Floor Statements

Madam President, this afternoon, I missed rollcall vote No. 238, confirmation of the nomination of Kasdin Miller Mitchell to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Todd Blanche to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

The Attorney General is supposed to be the people's lawyer, someone whose loyalty is to the Constitution and to the rule of law, not to any one person--even the President of the United States. But in this administration, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are focused solely on pleasing one person, one man, no matter the cost to our country.

Lest anybody forget, huge banners like the one displayed here hang outside the Department of Justice, the front door, as pictured here, and the other entrance to the Department of Justice. Every single day, the folks who are supposed to uphold our Constitution and the rule of law walk beneath these banners, reminding them that in this administration, their loyalty is to Donald Trump, not to the people of the United States. One of the people who do that every day and who have demonstrated loyalty to the President over the Constitution is the person whose nomination is pending on this floor today to be the Attorney General.

It is crystal clear from Mr. Blanche's record as Acting Attorney General and before that as Deputy Attorney General that he is still acting like Donald Trump's personal lawyer--a position he held before going to the Justice Department. His record has shown us very clearly that he will continue to put the President's personal interests above the interests of the American people; that when he walks through that door to the great Department of Justice that is supposed to serve justice for the American people, he looks up and he sees Donald Trump.

He was formerly the personal lawyer to Donald Trump, and even now, at the Justice Department, he continues to demonstrate that he puts the President's interests above those in the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Department of Justice has used taxpayer dollars to punish the President's adversaries, to reward his friends, and to pursue the President's personal vendettas.

In a case that I am very familiar with, a Federal judge found that Mr. Blanche's statements about the Department's case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia showed clear evidence of a vindictive prosecution. In other words, the judge found that Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice brought a case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in a Federal court because he had exercised his due process rights, to punish him for exercising his rights, so that judge threw out those charges.

Under Mr. Blanche's leadership, Department lawyers have resigned rather than participate in blatant prosecutions, like the prosecutions of James Comey and others.

Career, professional lawyers have resigned rather than participate in abuses of power, like the Department's criminal investigation against Renee Good's partner after the shooting in Minneapolis instead of holding accountable or pursuing accountability for those who killed Renee Good. Think about that. This Department of Justice launched an investigation into the partner of Renee Good, who was shot and killed by DHS agents, instead of investigating the shooting itself--again, to please the dear leader in the White House, not to uphold the rule of law.

We also know that the Department of Justice has lost 10,000 employees since the beginning of fiscal year 2025 and nearly one quarter of its lawyers--lawyers who signed up to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, not serve the dear leader acting through the dear leader's former personal attorney Todd Blanche. Now they are hiring prosecutors with no prior legal experience and asking many of them to sign a pledge supporting not the Constitution but the President of the United States.

We have seen how Mr. Blanche has acted as the President's personal lawyer since he has been at the Justice Department. We know, of course, of the outrageous $1.8 billion slush fund that was created to make payments to the President's political allies. When I asked Mr. Blanche at a hearing if those who assaulted police officers here on Capitol Hill on January 6 would be eligible for those payouts, taxpayer-funded payouts, he wouldn't rule it out. He wouldn't rule that out.

At the same time, he and the Department entered into a sweetheart settlement providing extraordinary tax liability protections to the President and his family and his businesses--essentially a get-out-of- jail-free card for nonpayment of taxes due if that was what had been ultimately found.

Now, after Republican Senators and only after Republican Senators threatened to block his nomination did Mr. Blanche issue an order supposedly rescinding the slush fund and narrowing the scope of those tax protections.

By the way, even if you narrow the scope the way it is supposed to there, the President and his family get essentially a get-out-of-jail- free card for past tax liabilities that may be due.

So this deal is a sham. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not written into the law, and nothing prevents the Department from restarting the slush fund once Mr. Blanche is confirmed.

That is not the only example of Mr. Blanche continuing to serve as the President's personal attorney while having the title of ``Acting Attorney General.'' We also see that in his handling of the Epstein files.

During his time at the Justice Department, Mr. Blanche has withheld critical information regarding those files rather than seek justice for the brave survivors who have shared their stories of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.

When Mr. Blanche appeared before the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Department of Justice, Senator Murray and I both asked him that if we connected him with the Epstein survivors, would he meet with them and hear them out?

His answer:

Absolutely.

He promised he would do so if we connected the survivors to him.

Well, we followed up multiple times. Nearly 2 months later, he had not fulfilled the promise he made in that Senate committee hearing. He had still not met with the survivors.

So Senator Murray and I wrote him a letter demanding that he fulfill the promise he made because that should be a bare minimum for someone seeking this post. And it is pretty clear he had zero intent on keeping the promise made in public at that committee hearing until Senator Tillis said that he would not vote to move his nomination out of the committee until Mr. Blanche met with the survivors.

After that threat was made, the meeting happened, but it was clear from reports about the meeting by the survivors that Mr. Blanche did not do so out of respect for them and out of a genuine interest to hear what they had to say but simply to preserve chances of his confirmation, because according to the survivors, it was nothing more than a check-the-box exercise. In fact, they said Mr. Blanche was condescending, that he was rude, and that he was dismissive. They were interrupted and told to ``get to the point.''

Well, someone who can tell the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's horrific crimes to ``get to the point'' is not a person we want defending the American people because a nominee for Attorney General should demonstrate that their loyalty will be to the Constitution and the rule of law and getting justice for everybody in America, including the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, not to the President of the United States.

So I hope we will recognize that if we look at the conduct and actions and record of the Acting Attorney General, we will recognize that he is not suited for this position because his record shows he has not been upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead, he has been doing the business of this one man.

This photo was taken today--taken today. These big banners of Donald Trump have been hanging outside the Department of Justice for a long time, and they send an unmistakable message to people who work inside that they better serve the interests of this

one person. If, instead, there is a conflict between the interests of the people of the United States and this person, this tells them: Serve the interests of the President of the United States.

