries beyond a reasonable doubt that the violent offenders who attacked police officers that day did so to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, Emil Bove was there to punish not the criminals but the prosecutors.

When Stephen Miller and then-FBI Director Nominee Kash Patel worked to carry out an additional purge of career FBI officials who worked on the January 6 investigations, Emil Bove was there too.

Earlier this year, when the Trump administration wanted a justification to freeze grants already approved from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and they wanted to trump up some justification--some rationale for trying to prevent the distribution of these funds--whom did they turn to? Well, of course, they turned to Emil Bove. He and then-U.S. Attorney Ed Martin pressured the head of the Criminal Division for the DC U.S. Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation into the fund. But there was a problem. There was no evidence of criminal activity. There was no probable cause. There was no predication.

How do we know this? How do we know the opening of this case or the threat of opening this case was bogus? Because the Chief of the Criminal Division in that office resigned rather than comply with this unethical edict.

When Trump's DOJ sought to dismiss a serious and credible corruption case against the mayor of New York Eric Adams, who was the one who ordered career prosecutors to drop the case? That is right, Emil Bove.

Time after time, we have seen career public servants stand up to abuses of power like this and refuse to obey, leaving careers they loved at the Justice Department rather than be part of Bove's perversion of justice.

I served for almost 6 years in the Justice Department. I know the sense of mission that the lawyers in that Department feel and how much they love serving and appearing before a court and introducing themselves on behalf of the United States. It is not a job that people give up easily or for no reason. I also know that, when put in the position of choosing to follow their ethics and the law or choosing to obey a dishonorable and dishonest instruction from a supervisor, yes, they will resign their posts, and so many have.

Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon was ordered by Bove to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams. In refusing, she called it what it was: an ``improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for the dismissal of his case''--in other words, a quid pro quo.

I just want to underscore for people what this means and how astonishingly abnormal and unethical this action was.

The Justice Department intervened in a criminal case in New York over the objection of the prosecutors handling the case, including the acting U.S. attorney, to dismiss that corruption case against a public official, not because there was a lack of evidence--they didn't even try to claim that--not because there was any prosecutorial misconduct-- they didn't even try to argue that--but because he was useful to the President on his immigration policy. It is an edict from Bove that says: If you do the President's bidding, we have got your back; we will make your corruption case go away--a quid pro quo.

Now, interestingly, they didn't want it to go away completely. They wanted it to go away without prejudice--that is, so they could bring it back if he didn't do exactly what the President wanted. Anyone who has ever served in the Justice Department can tell you just how unethical that is.

Rather than obey those orders from Bove, Acting U.S. Attorney Sassoon resigned, and many others followed.

One of them said:

I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of

a fool or . . . a coward to file your motion. But it was

never going to be me.

No, it didn't have to be him because it was enough for Emil Bove. He is there whenever Donald Trump needs someone to carry out his will, regardless of ethical or even legal considerations. And dedicated public servants, career prosecutors are standing up, willing to risk their jobs and willing to risk retaliation by a vindictive President.

Some of those brave attorneys have come to our committees as whistleblowers. In one case, Erez Reuveni, a 15-year veteran at the Department who worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations, shared with our committee that Emil Bove told DOJ's lawyers that they would need to consider telling the courts ``f you'' and ignore any such court order that might get in the way of the Trump administration's strategy of rapid deportation without due process. In fact, Bove's lawyers at the DOJ would go on to lie to the judge and violate court orders, prompting the judge to issue an order to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.

Senator Whitehouse is exactly right: The court of appeals has delayed that hearing on the order to show cause why those lawyers under Bove's supervision should not be held in contempt. And my colleagues here want to rush this thing through. Well, what will they say if the judge finds that Bove and others at the Justice Department willfully ignored court orders? What will they say once they have given him a lifetime tenure on the court of appeals?

During Bove's confirmation hearing, I asked him about his ``f you'' instruction, and he made the dubious claim that he couldn't recall. Now, that is remarkable. It is not like we are talking about events that happened 10 years ago. This was, like, 2 months ago, just a few weeks ago. I think I would remember if I had told other lawyers that we should say ``f you'' to the courts.

So either he instructs them frequently to say ``f you'' to the courts, such that he wouldn't remember this particular occasion, or he is being dishonest with us. But his use of that vulgar injunction was corroborated by other DOJ lawyers in text messages. So we really don't need to wonder about this.

As one DOJ lawyer texted another:

Guess it's find out time on the ``f you.''

Well, now it is ``find out'' time for the U.S. Senate, when we find out whether we are willing to confirm just anybody--no matter how unfit, no matter how terrible the record, no matter how abundant the evidence. It is ``find out'' time for the U.S. Senate.

What was Bove's role in tasking the DOJ and the FBI to scour old Epstein files and flag mentions of Donald Trump? I know my colleague Senator Booker has tried to find out, and Senator Durbin has tried to find out. We don't know because Bove refuses to tell us, but we do know that his fellow criminal defense lawyer, Todd Blanche--he and Blanche were the two lawyers who represented Trump in that ``hush money payment to a porn star'' case. Todd Blanche is now rushing to meet with Epstein's chief coconspirator in jail. It is self-evident that Blanche is there to represent the President's personal interests, not the public's interest, and Bove represents exactly the same problem.

With Bove's nomination, we are about to find out if Republicans are content to give a man so routinely in defiance of the rule of law a lifetime job of interpreting it on behalf of millions of Americans.

We wanted to hear from those whistleblowers like Erez Reuveni, who is just one of the hundreds of public servants who is speaking out, but Republicans have declined our request for testimony and additional hearings, even as they have rushed to jam through this nomination for a lifetime position. Sadly, we will all have a lifetime to regret it.

Like so many of his unfit Cabinet nominees, Donald Trump is daring Senate Republicans to oppose him. I hope and pray they will because the pattern is clear: Emil Bove takes orders from Donald Trump, and that is it. His only merit is blind obedience, not to the law but to the President, and not just to any President but one who is also a convicted felon.

So I urge my colleagues to look at Bove's record of disrespect for the law and reject this dangerous nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2862 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, my Republican colleagues have offered a substitute amendment that claims to prohibit cuts for programs dealing with HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, as well as nutrition and maternal health support, but the total amount of money they are rescinding is unchanged, putting all of those efforts at risk.