That is not the job of the Department of Justice, and it is not the job of the Attorney General.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Alpha Phi Sorority at the University of Maryland, College Park. Alpha Phi has dedicated its philanthropic efforts to advancing women's heart health, the leading cause of death among women in the United States.

Although the topic of women's heart health is often overlooked, the members of Alpha Phi have made it their mission to advance this vital cause through research, education, and advocacy. The University of Maryland chapter has received national recognition for its year-round efforts to not only raise funds, but to increase awareness of heart disease and relevant prevention methods.

Every year, the University of Maryland chapter hosts the Red Dress Gala, their capstone philanthropic event. This past year, they successfully raised over $26,000 to benefit their cause. Beyond their fundraising, the members of Alpha Phi treat every event as an opportunity to educate the campus community, honor those affected by heart disease, and inspire others to support women's health.

I commend the Alpha Phi Sorority at the University of Maryland, College Park for its unshakeable dedication to women's heart health and look forward to witnessing its continued impact on its community.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass the SECURE Act to ensure that we don't force individuals who have been legally residing in the United States under temporary protected status--some for as many as 27 years--to return to countries where they will face danger and, instead, to provide them with a secure path toward lawful permanent residency.

The need for Congress to do this, to take this step, has never been more urgent because, just over a month ago, the Trump-packed Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, allowed the administration to move forward with terminating temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of individuals who originally came to the United States from Haiti and Syria and to force them back--force them back--to countries where their lives would be at risk. That decision puts them and other TPS holders at risk of deportation to countries where violence, instability, and humanitarian crises continue to threaten their lives.

There are already reports that ICE is planning to target Haitian TPS holders for deportation as soon as this week, which would force hundreds of thousands of people to return to a country that our State Department warns is unsafe for travel. In other words, the Trump administration would force people back to a country where the State Department says: Don't go there because it is unsafe.

The Trump administration has also moved to lift lower court orders preventing the termination of TPS for other countries as well, putting thousands more lives at risk. In other words, these lower courts have said they have paused the ability for the administration to deport people on TPS, but the administration is moving to deport them anyway.

In 1990--in 1990--Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, came together to create the TPS program because we all agreed that keeping our neighbors safe should not be a partisan issue. When conditions in another country make it unsafe for people to return, America should not force those people back into harm's way. And for over three decades that bipartisan principle has guided the TPS program.

I think we all recall the Trump administration--at least the President--promised that they were going to target the ``worst of the worst.'' But that is not what they have been doing. Instead, it has targeted people, in the case of TPS recipients, with lawful status, targeting people who are here legally.

TPS recipients are people who have already been determined that it would be dangerous to force them to return to their countries of origin. They are here legally, and the TPS eligibility requirements are very strict. Recipients undergo repeated vetting and background checks. They work, they pay taxes, raise families, start businesses, and contribute every day to communities across this country. Many have lived here for years; others, for decades. They have become part of the fabric of our communities.

And yet the Trump administration's actions and recent reckless Supreme Court decisions place all of that at risk. The administration terminated work permits for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders on Monday. So people who had been legally here, had work permits, they have been terminated.

And for those who also apply for asylum, the administration's new policy announced just this week would funnel their pending asylum claims directly into deportation proceedings without ever receiving a hearing. So even people who could show individual cause of certain harm or danger could be deported under these new procedures. It is all part of the same effort to strip legal protections from people who have followed the rules.

Due to our country's broken immigration system, the TPS program is the only legal pathway for many to remain in the United States and keep out of harm's way, and the Court's decision is tearing up that pathway for many TPS holders, even as the facts on the ground are clear.

As I said, if you go to the State Department website, it says: ``Do Not Travel to Haiti.'' There are warning signs on that website of violent crime, gang activity, kidnappings, and widespread instability.

In the case of Syria, Syria continues to face armed conflict, terrorism, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The State Department warns--this is from our State Department--``Do not travel to Syria for any reason.'' That is what the State Department says, and yet the President and the Trump administration want to force people to go to Syria.

In other words, the same conditions that led the United States to grant these individuals TPS in the first place remain true, and yet the Trump administration wants to send them to these countries. So the State Department warns against travel but wants us to believe that it is safe for TPS recipients to be forced to return.

What has changed is this administration's determination to dismantle basic humanitarian protections that have been part of our bipartisan tradition in order to enact their mass deportation agenda, and now this Supreme Court has rubberstamped this administration's ongoing reckless efforts to gut the TPS program so they can terminate countries' designations across the board to advance that mass deportation agenda.

The Trump ``rubberstamp'' Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 decision, made the decision that rather than follow the letter of the law as Congress enacted it, the Department of Homeland Security can do whatever it wants--and free from judicial scrutiny.

As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent--she was one of three Justices dissenting from that Supreme Court decision--she said:

After today, a Secretary can announce to the world that she

didn't consult with anyone--more, that she didn't evaluate

country conditions at all--before making, extending, or

terminating a TPS designation. And the courts will be

powerless to intervene, even though Congress loaded up the

TPS statute with requirements about the (altogether

different) way the Secretary is supposed to make her

decision.

In other words, Justice Kagan pointed out that the statute does make clear there should be a determination about whether or not an action taken to terminate TPS would, in fact, lead to harm.

And Congress should not just sit back and allow this to happen. Decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of lives should be based on careful consideration of conditions on the ground, not political ideology or predetermined outcomes.

This decision makes one thing unmistakably clear, that we, the Congress, should act to reaffirm what was clearly our intent when we passed the TPS statutes to begin with. And, for years, TPS recipients have lived in constant uncertainty, and every extension brings another deadline. Every new administration brings another question about whether the lives they have built here will disappear with the stroke of a pen. This is no way to treat people who have been here legally and have contributed much to our country.

That is why we should pass the SECURE Act, legislation that provides qualified TPS and deferred enforced departure recipients with a pathway to legal permanent residence after years

of continuous presence in the United States.

It protects applicants while their cases are pending and shields eligible individuals from deportation during the application process. It provides work authorization and travel authorization. It also protects applicants' information from being used for immigration enforcement, except in limited circumstances. It increases transparency--which I would hope we would all support--by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to explain and justify future decisions to terminate TPS designations--something they have failed to do. Most importantly, it provides the certainty these families deserve after years--in many cases, decades--of living here legally in the United States.

We have long used TPS to provide refuge to people who would otherwise face extraordinary danger if forced to return to their countries of origin. They sought safety and stability here. They have built new lives in our country and made lasting contributions to our communities, and the SECURE Act recognizes that reality.

As I said, we should not be forcing these individuals back to countries where our own State Department has determined it would be dangerous to go.

The Supreme Court decision does not have to be the end of the story. We can write the end of the story, and it is our responsibility as a Congress to preserve that bipartisan congressional intent from back in 1990. We must provide that certainty that these individuals deserve.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2106. I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, just to make a couple things very clear, the President has a mass-deportation agenda even though what the President says is that he is focused on going after the worst of the worst.

We had a vote on a resolution here in the Senate not that long ago about going after the worst of the worst, and it passed unanimously. It was a voice vote. There is no argument there.

The issue with these TPS holders is that they are here legally, with work permits. In fact, they are among the most vetted people in the country. Every year, they go through security and background checks in order to renew their work permits.

The reason we provide them with the opportunity to stay here is because there has been a determination that their countries of origin are such dangerous places that their lives would be put at risk--places like Haiti, places like Syria, where our own government has determined it is too dangerous to go, and they warn people about going to those countries. Yet what this Trump administration action would do is force people back into danger in those countries. That is what the Trump administration wants to do, and that is what this Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 vote, allows them to do. It allows them not even to have to make that determination in any serious way about what the circumstances are in the country these people would be forced back into.

So there is a whole lot of misinformation that was put out there about this piece of legislation.

I will just say that in my State of Maryland, many of these folks on TPS have become very important and valuable members of our community. As I have said, many have been here for years and years and in some cases, for decades.

By the way, they are paying taxes. They are paying Federal and State taxes. They are paying into the Social Security trust fund. In many cases, they have started small businesses that actually create more economic opportunities for everybody in the community and the State. Go look it up. A lot of these TPS holders are small business men and women. They are hiring people in our communities and our State. Yet these are the people--some of the most vetted individuals in the country, people who pay State and local and Federal taxes--that the Trump administration wants to send back to countries where we say it is dangerous to go.

So that is why we are here on the floor right now, because the first wave of this is about to happen, and the Trump administration is about to deport folks who came here from Haiti who have been here under TPS, this protected status, and now they want to force them back into harm's way. We want to uphold what had been a bipartisan position, which is that we as a country should not do that. We should not send people who have this legal status now back to countries where they will face certain danger.

So it is disappointing to hear that our Republican colleagues don't want to move forward on this piece of legislation, but this debate is not over--not here in the Senate, not in the House, and not in communities across the United States.

And with that, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from California, who has been such an important, strong voice on these issues on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the amazing life and legacy of Ms. Barbara Salkin, who passed recently at age 94. Ms. Salkin was a leader, organizer, and friend to all, and she leaves behind a resounding tradition of unity, mentorship, and civic engagement.

Ms. Salkin was a true believer in the power of community and graciously dedicated her time, her knowledge, and her boundless energy into supporting and developing her own. She was an inextricable part of Montgomery County, MD, and her impact will remain woven into the fabric of its history. She used her unmatched understanding of the county to mentor generations of local and State leaders, investing in a brighter future for us all.

Above all, Ms. Salkin was a beloved mother, grandmother, great- grandmother, and friend. She blessed every person she encountered with the gift of her kindness, and I am grateful to have been one of those people. The outpouring of love since her passing is a testament to the impact she has had on so many.

I invite my colleagues to join me in offering appreciation and condolences to Ms. Salkin's children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren, and in honoring her tremendous legacy.

Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546a and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 180.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sheehy be able to speak for up to 5 minutes, that I then speak for up to 20 minutes, and Senator Schumer be permitted to speak for 2 minutes before the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator Sheehy for his service to our country in our Armed Forces and thank every single soldier who serves our country in uniform and mourn the deaths of every single American servicemember who has been lost in this war and any other war.

I listened carefully to the Senator from Montana. He is right that the Iranian regime doesn't care about what is happening in the United States; doesn't care about politics of the United States.

You know what else they don't care about? They don't care about the Constitution of the United States of America. They don't care about that either, but we--we, in the Senate--we should care about the Constitution of the United States of America because the Framers of our Constitution deliberately vested the power to declare war in Congress because they understood the enormous consequences of sending Americans into harm's way.

So if our Republican colleagues have the strength of their convictions, they should bring an authorization to use military force in Iran to this floor. We have not seen that. In 140 days, we have seen nothing. If you want to be true to the Constitution of the United States, that is what Republicans would do.

And the Iranians don't give a damn about our Constitution, but I would hope that those in this body have been sworn to uphold it would give a damn about our Constitution because the Framers understood--they understood that decisions involving war and peace should not rest with any one individual.

You can glorify President Trump all you want, but the Founders--the Founders, those who helped write the Constitution--understood that that power should not vest with one person, whoever that person may be regardless of party. That is what the Founders said.

The Constitution entrusted that solemn responsibility to the Congress where the elected representatives could openly debate and vote on those questions before any President sent our sons and daughters to fight and die in foreign lands. We may disagree about whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, but we should not disagree that that is what the Constitution requires, and that is what our oath requires.

So, yes, I rise to urge my colleagues to support my War Powers Resolution to end this disastrous and illegal war against Iran that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu launched over 140 days ago. The Constitution is unambiguous. This is not a close call.

And yet, right now--right now--we are finding ourselves confronting exactly the circumstances that the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 were designed to prevent. They were designed to prevent one person from taking this country to war. They were actually designed in the hopes that this Senate and this Congress would do their constitutional

duty and vote yes or no but take responsibility for decisions that send our men and women into harm's way--take responsibility.