If this sounds familiar, it is a lot like a reconciliation process that demands a trillion dollars in cuts but says that Medicaid should not be touched. And we know what happened there: Medicaid was cut massively.

Several Republicans have pointed out that we don't know how the administration is going to implement this bill. That is a major problem.

So let's make this as simple as possible. The Senate doesn't want to cut funding for AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases? Then let's remove those rescissions. My amendment would reduce the amount of cuts to global health programs in order to ensure that funding for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and maternal health and nutrition programs remain, not just in theory but in real dollars and cents.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Amendment No. 2862

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jeremy Renner, one of Hollywood's most electrifying and influential actors.

Throughout his career, Jeremy Renner has clearly displayed his versatility as an actor, with an ability to bring an extensive range of characters to life. His breakout role in ``The Hurt Locker'' earned him his first Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. With his distinct boldness and gravitas, Mr. Renner continued making his mark on Hollywood in blockbuster franchises, including ``Mission: Impossible-- Ghost Protocol'', ``Mission: Impossible--Rogue Nation'', and ``The Bourne Legacy.''

Additionally, Mr. Renner is well known for his portrayal of Clint Barton, also known as Hawkeye, in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Mr. Renner crafted a character that combines action-star grandeur with emotional nuance, making Hawkeye a beloved character that captures audiences over multiple blockbuster films and the Disney+ series ``Hawkeye.''

Mr. Renner currently stars in ``Mayor of Kingstown'', a thrilling crime drama in which his character Mike McLusky maneuvers through a morally tangled web of local politics and prisons. His upcoming role will be in the much-anticipated third ``Knives Out'' installment, ``Wake Up Dead Man.''

Mr. Renner's impact extends beyond his acting career as a New York Times bestselling author and nonprofit founder. Following a near-fatal accident, he wrote ``My Next Breath: A Memoir'', a deeply personal memoir that chronicles his road to recovery despite insurmountable odds.

In 2023, Mr. Renner launched the RennerVation Foundation with his sister Kym Renner. The RennerVation Foundation empowers foster youth in Nevada to thrive through access to resources, education, and life- changing opportunities. At Camp RennerVation, foster and at-risk youth find community, lifelong mentors, and develop tools to navigate complex emotions. Nestled in the wilderness of Lake Tahoe, Camp RennerVation fosters connection, joy, and personal growth. Through his foundation, Mr. Renner continues to impact youth beyond the movie screen and empower them to be future leaders in their communities.

We are honored to welcome Jeremy Renner as the keynote speaker at the 2025 Lake Tahoe Summit, and I ask all Members to join me in thanking Jeremy Renner for his tremendous contributions on screen and through his RennerVation Foundation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to E. Clement ``Clem'' Shute, Jr., as he receives the 2025 Dianne Feinstein Lake Tahoe Award. For over 50 years, Mr. Shute has been a fierce advocate and champion for the environmental protection of Lake Tahoe.

After graduating from the Boalt Hall School of Law in 1964, now known as the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Mr. Shute dove into environmental law and advocacy. Mr. Shute helped pioneer California environmental law, initially through his position as the assistant attorney general in the California Attorney General's Office, where he was responsible for the environment and consumer protection section, and later through his law firm. As assistant attorney general, he was legal advisor to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and counsel to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, where he led innovative environmental litigation that safeguarded the Bay Area's natural beauty and environment.

In 1980, Mr. Shute joined fellow environmental lawyers Marc Mihaly and Mark Weinberger to establish Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP law firm, where upon cofounding the business, he represented the town of Tiburon in the groundbreaking decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold open space zoning against claims of inverse condemnation.

With Mr. Shute's particular expertise in wetland regulation, solid waste regulation, airport expansion, and other issues affecting Lake Tahoe and the San Francisco Bay area, he is a valued and consistent environmental law advisor not only in the northern California area but also throughout the State. He served on the California Advisory Board of the Trust for Public Land, helping preserve, expand, and increase accessibility to green spaces across the State. Mr. Shute is also credited for helping launch the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, where he served as a board member for nearly a decade and played a vital role in negotiating the regional plan update.

Mr. Shute notably has also received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the California Lawyers Association for his contributions to environmental law, the Peter Behr Lifetime Achievement Award from the Marin Conservation League, and has been named a California Super Lawyer for several years, among other honors.

I ask all Members to join me in thanking Clem Shute for over half a century of dedicated service as one of Lake Tahoe's greatest advocates and congratulate him upon receiving the Dianne Feinstein Lake Tahoe Award.

Mr. President, over the last 250 years, this country has grown from a handful of rebellious Colonies to an economic, scientific, military, cultural, technological, and agricultural behemoth. And, crucially, through it all, we have remained a democracy devoted to the hard work our Founders envisioned of making our Nation a more perfect Union. Progress has not always been straightforward, but it has been consistent over time and nothing short of extraordinary, which is why it is all the more heartbreaking to see so much damage, so much self- inflicted harm imposed on our country by this administration, over the last 170 days.

Indeed, if you were to design a Presidency and policies to diminish our scientific and technological prowess from within, it would look a lot like this administration.

If you were determined to kill our clean energy future and retreat from any hope of addressing climate change, it would look a lot like this.

If you wanted to undermine our standing around the world, befriend dictatorships, and betray our fellow democracies, it would look a lot like this.

If you wanted to deliberately tear at the social fabric and cohesion of our country, set State against State and people against people to the point of conflict in the streets, it would look a lot like this administration.

The President and his Cabinet have been tearing down so much of what makes this country special--and so quickly--that it has been hard to see the big picture, hard to separate the biggest harms from merely the most sensational or the most proximate. One hundred days was not enough time to evaluate the harms this administration had already inflicted on our country and its people, but 170 days just might be sufficient.

So, today, I want to go through the top 10 ways this administration has been wrecking the country. From the thoughtless and irresponsible to the illegal and unconstitutional, to the deliberately cruel and malicious, I want to tell you what the actions of this Presidency have really meant for the country and for our future. So here they are, the top 10 ways the administration is wrecking the country:

No. 10, Donald Trump is waging an all-out war on America's research universities.

America's universities have been the envy of the world, for much of the last century, in powering scientific achievement and economic growth, dramatic breakthroughs in medicine, significant achievements in the arts, technological innovation, and all of the attendant economic benefits have been driven by a decades-old partnership between universities and the Federal Government.