Nearly 5 months ago, President Trump launched this illegal war. He launched it against Iran. And as I said, he launched it without any authorization. Since then, Senate Democrats and some Republicans have tried to reassert the constitutional role of Congress.

We have voted 11 times on resolutions to end the war. And finally last month, both Chambers passed H. Con. Res. 86, directing the President to terminate hostilities against Iran. It was a historic vote. It marked the first time since the War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973 that Congress successfully used this mechanism that was designed to halt the unauthorized use of force by the President, by any President.

That resolution was not a suggestion; it is legally binding.

The Iranian regime may not care about that resolution, but we should care and the Constitution requires that we care. The passage of that resolution should have marked the end of this disastrous war, but time and again, President Trump has shown he has no respect for the Constitution.

He was asked months ago whether he had to abide by the Constitution. His answer: I don't know.

That is a President who has no respect for the rule of law, but we should.

Instead, what the Trump administration has done is steadily expanded this conflict, moved further away from diplomacy and further away from a durable peace.

When the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was signed in June, I stood on this floor and said I hoped it would become the foundation for a broader diplomatic settlement.

Many Republicans opposed that memorandum of understanding. I hoped that it would finally begin the long task of climbing out of a big hole this illegal war has created.

That hope is gone now.

This moment--this moment we are in now--is a pivotal one in the war and for our role in it. Just this morning, the House of Representatives passed another resolution to end the war. That is how democracy works. The Iranian regime doesn't care about our democracy, but we should, and the Senate should pass this resolution just as the House passed a War Powers Resolution.

This is the first War Powers Resolution since the United States resumed daily strikes against Iran and the first since we reimposed a full naval blockade. It is the first resolution since another four American soldiers were killed. It is the first resolution since shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has once again been ground to a halt.

And I think all of us here in the Senate know the Strait of Hormuz was open before President Trump launched this war.

In the weeks since the last vote, more civilians have been killed as well, and the United States and Iran are now deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. President Trump said that he will destroy a bridge or a powerplant in Iran for every ship attacked in the strait.

It did not have to be this way. Many of us warned before this war began that military force would not achieve the vague, constantly shifting objectives its advocates promised. We warned that abandoning diplomacy would make the region more dangerous, not less. We warned that military action would strengthen the most hardline voices inside of Iran rather than weaken them. We warned that this conflict would destabilize the region, threaten the global economy, drive up costs for American families, and ultimately leave the United States worse off.

And since then, every single one of those warnings has come true. I wish they hadn't, but they have.

We have heard the arguments warmongers have used to justify this stupid war before. The promises of quick victories, that just one more bombing campaign would finally produce lasting peace. We have heard that regime change is just around the corner. We have heard repeated calls for military adventurism while diplomacy was dismissed as some kind of weakness.

Those arguments were wrong before, and they are wrong today.

This is the same kind of delusional thinking that sucked the United States into endless wars in the past, the kind of endless wars that this President promised he would keep us out of. When he promised he would focus on bringing down prices, he has done the opposite.

So we must make better choices, and we cannot allow the past to repeat itself. But that is what happens when your objectives keep changing. That is what happens when you convince yourself against all available evidence, that just 1 more week or 1 more month of fighting will bring victory.

You know, on March 1, the day after starting the war, President Trump was asked how long the war would go on.

Does anybody remember what he said? ``Four to five weeks.'' It will be over in ``four to five weeks,'' he said.

Well, the President said that about 20 weeks ago, and it was all a lot of nonsense.

In late March, he repeatedly claimed victory. President Trump said ``We won.'' Go look it up. It is all over his social media channels. ``We won.'' ``We won.''

Colleagues, I have some questions. If we won back in March, why are more Americans getting killed in July? If we won back in March, why is the Strait of Hormuz closed? If we won back in March, why is the war expanding as Houthis attack ships transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait into the Red Sea? If we won back in March, why are oil and gas prices and diesel prices shooting through the roof again, imposing costs on every American family?

Is that their definition of winning? Well, I wondered what their answer to that question was. So earlier this week, I asked Secretary of Defense Hegseth what his definition of winning looks like. And there was no clear answer. That is because their objectives keep changing.

He finally settled on the objective of making sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. But colleagues, remember this: Last year--just last year--shortly after Operation Midnight Hammer, the 12-day war, here is what Secretary Hegseth told the country ``our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.''

The President told us the same thing, and the President's Director of National Intelligence testified in this Senate just months ago that it was the assessment of the United States Government that Iran did not intend to start any enrichment program.

The President, during the time the memorandum of understanding was in place, hailed the fact that the Iranians said they had no plans and would not build a nuclear weapon. Apparently, the President had not been informed that they had made that commitment over a period of years.

The whole purpose of the JCPOA was to hold them to that commitment to make sure that we could identify immediately if they were violating that commitment.

Of course, that is the agreement that President Trump tore up in his first administration.

So when I pointed all this out to Secretary Hegseth, all he could go back to was tired, old talking points that has gotten us in this mess and keeps us in this mess. In fact, it clarified the reality of what we have known since day one, that the Iran war is a war in search of a mission.

Colleagues, that is how forever wars begin. Eighteen American servicemembers have lost their lives. Hundreds more have been wounded, including over a 100 just from the last 2 weeks, and the civilian death toll continues to rise.

At the start of the war, an American Tomahawk missile strike killed more than 150 Iranian civilians in Minab, more than 100 of them children. On top of those killings of schoolkids, thousands of other civilians have been killed or injured across Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the rest of the region.

On top of all that, oil prices jumped; then they settled a little bit during the memorandum of understanding; and now they are jumping again. They have risen back to a national average of around $4 a gallon and rising. Diesel prices have surged above $5 a gallon.

All of us understand that when gas and diesel prices go up, those increased costs filter throughout the economy. Trucks that are trucking food from one

place to another: higher diesel prices, higher food prices, higher grocery prices throughout our economy, imposed on families already struggling with the costs of groceries and housing and healthcare and childcare and other necessities.

And, again, this is the President who said that he was going to end wars and focus on bringing down costs.

This is a strategic blunder on a massive scale. It is a self- inflicted wound on our country and all for what? That is the question every one of us should be asking as we vote shortly on this War Powers Resolution. How has continuing this war made the American people safer?

How has it made the Middle East more stable? How has it strengthened America's national security? I have yet to hear a credible answer to that question, and that is because there isn't one.

You know, these are the kind of questions that should be asked before a war is started, before we put American troops at risk. Colleagues, there is no good way out of a bad war. But as I have said repeatedly, when you are digging yourself a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging, and that is what this resolution seeks to do.

Let us stop pretending that Congress has no role to play while American servicemembers remain in harm's way. Many of the people who enthusiastically supported launching this war have been unwilling to take responsibility for authorizing it.

That should concern every Member of this body. It should concern every American, regardless of party, because if a Member of the Senate truly believes that this war is justified and the right thing to do, put it up for a vote. Put it up for a vote for an authorization to use military force.

I disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq. And President Bush asked for an authorization for military force, and this Congress acted on it. In my view, they made the wrong decision, but at least they took responsibility for their actions as the Constitution requires.

So this is an opportunity, as the war escalates even further, as more American servicemembers are killed, as more civilians are killed, as oil and gas prices and other prices go up--this is an opportunity for this Congress to finally take responsibility. We passed the concurrent resolution in the past. We know the President has no respect for the law, but we have an obligation to our constituents. We should not duck that responsibility.

We should not simply allow this war to go on without up-or-down votes on an authorization to use military force. And today, we have a chance to take accountability and send a message by supporting this War Powers Resolution.

I urge all my colleagues to adopt it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Markey and Senator Blunt Rochester for bringing this motion to the floor.

I do want to thank Congresswoman Pressley--who I know had to leave the floor--for her leadership in the House.

And like my colleagues, I am extremely disappointed that Republican Senators today blocked our ability to move forward and have a vote on this

matter and pass this very important matter, which is to extend temporary protected status for Haiti.

As my colleagues have said, temporary protected status--TPS--was established decades ago with bipartisan support because Congress understood then a very basic truth: When people cannot safely return to their countries of origin, we do not put their lives at risk by forcing them to go back. That is the essence of the protection in TPS, and that principle is worth defending today.

For years, hundreds of thousands of Haitians have lived and worked legally in the United States of America under TPS. They built their lives here. They have paid taxes here, including Social Security taxes. They started small businesses here. They are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues. They are our community members.

They are deeply rooted in communities all over the country, including in my State of Maryland. Some have lived here for decades--again, legally--with this status. To rip all of that away, while the danger in Haiti persists, is wrong and it is cruel. And it does not align with the values that the United States claims to stand for, and yet that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing. And, sadly, it is what our Republican Senate colleagues just did in their motion.

And I do want to underscore what Senator Blunt Rochester and Senator Markey have said. They may be able to block it today in the U.S. Senate, but we will keep working on this matter because it is a matter of important American principles.

You know, last year, the administration moved to terminate Haiti's TPS designation, and that action was challenged in court. And the Federal courts temporarily blocked that termination.

Then it went to the Supreme Court, and on a devastating 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and sided with the Trump administration. It was another--in my view--very bad decision from this Supreme Court that will have very harmful consequences for the Haitian community but, really, for all of our communities because now TPS holders face imminent loss of their legal status and of their work authorizations, the latter of which is slated to happen as soon as the end of this week.

So let's be clear about what that means. Let's just be clear about the harm that we are forcing these individuals to face. It means hundreds of thousands of our community members who followed the rules, worked legally, paid taxes, and built lives in this country will lose their ability to work legally and be forced to return to a country where it is not safe to return.

That is the reality right now. Anyone following the situation in Haiti knows it remains very dangerous. Indeed, as my colleagues have said, the State Department continues to warn Americans not to travel to Haiti because of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest, and other factors.

The country remains under a state of emergency, and the U.S. Government has extremely limited ability to provide any emergency assistance, even to our own citizens who are there now.

And the humanitarian situation there continues to deteriorate. When you are evaluating whether it is safe to force anybody back to their country of origin, we are supposed to look at whether the situation is getting better or worse. It is getting worse over a long period of time in Haiti. While there are some small signs of hope right now, the reality is, it is a very, very dangerous place

In fact, 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. More than half the population needs humanitarian assistance. More than 5.8 million people are expected to face hunger this year. Meanwhile, armed gangs continue to control large parts of Port-au-Prince and other parts of the country.

A lot of these gangs are responsible for killings, kidnappings, sexual violence, and forced displacements of entire communities. And yet, by the decision the Republican Senator took to the floor, blocking this action, they are forcing people who have been members of our community for a long time--again, working here legally--forcing them back into imminent danger and harm.

You know, we shouldn't be doing this, colleagues. We should not be forcing anybody back into a situation of imminent harm, especially people who have been here and working legally and playing by all of the rules. And now we are changing the rules on them midstream because what had been a bipartisan law of the temporary protected status program is now having the ``protected status'' part of it ripped out by our colleagues. So this is really part of the Trump administration's mass deportation strategy.

You know, the President told Americans that they were going to go after the ``worst of the worst.'' You know, we had a vote on this floor weeks back. I think it was a unanimous vote that, you know, folks who have committed crimes--people who are dangerous to our communities-- yes, the worst of the worst should be essentially held accountable and deported.

But folks under TPS? These are people who are working legally in our country. These are people paying taxes. These are not the worst of the worst. In fact, they have to check in every single year and make sure that they continue to meet the requirements of the law. And yet these are the people--these are the people--that the President and now our Republican colleagues seek to uproot and send into certain danger.

Sadly, the Supreme Court--the Trump-stacked Supreme Court--went along with these decisions, but we have a chance in this body to fix that. And that was what we tried to do today with Senator Markey's motion.