As a part of this grand bargain, the Federal Government invests in research conducted at top universities, and the country enjoys the benefits. From brilliant scientists and academia, the military gets new technologies and capabilities, including innovations in fusion energy, laser technology, electronic jamming capabilities, and so much more. Our healthcare is improved and our lifespans are increased by university-led research into new medicines, medical implants, and devices. Food science helps us grow healthier crops and produce more food with less water and less pesticides.

You would be hard-pressed to find a field of scientific endeavor in which university research has failed to deliver. Now all of that is on the chopping block. The administration has canceled tens of billions of dollars in university research funding. It is stopping some of the best and brightest students from coming to the United States to study by banning international students from attending. Already, some of the world's most promising students are choosing to go elsewhere--to China or the UK or Sweden or Canada.

The reason we want the very best students is so that we can remain the global leader in every field of endeavor. That is what makes us great. But this--this is a one-way brain drain in the wrong direction.

The administration is also raising taxes on research universities and threatening the removal of accreditation from universities which fail to bow to the President's ideological and political whims. It is using real concerns about anti-Semitism on campus as a pretext or the policies of athletic departments that it disfavors to justify attacks on universities that will do nothing but set the country and our economy back. Their real agenda is to change the agenda at schools, to eliminate academic independence, and to indoctrinate students into an ideology that is more to their liking, turning administration bureaucrats into a kind of thought police.

Coming in at No. 9 of the top 10 ways the administration is wrecking the country is taking away food from hungry kids in America.

Donald Trump promised to make America healthy again, but he is not. Instead, he has settled for making America hungry again.

The budget just realized through their big, ugly bill makes a multi- hundred-billion-dollar cut to the SNAP program--that is Supplemental Nutrition and Food Assistance--basically food for hungry kids and families. This isn't a cut that can be explained away with a vague, multipurpose phrase or platitude like ``waste, fraud, or abuse'' or by engaging in funny math. Feeding hungry families is not wasteful. Providing fresh food at schools for kids who can't otherwise afford to eat is not a fraud. Helping seniors living on the edge of poverty afford a meal is not an abuse. But taking this food away to fund tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations--that is a fraud, that is a waste, and that is an abuse.

These cuts will mean more kids who are unable to get a school lunch; more seniors literally sitting and starving in their homes; an America that is more hungry than before; an America that, although it is the richest Nation on Earth and the most productive agricultural Nation on Earth, has chosen to adopt ``more hunger'' as its policy.

Moving on to No. 8. Coming in at No. 8 of the top 10 ways the administration is wrecking the country, Donald Trump is destroying our alliances with democratic nations around the world and aligning our country with dictators.

Across administrations and decades, America has been a symbol of stability for the globe, a trusted partner, a champion of freedom, a democracy. We have stood up to evil empires and championed the cause of liberty. And although we have made more than our share of mistakes in trying to rebuild other nations in our image, we have strived to achieve a foreign policy consistent with our values.

Now, in just the first few months, so much of that legacy has been betrayed. So many of our alliances have been degraded. So much of our standing in the world has been made small. So many of our friends have become estranged. Our treaty partners are unsure of whether they can count on us in a pinch.

Donald Trump likes to talk about peace through strength. He likes to think that bullying our friends or extorting a price for our security guarantees is what makes us strong, but he is wrong.

He trashes our relationships with our friends. He belittles the Canadians and the British, who fought and died alongside American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He denigrates Ukrainians and their brave President, who fight nobly in the defense of their democracy and their sovereignty. He insists on Ukraine paying tribute in the form of mineral rights to secure his support. He flatters and fawns over the Kremlin dictator--at least he did until even Trump could see that he was being made to play the fool by a mass murderer who did not want peace, only further mayhem. And who can say how long Trump's new resolve against Putin will last before it is overtaken by caprice or self-interest.

The only true constant of Trump's foreign policy has been that the United States will be there for you if and only if it is pleasing to the President, if you flatter him, if you bow and scrape before him, or if there is something in it for him personally, like a $400 million aircraft or a multibillion-dollar crypto deal for his family. He has made it plain that American foreign policy is part protection racket and part just racket.

All of this means that America is less safe and secure, with fewer friends we can rely upon out of any sense of shared sacrifice or values.

The mutual defense clause of article 5 of NATO has been invoked only once, and that was on our behalf after we were viciously attacked by terrorists on September 11. Our friends and allies rushed to our defense--and not just out of a sense of treaty obligation but because of a shared sense of purpose and our common humanity.

The problem with turning every relationship into a transitional or transactional one is that everyone will want something in return and no one will be there when you really need them.

Moving on, No. 7 of the top 10 ways the administration is wrecking what is best about this country is their pointless, economically suicidal, and self-destructive attack on the development of renewable energy.

Renewable energy can lead the world away from a climate catastrophe. It can be an economic slingshot, catapulting us into an abundant energy future that is American-made. It can truly make us energy independent instead of simply more dependent on the fossil fuel industry.

But Trump has attacked clean energy with a vengeance, repealing incentives passed during the Biden administration. And why? Because they were passed during the Biden administration and because Donald Trump made a promise to oil companies in exchange for campaign cash-- lots of it, more than a billion of it.

The ``Big Ugly Bill'' phases out tax credits meant to spur development of solar and wind power and replaces them with tax credits for coal. If you are wondering whether you heard that right, you did-- tax credits for coal mining in the year 2025. At a time when we have harnessed the capacity of the Sun and the wind to power entire communities, we are disinvesting in a renewable energy future in order to fund an industry from the 1800s. It is the policy equivalent of investing in black lung, and it will choke our energy supply over time and kneecap our economic potential.

China knows this. In May, China installed 93 gigawatts of solar capacity. That is enough to power almost 70 million homes. And they did it in a single month. China is installing almost 100 solar panels every second. And that is not because the China Communist Party is populated by a bunch of crazy environmentalists; it is because they know this is the industry of the future. They want to dominate the global market in clean energy, and thanks to Donald Trump, they will.

So how will Trump's energy policies impact you at home? It means your energy bills are going to go up--way up--by hundreds of dollars a month. Renewable sources of energy are the vast majority of new energy coming online in America. Take that away, and we are reliant on the same old capacity, your same old utility, less competition, and higher prices, costing you more to heat your home in the winter or cool it down during the hot, hot summer. It means more families will make the impossible choice between paying their utility bills and putting food on the table.