Again, it was blocked by our Republican colleagues, but this will not be the end of this debate. It will not be the end of this discussion because the essence of TPS was, at least at one time in our country, a bipartisan effort. On a bipartisan basis, we agreed that it was wrong to send people back to their home country if they faced certain danger. And that is why we allowed these individuals to stay here. And many of them have made really successful lives here in our communities, working--again legally--paying taxes.

And so it is a very sad day when what once was a bipartisan consensus to stand by important principles that had made this country stronger are shredded by this White House and where we now have a rubberstamped Congress to go along with the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.

So I regret the action that was taken today. I, again, thank my colleague Senator Markey for his efforts, and we will keep at it together.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the incredible service of Colonel Yolanda D. Gore. COL Gore is preparing to finish her time as the 89th garrison commander of Fort George G. Meade, a role she executed with strength, vision, and principled leadership.

Born in Estill, SC, Colonel Gore joined the South Carolina National Guard immediately following her high school graduation. She served for 5 years until her commission in 2002 and subsequently graduated and earned her Army commission from South Carolina State University, SCSU. She earned a bachelor's degree in family and consumer science business and later went on to earn a master of arts in leadership and management from Webster University and a master of arts in strategic studies from the Army War College.

Colonel Gore served briefly as a signal officer before discovering her passion in the Adjutant General Corps. She led a diverse career through a variety of assignments, excelled in key leadership roles, and received numerous commendations before becoming the first woman to be installed as garrison commander.

Throughout her time as garrison commander, Colonel Gore has taken the role to new heights. She brought modernization to Fort Meade and the surrounding community by implementing a barracks renovation project, helping break ground on a child development center, and reforming physical security across the installation. She cultivated community and culture by expanding veteran and family outreach, extending options for community feedback, and leading major heritage and remembrance events. She has left an indelible mark on Fort Meade through these efforts and many others.

I am very grateful for Colonel Gore's commitment to progress and collaboration at every level of government. Fort Meade, the State of Maryland, and our Nation have all greatly benefited from her leadership.

Colonel Gore has been married to COL Michael Gore of Loris, SC, for 22 years. They are the proud parents of Shantell, a graduate of East Carolina University, and Morgyn Gore, a senior at Virginia Tech University.

Colonel Gore is preparing to complete a remarkable 2-year term spent in the pursuit of excellence, progress, and community. She has dedicated herself to leadership, and I thank her for her commitment. I invite my colleagues to join me in thanking Colonel Gore for her incredible service.

Madam President, let me start by expressing my condolences to the family and loved ones of Lindsey Graham on his sudden passing. While we disagreed more often than not, we were able to work together over the years on a number of key foreign policy issues, including our mutual support of the Syrian Kurds or the Syrian Democratic Forces who have been our key partners in the fight against ISIS. And I will discuss our work on that and other matters at another time. On the matter before us today, I am sure we would disagree.

What you will see is at the end of the day the Government of Israel, the Netanyahu government, exercised its veto authority under the coproduction agreement preventing the United States from sending our own Iron Dome batteries to Ukraine to help Ukraine with its air defense system.

And now in this NDAA bill that we are about to consider in the United States Senate, there is a provision requiring the United States Government to do more coproduction arrangements with the Netanyahu government and the future governments of Israel. Give me a break.

The second provision that I mentioned earlier, section 622 of the fiscal year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act mandates--and I say mandates--that the United States Government, the executive branch ``expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel.''

It also states that intelligence sharing with Israel ``shall not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited.''

The intent of this provision is clear to not only enhance intelligence sharing with Israel, but also to block the President from limiting such intelligence sharing.

Now, colleagues, any time the United States Government wants to or chooses to, of course we can share intelligence with the Government of Israel or any other government we choose for our own interests.

Why would we hardwire into the law a requirement that that intelligence be shared with Israel or any other country?

And there is a peculiar procedural wrinkle here I want to mention. This provision isn't in the text of the NDAA yet. As I said, it sits in the fiscal year Intelligence Authorization Act that passed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. But, as my colleagues know, that bill typically--typically--gets added to the NDAA right here on the floor of the Senate before final passage, meaning that the Senate may be asked to adopt this provision that hardwires and requires U.S. intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel with no real debate.

And that should concern us all, especially since, according to public reports, this administration recently raised--raised--the counterintelligence threat level from the Government of Israel to its highest level. At the same time, this Senate is talking about adopting a provision mandating intelligence sharing.

As I said, any President can share intelligence at their discretion, but this requires it. And we should not be forcing this administration or any other administration to share U.S. intelligence with the Government of Israel or any other government, for that matter.

This is also happening, as I said, at a time when we are seeing accelerated violence and expansion of settlements on the West Bank. We have heard outrageous statements from Finance Minister Smotrich and from Ben Gvir, who controls many of Israel's security forces.

It is simply not in our interest to mandate that the U.S. Government enter into coproduction agreements with the Netanyahu government or any other Government of Israel. You can always do this on a case-by-case basis, as we did with the Iron Dome, and not require by law that we do it in a whole range of other areas.

And, as I said, this bill also comes before us with a huge proposed increase in funds for the Pentagon, which continues to fail to pass a budget audit, and at a time when it appears that the President of the United States is, again, ramping up the war against Iran--an unauthorized war.

And so I urge my colleagues that, when we consider the motion to proceed tomorrow--specifically, the motion for cloture on the motion to proceed; the vote on the cloture for the motion to proceed--that we oppose that and then come together as Senators and say to the American people: We are going to ensure accountability. We are going to ensure that, when that bill comes to the floor of the Senate, we will have votes on all of these issues. We will have a vote to bring down this huge, bloated number for military spending in the NDAA. We will have a vote to require some accountability with respect to military operations. And we will have a vote with respect to these new provisions that currently mandate intelligence sharing and mandate defense procurement cooperation with the Netanyahu government and future Governments of Israel.

I hope we will show the American people that we believe in transparency

and accountability by having those votes. But to do so, we have to first vote against the motion--the cloture motion on the motion to proceed.

With that, I yield my remaining time to my friend and colleague the Senator from Vermont, Senator Welch.

Mr. President, I want to start by saluting my colleague the Senator from Virginia Senator Kaine for his steadfast adherence to the Constitution of the United States and Congress' role in that Constitution, especially as it relates to war powers.

I rise today in support of this resolution and in support of ending this disastrous and illegal war that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu launched over 100 days ago.

Nearly 4 months into this illegal and reckless war, the American people have already paid too high a price. There is no good way out of a bad war, but when you are digging yourself into a hole, the best way out is to stop digging.

The debate before us is not a question of whether the MOU signed by the United States and Iran is perfect, but rather the debate is about whether continuing the war would make things better.

And it is clear that continuing this disastrous war will only make things even worse, not better. The terms of this agreement reflect the reality that many of us warned about before this war even began.

We warned that military action would not achieve the grand, strategic objectives its advocates promised. In fact, you could tell that because there was such confusion within the administration about what the real goals of the war were.

We warned that military force would strengthen the more militant elements of the Iranian regime rather than weaken them. We warned that the war would destabilize the region, threaten the global economy, and ultimately leave the people of the United States worse off.

And that is exactly what has happened.

Over 100 days ago, President Trump, together with Prime Minister Netanyahu, launched the war against Iran without congressional authorization. When he did that, President Trump walked away from diplomatic alternatives.

In fact, just hours before launching military action, there was a diplomatic framework being advanced through Omani mediators.

Instead of pursuing the diplomatic track, President Trump chose war, just as he previously chose to tear up the JCPOA. That is the agreement that was negotiated by the Obama administration which had successfully constrained Iran's nuclear program through diplomacy.

That diplomatic framework, the JCPOA, placed meaningful constraints on Iran's nuclear program without dragging the United States into another war in the Middle East.

It had an extremely vigorous inspection regime so that we could detect any effort by Iran to violate that agreement. In fact, the first Trump administration certified that Iran was in compliance with the terms of that agreement.

But shortly after certifying that Iran was in compliance, the first Trump administration--President Trump, his first time in the Oval Office--ripped it up. He just ripped it up. He reimposed sanctions on Iran that had been lifted as part of that agreement.

And so, not surprisingly, when President Trump ripped it up, Iran felt it no longer had to abide by its terms, which started us down the path that brings us here.

Unlike President Obama, President Trump abandoned the effort to get a negotiated solution and joined Prime Minister Netanyahu in starting the war. I think we all remember that Candidate Trump told the country, told the American people, that he would keep us out of wars. He told us he was instead going to focus here at home and bring down prices.

Well, he has done exactly the opposite; started a war, prices are going up.

And now after starting a stupid war, President Trump finally appears to be embracing many of the same underlying principles of diplomacy with Iran that has always been required.

Many of us warned that abandoning diplomacy would increase the likelihood of exactly the kind of conflict we are now seeing. And we were right.

And now, after nearly 4 months of death and destruction, many of the same people in this body who cheered the war on are attacking efforts to end it. And as we discuss a War Powers Resolution, I think it is important to underscore the fact that many of our Senate colleagues who were cheering on the war still were unwilling to bring forth before the Senate an authorization--a congressional authorization--to support the very war they were cheering on.

So they were cheering it on but refused to take responsibility for putting an authorization on this floor, which is Congress' duty with respect to the Constitution if it wants to go to war.

And now, some of the same folks who refused to put forward an authorization to support the war they cheered on are doing their very best to try to prevent the war from ending. And that should concern all of us because every proposal to derail diplomacy ultimately leads back to the same place; it leads back to more war, to more destruction, to more American lives at risk, to more economic turmoil, and billions more taxpayer dollars wasted.

Let's talk about what this war has already cost. We should keep this in mind as we listen to some who want to

continue this war. It has already cost us the lives of 14 American servicemembers and hundreds have been wounded.

An American Tomahawk missile strike killed more than 140 Iranians in Minab, most of them children. And even months later, questions about that attack remain unanswered.

Thousands of other civilians have been killed and injured across Iran. Thousands more have been killed in Lebanon, and 30 civilians have been killed in Israel.

All these lives lost, and for what--for what? We are now negotiating arrangements to restore conditions that existed before this war even began, like reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, was open the day before this war started.

It has been a strategic disaster, and the economic consequences have been felt by every American. According to Moody's Analytics, this war has already cost American consumers and taxpayers about $132 billion. Gas prices have surged, and Americans have spent tens of billions more dollars at the pump than they would have otherwise.

Fertilizer prices have increased dramatically contributing to higher food costs. We just saw inflation jump to the highest level in more than 3 years.

The World Bank even downgraded its global economic growth forecast to just 2.5 percent, the lowest it has been since the pandemic. And the Pentagon--the Pentagon--tells us it is preparing to request $80 billion in supplemental funding to cover the costs associated with this conflict, a number we expect to be much higher at the end of the day.

Now, as I mentioned, President Trump had promised that he was going to stop wars. He promised he was going to lower costs. Instead, he has spent billions of taxpayer dollars on a reckless war of choice while driving up prices here at home.

Now, if President Trump and our Republican colleagues had had their priorities straight, they would have invested these moneys on behalf of the American people. You could use them to bring down healthcare costs. You could use them to bring down child costs.

If you take even a conservative number of $50 billion for what the war has cost already--and it is much higher than that--but $50 billion, you could erase the medical debt for every American who was pushed into medical debt because they couldn't afford their healthcare.

So these are the choices the Trump administration made, and this administration prioritized the war instead of making life more affordable for American families.

Since the President launched this war without congressional authorization, many Members of our body continue to abdicate their constitutional responsibilities with respect to matters of war and peace, probably the most solemn responsibilities given to the Congress in the Constitution.

That is why several of my colleagues and I have repeatedly introduced and called up these War Powers Resolutions--to continue to urge this body to execute our constitutional responsibilities.