Now, earlier, I talked about this administration's cuts to research universities, which brings me to No. 6: the broader attack on health and science.

The administration is slashing the National Institutes of Health, the Nation's premier medical research Agency. They have cut NIH by almost half--almost half.

Now, I am no scientist, but I took enough science classes in college to know my way around a lab, and I am certainly no economist, but I can do basic math, and I can tell you with certainty, as anyone can who looks at this, that cutting NIH in half, massively gutting research grants and positions, will lead to the cancelation of clinical trials and new treatments and to Americans needlessly suffering from any number of illnesses and diseases. It will mean scaling back research efforts on everything from cancer, to Alzheimer's, to HIV-AIDS, destroying years or decades of research in any number of fields that might have been weeks or months away from a breakthrough.

That hurts everyone. There isn't a Senator in this body who hasn't been visited by families with sick children or sick parents or constituents who are ill themselves, constituents who have pleaded with us that we increase funding for NIH, who have put a human face on the hope that they or their loved ones might be saved--saved--if only we invest in NIH. And now we turn our backs on them. And for what? For what?

At No. 5 of the top 10 ways the administration is wrecking the country, we have the massive DOGE cuts to the Federal workforce and Federal Agencies everywhere.

Elon Musk and his lot of unqualified, unvetted, unrestrained tech bros have taken a chain saw to any number of Federal grants, Federal contracts, Federal Departments, and Federal jobs without the slightest understanding of the human consequences.

Musk may have held himself harmless during these massive cuts--he managed to use his position in the administration to expand his billions in government contracts at Starlink--but everyone else was made to suffer. Now

he is gone, but the wrecking crew continues its work.

DOGE accidentally cut nuclear safety staff and then had to rush and try to rehire them. They cut specialists in bird flu, and then they had to try to rush and rehire them.

(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)

Remember those coal tax credits I mentioned earlier? Well, they are cutting mine safety efforts, making dangerous work even more so.

They DOGE'd USAID and diminished our soft power around the world. They are dismantling the Department of Education and selling off our children's education piece by piece.

And they would cut NASA in half. There is no more high-profile example of America's scientific and technological prowess than our space program, and, sadly, there is no better example of its deliberate forfeiture.

In my lifetime alone, our space program was the first to plant a flag on the Moon. We launched the first solar probe. We took the first photos and landed the first rover on Mars. We are sending more humans into orbit than ever and on track to land the first human on Mars.

We did those things not because they were easy. No. We did those things, as President Kennedy once said, ``because they are hard''; because space exploration can teach us things about our life on Earth that propel innovation here at home, innovation that allows us to travel faster, live longer, and live better; and because exploring space can provide the most profound thoughts of our place in the universe and whether, amidst all of that, we are alone.

This Agency that has brought such hope and excitement and pride-- pride--will be brought low. It may be one small step for DOGE, but it represents one giant leap backward for mankind.

The Trump administration has also paused the hiring of critical seasonal firefighting staff, laid off probationary employees just as we begin another devastating fire season. They cut staff and programs at NOAA and the National Weather Service, hurting early earthquake warnings--early warnings of all disasters--warnings that are pivotal when tragedy strikes, like it did in Texas this week, in North Carolina months ago, or in Los Angeles in January.

They cut staff who run the phones at Social Security while closing regional offices, making it harder for seniors to get the benefits they paid into their entire life--because that was the goal. That was the goal.

And for all the pain that DOGE has inflicted and continues to inflict, the only thing that bastard Agency has really served to accomplish is making government less effective, less efficient, and less trustworthy because, more than anything else, the DOGE bloodletting has killed the trust of countless Americans--trust that the Federal jobs and programs they relied upon would continue; trust that they might be paid less than private sector workers to do the work they love, to unravel new mysteries in space, in the oceans, in our bodies, and in ourselves but that they could rely upon the government as an employer; that they could be insulated from political and partisan considerations; that they would not become some ideological arm of the President or his party or its collateral damage.

Now that trust is gone, and the loss of that talent and that trust just might be the most expensive loss of all.

Now, No 4. At No. 4 of the top 10 ways in which the administration is wrecking our country and our economy: tariffs--the on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again, on-again tariffs; the ill- considered, ill-executed, unpredictable, unproductive, costly, indiscriminate, and self-destructive tariffs.

For a President who ran on lowering costs, his most significant economic action has been a colossal backfire. Prices for your Fourth of July barbecue last week were the highest they have ever been. Like the cost of burgers or beer, phones are now more expensive, cars are more expensive. Prices at Walmart, Target, Costco: up, up, up. And on Amazon, they were going to add a specific line item for the cost of the Trump tariffs beside each affected product, until the Trump administration begged its owner, Jeff Bezos, not to be so transparent with their own customers because it made the President look bad. This didn't stop Amazon from adding the Trump tax to the price of the goods you buy on Amazon. It just stopped Amazon from showing you just how much more you are paying.

And while you get poorer because of these tariffs, America is not getting any stronger. While your pocketbook is getting hit, so, too, is our standing around the globe. After all, these chaotic tariffs give our trading partners all too accurate an impression that we are unpredictable; that we are unstable; that America, with all its power, is unreliable. So those trading partners are flocking elsewhere. They go to China or to India or elsewhere.

The fact is, we have so alienated even our closest friends and allies that some countries, like Canada, have gone beyond reciprocal tariffs to a downright boycott of American goods, devastating American farmers, small businesses, and consumers alike.

The ``Art of the Deal'' indeed.

Which takes us to No. 3 and this administration's attack on our healthcare. When the Senate passed Trump's ``Big Ugly Bill'' last week, 50 of our colleagues put their stamp on a budget that will devastate Medicaid; that will mean hospitals and clinics close; that millions of Americans will lose access to lifesaving care; that will mean people get their care denied; that will mean the long, hard fight against opioids will be set back by cuts to substance abuse treatment.

After promising that Medicaid would not be touched, that our healthcare would not be harmed, they cut it by $1 trillion--trillion with a ``t''--to fund tax cuts for wealthy people, by the trillions. And when your hospital closes because it loses millions in Medicaid dollars, it won't matter whether you were personally on Medicaid. Your hospital will be gone. You and everyone else will have to drive farther to find an emergency room, to have a baby, to get dialysis, or to be treated for a stroke. The quality of your care will decline. Your access to care will diminish, especially reproductive care but every kind of care. Most of us will pay more--a lot more--for the care we receive, but some will go without care altogether.

In the richest nation on Earth, we will move farther away from universal quality care to a period of even greater scarcity, even shorter lifespans, even lesser quality of life. And again, for what? More tax cuts for wealthy people who don't need them and who already have all the care that they need?

Now we have reached No. 2. No. 2 of the top 10 most destructive acts of the administration: Trump's undermining of the rule of law. The assault on the rule of law began almost immediately with the pardon of 1,550 people who committed one of the most serious offenses in the Nation's history: attacking the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

In granting pardons to hundreds of offenders who used violence that day against police officers, Donald Trump sent a powerful message to his followers that they may use violence on his behalf and he would have their back; that he would insulate them from the law and from accountability, and more than that, that he would promote them, advocate for them, appoint them to high positions in a new Justice Department, a Department oriented not toward justice, not devoted to a rule of law but devoted only to him. In Trump's Justice Department, we are no longer a nation of laws but a nation of men to be rewarded or punished according to the President's whims.

A mayor of New York, charged with corruption, has his case dismissed not because of any prosecutorial misconduct or lack of evidence but because he is useful to the President on an unrelated policy matter.

In Trump's Justice Department, the absence of evidence or lawful predication is no bar to initiating a criminal investigation when a political pretext will do. He is using the Department as both sword and shield: a sword to pursue his enemies and a shield to protect his friends and to protect no one--no one--more than himself; a President given immunity by Supreme Court Justices he appointed--acting like a convicted felon because he is a convicted felon--now engaging in the most blatant graft and corruption, accepting gifts and gratuities, airplanes and commissions, in the hundreds of millions,

in the billions, and without any fear of investigation, let alone prosecution.

The inspectors general are gone. The watchdogs are gone. Only the dogs are left to feed on the carrion that was the rule of law.

When courts try to restrain the Trump administration's illegality, his Departments ignore their orders. We saw it with the Alien Enemies Act. We see it with the unlawful impoundment of FEMA funds, with the lawless withholding of State funding, with attacks on foreign assistance appropriated by Congress, with racial profiling and illegal renditions to foreign prisons without due process or, frankly, any kind of process.

Which brings us to No. 1--the No. 1 way in which Donald Trump and his administration are wrecking this country--and that is by destroying the very idea of America.

Our Nation was formed as an improbable experiment, an experiment based on the unproven idea that people possessed sufficient virtue to be self-governing, that we did not need to be ruled by a tyrant. From that humble and daring beginning, the idea grew that a country so constituted, so organized could not only rule itself but could attract the best and the brightest, the most industrious of souls from all over the Earth and make them Americans; that there would be no caste system in America; that, here, anyone with the drive, the talent, and the intellect could prosper; that there were no limits to what we could achieve.

That idea that became America was our most powerful appeal, our calling card at home and around the world. It has driven people to our shores. It has inspired people in dark prison cells in Iran, in labor camps in China, in gulags in Russia, and in impoverished places everywhere to dream of America--what it stands for and what it might mean to them if only they were so lucky, so very lucky, to one day move to this great place called America.

And Donald Trump's destruction of that idea, the idea of America as the last best hope of mankind, is the worst offense of this administration.

During Ronald Reagan's final speech as President, he spoke of a man who wrote to him of the uniqueness of America:

You can go to live in France--

The man wrote--

but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in

Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a

Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the

Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.

Other countries--

Reagan said--

may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a

beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of

the world, no country on Earth comes close.

This--

He said--

is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.

We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our

people--our strength--from every country and every corner of

the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich

our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past,

here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the

future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to

each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity,

we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy

and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always

leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is

vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the

door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would

soon be lost.

That was Ronald Reagan. But now we have Donald Trump, a President who, more than any other in our history, ``clings to a stale past.''

I can forgive the President for his reckless tariff policies, for his sycophantic hires, or his foolish tax giveaways to the rich, but I will never forgive him for the damage he has done and for the damage he continues to do to the very idea of America, for how the rest of the world now views this country, and more critically, more catastrophically, how we have come to view ourselves. Tackling immigrants to the ground, people who are landscapers or farmworkers or restaurant workers or garment workers, let alone beating them while they lay there, as agents did to the father of three U.S. marines, it is not how Americans treat the hard-working people who come here in search of a better life.

Using the military against our own citizens, sowing chaos and division in our own cities is not consistent with the idea of America. This is not an America confident of its future and of its place in the world, able to inspire people around the world, able to see the best in ourselves.

On a day that Benjamin Franklin watched our Nation being formed, on a day he witnessed George Washington preside over the Constitutional Convention, seated in a chair with an image of the Sun embossed on its top, Franklin pulled some of his colleagues aside and remarked to them about how artists often have a difficult time distinguishing between a rising and setting Sun in their art.

I have often--

Franklin said--

and often in the course of this session . . . looked at that

[emblem] behind the President, without being able to tell

whether it was rising or setting. But now at length, I have

the happiness to know, that it is a rising and not a setting

sun.

Today, I know that a great many Americans fear that our Sun is setting, but I do not believe that. I have more faith in America than that. We have overcome far greater challenges in our history than our present difficulties. And those who would bet against this country would be wise not to. Those who have are far more likely to be proven the losers than the winners of that bet.

The Sun is not setting on our Republic, but eclipse-like, it is obscured and the actions of this administration have cast a kind of shadowy darkness over the land.

Though our Sun is not setting, neither is it rising, nor would it rise of its own accord. In this respect, Franklin's celestial metaphor falls short. We have no control over the Sun. Our orbit has been predetermined by forces well beyond our time and understanding. We are powerless to change its trajectory, but we are not powerless to change our own.

We are not powerless to save our country, to remember who we are, to once again capture the imagination, the hopes, and aspirations of a weary mankind. Our Sun, America's Sun will rise again and shine brightly unto ourselves and to all nations. But it will take all of us working together and well into the future to make it so.

Until then, we must press on, doing all we can to mitigate the harms of the current administration until we can end them, until we can bind up our Nation's wounds--as Lincoln said--and begin again the sacred work of restoring the very best of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

The clerk will report.

Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my motion is simple. It will prevent families with kids under 12 from losing food assistance under the bill. It is bad enough that we are borrowing money--trillions of dollars-- from our kids and grandkids to pay for tax cuts for rich people, but it is worse still that we leave families hungry today.

Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, feeding hungry kids is not waste, and if we have to send this bill back to committee to fix it and bring it back so kids can get fed, we should do it.

This bill is going to take lunches out of school cafeterias. It is going to mean hungry families. We can't pick a number like $200 billion out of thin air and say, ``You can take that money for tax cuts,'' and not leave a lot of American kids hungry.

Mr. President, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Vote on Motion to Commit

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, today, we meet at the center of a great debate, at a crossroads that will determine the direction of the country for another generation. And this debate, this choice, goes to the heart of a central question that has been plaguing families in America over the last three decades but that is now just coming to the forefront.

And that question is this: If you are working hard in America, can you still earn a good living for yourself and your family? If you are working hard in America, can you still buy a home or pay your rent, buy your food and medicine, get the healthcare you need, afford fuel for your car, get a decent education, or go on a family vacation? And if the answer is no--and for all too many millions of people, the answer is no--what do we do about it?

When I was a kid, my father was in the clothing business. He was a traveling salesman, and he made $18,000 a year. On the strength of that single income, my parents bought our first home for $18,000. He made $18,000 a year, and my parents bought a home for $18,000. It was the American dream, and it came true for our family.

Today, I am a U.S. Senator. That, too, is part of the American dream that anything is possible in this country. But could anyone buy a home for the cost of the annual income even of a U.S. Senator? Not a chance in the world. An average home in California costs three or four times that much.

My kids are paying thousands and thousands of dollars a month in rent. Could they find a home for the cost of their annual income? There is even less of a chance of that.

And what about your grandkids? At the rate we are going, at the rate housing prices are rising, what chance will they have to afford a home at any income?

And, of course, it is not just a home. Healthcare costs are rising even faster. Millions of families are only one healthcare crisis away from failing, and it is not their fault. It is not their fault. They are working hard--harder than ever--and they can't keep pace with rising premiums, out-of-pocket costs, hospital stays, drug costs, and charges at the emergency room.

Energy prices are going up. It costs more to heat your home in the winter and a lot more to cool your home in the summer. Utility bills have been rising by double digits while incomes have remained comparatively flat. It is too much. It is too much.

Now, why is this coming to a head now? Why, when we are not in a great depression, not even a great recession--although, with Trump's destructive tariff wars, we may get there soon enough--why now? Why now is this coming to a head?

The answer is that people feel more squeezed than ever, more pressure than ever, more like a failure than ever because they are doing their best, working their hardest, and they are still hanging by a thread. And do you know something? It is not their fault. It is not their fault. They are doing everything they can to provide for their families, and it is just not enough.

It is not their fault, but it is someone's fault. It is someone's responsibility. There is someone who should be held accountable for the fact that this generation is the first to renege on a compact between generations that we would leave the country better off to the next generation than the one that came before.

And do you know who that someone is? It is us. It is us.

The world has changed, the nature of work has changed, and we have not changed with it. We have not kept pace. And in too many ways, through our policy failures, we have moved the country in the wrong direction.

And the question before us today is whether we continue to barrel down that track toward higher home prices, bigger healthcare costs, more hunger, and greater hardship, or whether we change direction--much too late, yes; requiring an even more profound course correction, certainly; but finally steer this country to a better quality of life for all of our citizens.

Is this bill that change in direction? Does it lead our country on a new path toward affordability and prosperity? The answer--the simple, terrible but clear-as-day answer--is no, it most emphatically does not. No, it does nothing to bring down costs. No, it does nothing to make it easier for your kids or mine to buy a house, pay their rent,

buy groceries, afford their medicine, or fill up the car for a family vacation. Instead, it throws more coal in the engine barreling down a track to nowhere.

Donald Trump promised he wouldn't cut Medicaid, but this bill cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. It is shredding the President's commitment made again and again. In January, the President said Republicans will ``love and cherish'' Medicaid. In February, he said, ``We are not going to touch it.'' Even a few weeks ago, the President said, ``We are not changing Medicaid. We are leaving it.''

But we see in the black and white in this text they released in the dark of night that that simply isn't true. This bill will result in millions losing their healthcare from cuts to Medicaid. We know that. The Republicans know that. Thom Tillis has made this point over and over again tonight, as have other Republicans in this body.

This bill will close down hospitals in the poorest counties and States. It will raise healthcare costs for families everywhere--and by the thousands of dollars. It takes food away from the hungry. It kills clean energy so that we have to rely on oil and gas for everything, enriching that industry and impoverishing the rest of us with higher prices at the pump.

It raises taxes on working families and the middle class, while lowering taxes on the very wealthy and corporations.

If you are in the top 0.1 percent of income earners, making more than $5 million a year, you will get a $346,000 tax cut. How is that fair? How is that right? And it borrows the money from our kids to pay for that $346,000 tax cut, to pay for the habits of really rich people.

Where is the fairness, the morality in that? When is enough enough?

My father was part of the ``greatest generation.'' We, it would appear, are part of the most selfish, and I am fed up with it. I am fed up with it.

What happened to any sense of responsibility in this generation? What happened to love of country?

Can we love our country and impoverish it? Can we love our children and grandchildren if we take from them only to give to ourselves?

In this bill, we borrow trillions from our kids, and for what? So the rich can have a bigger boat? So corporate CEOs can have more money? So a company can buy back more of its stock? So we can be richer than our neighbor while his neighbor has no home at all?

``The test of our progress,'' Franklin Roosevelt said in 1937, ``is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

Last week, a landscaper in Los Angeles was tackled to the ground because he was undocumented. He is the father of three marines--three marines. When one of those marines was finally able to speak to his father after his detention, he had one ask of his son: Please go back to the worksite and finish the job.

That was his ask. That is the work ethic that has made this country great, not the ethic that brought him to the ground. Raising three marines, that is the patriotism that has made this country great, not the rancor that beat him while he lay there.

But if this bill is not the answer--and it most certainly is not--if this bill only makes matters worse, far worse, then what is the answer? What direction shall we go? How can we begin to make the country work for people once again?

Well, we can give instead of take. We can build instead of tear down. We can recapture once again the sense of possibility in this country. If Eisenhower was part of the generation that won the war and built the roads and highways, let us be the generation that wins the peace by creating the next giant boom in housing in America, making the investment necessary, tapping into the great potential of the government and industry working together, breaking down each obstacle in the way--millions and millions of new homes that my children can afford and your children.

Let us build new hospitals instead of closing them down and, in so doing, bring the cost of healthcare down with them. Let us train new doctors and nurses so it is not so expensive to visit them and new home healthcare workers to take care of us even as we take care of them.

Let us grow more food and feed more people at home and abroad and bring down the costs of our groceries. Let us thank our farmworkers, instead of chasing them through the fields to separate them from those they love.

None of this--none of this--is beyond our capacity. It may mean that we can't afford yet another tax break for the wealthy or a giveaway to the oil industry or a giveaway to any other industry and its corporate titans.

It may call for some sacrifice on our part, but a fraction of what our parents and grandparents gave to this country. It means that we pay more attention to our kids and their needs and less our own; that we once again show concern and compassion for our neighbor and remember that we were once strangers in a strange land; that we show humility about our own achievements and recognize that none of us got here on our own; that all of us can prosper without someone else being made to suffer--you know, the way it used to be; the way it could be once again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motions to commit for the bill H.R. 1 be placed into the Congressional Record:

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would ensure this legislation will not lead to cuts to

the Medicare program.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would ensure this legislation will not lead to Medicare

sequestration cuts triggered by an increase to the deficit

under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would make changes to ensure that this Act will not

cause rural hospitals to close.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would ensure that as a result of the enactment of this

bill, no labor and delivery units within hospitals will

close.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate with

instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,

not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,

with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would provide at least $1,800,000,000 for hazardous

fuels reduction projects on National Forest System land

within the wildland-urban interface.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) do not include an increase in the statutory limit on

the public debt under section 3101 of title 31, United States

Code, if the bill would reduce taxes on individuals with an

income of more than $10,000,000 per year.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. SCHIFF moves to commit the bill H.R. 1 to the Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate with

instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,

not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,

with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would ensure that no provision of the bill cuts any

food assistance benefits for families with children under the

age of 12.

Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Kaine's resolution for the simple and compelling reason that it upholds our constitutional duty. Regardless of what people may think of the military's execution of its mission last weekend--and our servicemembers performed with courage, with professionalism, with extraordinary precision--or their views of its effectiveness--and I hope and pray the mission was effective--Iran is a malevolent regime, it is the paramount sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it must never be allowed to obtain the bomb.

Regardless of whether you support the President's decision to engage in preemptive strikes in the first place, regardless of whether or not you support the President generally or you do not, the Constitution charges the Congress, not the President, with the power to declare war.

Now, there may be a fog of war and a murky uncertainty concerning the battle damage assessment, but there is no ambiguity here when it comes to the Constitution. Article I, section 8 provides that ``Congress shall have [the] Power . . . To declare War''--not the President, or the President if it is not convenient to the Congress, but the Congress. And this body, for far too long, has been allergic to the responsibility it has to govern the use of military force.

Not since the very early part of this century has Congress approved any authorization for the use of military

force. Nevertheless, a great deal of military force has been, in fact, used by the United States, since then, in far-flung places in the world.

In fact, post-World War II, the war powers have been utilized by an increasingly strong Executive and an increasingly deferential and fearful legislature.

Now, during the last several weeks, it has been apparent to anyone watching that the conflict in the Middle East had the potential to draw in the United States of America--when missiles began striking Tehran and Tel Aviv; when the President of the United States, with signature bombast, began to telegraph the possibility that we would enter the fray; when countless American families were forced to consider whether their children would be the next to bear the burden and carry the sacrifices of another potentially endless war in the Middle East.

And so with those families and our servicemembers in mind, Senator Kaine introduced this resolution to ensure that the President did not risk committing the United States to yet another open-ended conflict in the region without a debate in Congress and a decision by Congress as to whether the country should go down that dangerous road.

Now, at that time, many Senators, myself included, pushed for an intelligence briefing from the administration. We had significant questions we needed answered: Had Iran made the decision to build a bomb? Had Iran begun the process of building the mechanism of a bomb? Was there an imminent threat to the United States or our forces? What were the threats to U.S. personnel and facilities in the region, should Iran respond? How might Iran and its proxies escalate and harm U.S. interests, not only in the region but here at home and in other parts of the world? How much damage could U.S. military action do to the Iranian nuclear and missile programs, and for how long would it set them back? And, most important, what was the risk that such a bombing campaign could escalate into all-out war?

Days passed, no briefings. Even after last Saturday's strikes, still no briefing. Not until yesterday did the administration come to Congress to answer the most basic of questions, and only after suggesting, it was reported, that they would potentially choke off further information to the Congress.

The Constitution demands otherwise. The Founders split the government's wartime powers, just as they divided responsibilities for so many other things. It is Congress which declares a war, which raises an army and a navy and pays for the financial cost of defense and war.

And keep in mind that the need for congressional approval of warmaking was not hypothetical to the Founders. The United States had just fought a war against a King, and the Founders did not want to put the power to start another war in the hands of any single person.

The Framers put their thinking on parchment, and in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, in the summer of 1789, James Madison reflected on how they had approached this question of war power, which was the subject of much debate in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention. He said:

We have already given, in one example, [an] effectual check

to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him

loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those

who are to spend to those who are to pay.

``From those who are to spend to those who are to pay''--that is because a decision as consequential as entering into war requires informed debate and buy-in from the people's representatives and the public, from us here in the Senate and from our colleagues in the House, because we need to weigh the benefits and the risks for our constituents and for the country as a whole, because a decision like this one should be insulated from partisan politics and not made with haste or with blinders on.

There are, perhaps, Senators in this body who will say: This debate is no longer needed. The mission is over. Iran has backed down. A lasting cease-fire is in place. The threat has passed.

And I would say to them: I don't know that to be true, and neither do you.

And on behalf of all those who could and would pay, we should not allow this great and solemn power to make war to be usurped any longer. The only way for us to know whether the United States might be drawn into a broader conflict is if we exercise our authority to prevent it or to determine that the Congress wants to affirmatively provide a President with the authorization to use force.

So I am a yes on this resolution.

And if the Senate votes to bring this resolution before the body, which I hope it will see the wisdom of doing, I will move an amendment that I have filed with Senators Kim and Kaine that I would hope would receive all of our support. Our amendment makes clear what is implicit in Senator Kaine's resolution already, and that is that terminating the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iran does not affect the ability of the United States to defend itself, to share intelligence with Israel or our other partner nations, or to assist them in taking defensive measures to protect themselves from an attack by Iran or its proxies.

Our intent in this amendment is to make it crystal clear that calling up and passing this resolution would in no way restrict the United States' ability to defend itself or our partners.

And with that question settled, we should be able to turn to the real need for this debate: Should this Congress continue to abdicate our constitutional duty to an administration that, at every turn--at every turn--has deemed us irrelevant; an administration that, for too long, deferred its obligation to brief Congress and has reportedly threatened to take steps to choke off the amount of information we have and need to assess the impact and the consequences of unilateral military action; an administration that openly disdains and threatens a free press, ignoring the fact that our fourth estate exists to ask questions for the people, even if those questions are uncomfortable--especially when those questions are uncomfortable--and shine a light on the places where tyranny and despotism can grow and foster and fester?

Because here is the bottom line: Article I, section 8 says that ``the Congress shall have [the] Power . . . To declare War.''

And every American should know that Congress is not giving up on its most basic constitutional right to debate and determine whether U.S. forces undertake further operations--offensive operations--against the Iranian regime or any other.

This resolution, with my amendment, would give Senators confidence that a vote on that question will in no way put American troops or our allies at increased risk, and the underlying resolution would give the American people the confidence of knowing that they will not be dragged into another war without their consent.

There must be a check on the dogs of war. There must be a voice for those who will pay the costs of going to war, and the Senate must be that voice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate the riders, roadies, staff, and organizers of the final AIDS/LifeCycle ride, a monumental journey from San Francisco to Los Angeles that has, for over two decades, raised critical funds and awareness in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

This ride has never been just about the 545 miles; it has been about hope, remembrance, and action. With each pedal stroke, riders have carried forward the legacy of those lost to AIDS, stood in solidarity with those living with HIV, and worked to ensure a future where no one suffers from this disease.

This year marks the end of an era. For 30 years, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and the Los Angeles LGBT Center have partnered to organize this ride, and their leadership has transformed it into one of the world's most powerful displays of community, resilience, and compassion. Together, these two organizations have not only raised tens of millions of dollars, but have also provided direct services, prevention education, and lifesaving care to countless individuals across California and beyond.

I was proud to join AIDS/LifeCycle first as a Congressman in 2014 and even prouder to join it as a U.S. Senator representing California.

Each time, I was deeply moved by the strength, compassion, and unwavering commitment of the riders, roadies, staff, and volunteers who made this experience truly unforgettable. It was a privilege to ride alongside thousands who gave their time, energy, and hearts to this cause. To the riders who trained and sacrificed, to the roadies who made the journey possible, and to the countless volunteers and donors who fueled this mission: Thank you. You have made history. And your impact will be felt for generations.

Though this may be the final 545 ride, the movement it inspired will continue. The spirit of AIDS/LifeCycle--one of unity, determination, and love--lives on in the ongoing fight for health equity, LGBTQ+ rights, and a future free of HIV.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator for yielding.

I just watched footage of our colleague--my California colleague-- Senator Alex Padilla, being forcibly removed from a briefing by the Secretary of Homeland Security's staff. He went there to observe and to ask questions, and I watched with horror on this video, seeing these agents grab my colleague--my fellow Senator from California--grab him, push him out of the hearing, as he was identifying himself as a U.S. Senator, bringing him into a hallway, bringing him down to the ground, bringing his arms behind his back. I saw this happen to my colleague, and I am shocked by how far we have descended in the first 140 days of this administration, where we have a President calling out the military over the objection of a Governor to try to intimidate and interfere with law enforcement in California, calling out the Marines to try to inflame tensions in our city; and, now, this latest act, when a U.S. Senator goes to demand questions about the lawfulness or lawlessness of these actions, to see him tackled to the ground, brought to the ground.

What is becoming of our democracy? Are there no limits to what this administration will do? Is there no line they will not cross? We see lawlessness after lawlessness. We see threats to judges of impeachment and of physical harm. We see arrests of Members of Congress. And now this.

All of us have lived as part of a generation since World War II that was used to seeing our freedoms ever expanding. We saw walls coming down. We saw new democracies being born. We came to think that somehow this was inevitable like the laws of nature; that it was the moral arc of the universe always bending toward justice, only to see that it was not bending toward justice.

And to see this now at home; to see, in the United States of America, the executive use force like this against a Member of a coequal branch of government; to see that it has come to this already--and not a peep yet from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, no whisper of dissent yet. I hope that changes. I hope that changes.

The Founders separated the powers between the executive and the legislative and the judiciary because they wanted to set ambition against ambition--ambition of one institution against another--to protect all of our freedom, but that requires that we go beyond our partisan affiliations and when something is wrong--dead wrong--when something is a threat to our democracy, that we call it out regardless of party. And this is wrong. This is wrong.

We ask: How do you lose a democracy? How does one lose a democracy? This is how you lose a democracy: actions like today. But even more importantly than what has just happened is what will happen in the next 24 hours. Will this be roundly condemned? Will this be roundly condemned or somehow will we just fall down some partisan line again and see another leap toward autocracy in this country?

Alex Padilla is one of the most decent people I know, one of the most dedicated public servants I know, someone of just the greatest character. We all know him well in this institution. He embodies public service. He never forgot where he came from. He came from very humble origins, and he never forgot where he came from.

And the beauty of this country is you can come from a very humble origin, and you can end up here. When I first got here, Jon Tester, a farmer from Montana and a Senator from Montana, told me about a conversation he had with John D. Rockefeller when he got here. He said Rockefeller told him: You and I came from very different places, but we both ended up here.

It is the beauty of America that Alex Padilla could end up here, by dint of his brilliance and his integrity and his compassion. And all of that is at risk. All of that is at risk right now if we let the abusive handling of this good man and so many other good men and women around the country--if we let this go without our firmest opposition, without our strongest pushback, without our strongest defense of our democracy.

With that, I ask the Senator from New Jersey whether he will yield to the Senator to my right, yield for a question.