Now, today, we have before us another opportunity. The House has already acted by passing this concurrent resolution directing the President to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran, because while this cease-fire represents progress, it remains tenuous. We all know that. In fact, President Trump yet again threatened to bomb Iran this weekend, contrary to the very first line in the first clause of the MOU that says Iran and the United States ``will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.'' And American troops remain deployed throughout the region. The risks are still present, and the prospect of further escalation remains very real, particularly in Lebanon, where Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to agitate for more war despite the MOU clearly indicating a halt to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.

In recent days, I am sure my colleagues have seen that U.S. intelligence Agencies have warned the Trump administration that Prime Minister Netanyahu is likely to try to undermine the President's efforts to reach a lasting peace deal with Iran in order to ensure his own political survival in upcoming elections in Israel.

Israel's National Security Minister Ben-Gvir also said in a social media post a few days after the MOU was signed:

All of Lebanon must burn.

He is not just any member; he is a member of the government, the Netanyahu coalition.

And that sort of rhetoric is not new. In March of this year, Israel Defense Minister Yisrael Katz said that ``all homes in Lebanese villages near the border will be destroyed--in accordance with the Rafah . . . model in Gaza.'' Well, Rafah is a city in southern Gaza near the Egyptian border that was turned into rubble during the war in Gaza, and now you have the Israeli Defense Minister saying that is the plan for southern Lebanon.

Indeed, the Netanyahu government's warmongering has been so blatant that even President Trump and Vice President Vance are publicly admonishing the extremist Israeli Government and their blatant attempts to undermine diplomatic efforts to permanently end this war.

This agreement is a bow to reality--the terrible reality that many of us predicted would unfold if we started this illegal war in the first place. The war was a blunder. We should recognize that. And America is worse off than before we started. There is no good way to end a bad war, and we should end it.

Those pushing to abandon this agreement owe the American people an answer to a simple question: What is your alternative? What comes next? More lives lost? More money wasted with no path forward? Because that is the only alternative they are offering.

I want peace to prevail, and I hope this MOU becomes the foundation of a broader diplomatic settlement. But I also hope, colleagues, we will learn something from this needless tragedy. The calls for military adventurism, the promises of quick victory, the fantasies of regime change under the circumstances that were deployed, and the endless effort to undermine diplomacy led us directly to this disaster, and we should not repeat those mistakes. We should take a stand today and end this war, and we should finally start putting the interests of the American people ahead of costly and unnecessary conflicts.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this War Powers Resolution.

I yield the floor.

I call up my amendment No. 5632 and ask that it be read.

Mr. President, President Trump was asked just the other day whether his slush fund was dead, and he said, ``I don't know.'' He said, ``I love it. I think it is important,'' which is why we should have voted tonight to finish off that taxpayer slush fund.

We didn't do it, but what we should do is make sure not a penny from that slush fund goes to individuals who have committed heinous crimes. Take, for example, a man that President Trump pardoned on his first day in office last year Andrew Paul Johnson who was later convicted of molesting two children.

He tried to buy the silence of those children by promising them that they would get some of the slush fund money they were going to get. Now, fortunately, he did not succeed in doing that, but what this amendment would do is make sure that that person or any person who committed a violent crime or assaulted a police officer would not be allowed to receive one penny of this taxpayer slush fund.

Mr. President, if you ask AI whether it is a good idea to vote for this amendment, they would say yes.

I ask my colleagues, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and all budget resolution disciplines that apply, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, ADST. ADST is an educational organization dedicated to immortalizing the stories and experiences of former American diplomats.

ADST was founded in 1986 by then-Director of the Foreign Service Institute Steven Low and Ambassador Richard Parker. That same year, freshly retired Foreign Service Officer Charles Stuart Kennedy began recording oral histories of retired American diplomats to capture their lived experience and insight. In 1988, Ambassador Parker invited Mr. Kennedy to incorporate his oral history program into ADST's work, creating the association we know today.

In 1995, ADST inaugurated its book program to support diplomatic practitioners and scholars in their efforts to spread awareness of American diplomacy. Under the leadership of publishing director Margery Boichel Thompson, the program blossomed into an inspiring source of knowledge on diplomacy and the Foreign Service with over 120 books published. The program established a joint partnership with Diplomats and Consular Officers, Retired--DACOR--to form the Diplomats and Diplomacy Book Series, established the Memoirs and Occasional Papers series, and founded their very own Arlington Hall Press.

For decades, ADST's Foreign Affairs Oral History Program has remained its cornerstone. Rich in historical insights, the archive is a treasure for congressional offices, current and aspiring diplomats, scholars, educators, students, and the American public.

Today, ADST has collected over 3,100 oral histories spanning over 100 years of the American diplomatic legacy. Through their efforts, the ADST team has helped preserve the invaluable experiences of our foreign service officers--whether that be through archiving oral accounts, editing and publishing book manuscripts, sharing our history with the American public, or supporting the National Foreign Affairs Training Center, NFATC.

Since its inception, ADST's work has grown from the vision of two men into a dedicated and professional foreign affairs organization, and I am confident that they will continue to carry their mission forward. I invite my colleagues to join me in applauding ADST's tremendous work in preserving our legacy.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Kevin Warsh's nomination to serve as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I am not persuaded, based on his record and his testimony at his hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, that he has demonstrated the independence or the judgment this position requires.

The Federal Reserve has a statutory dual mandate: maximum employment to support jobs and price stability to avoid excessive inflation. To carry out that mandate effectively, markets need confidence that monetary policy decisions are being made on the basis of

economic evidence, not on the basis of political pressure or convenience.

That is especially important now as prices are rising too fast and President Trump is still demanding a big cut in interest rates. In fact, just yesterday, a Washington Post headline read ``Iran war pushed inflation to highest rate in nearly three years.''

We know our constituents are feeling these rapid price increases around the country--at the gas pump, at the kitchen table, farmers across the country with higher input costs. So there is no doubt that the illegal Iran war is driving prices up, and that comes on top of the continued upward inflationary pressure from the President's failed tariff tax policies, which continue to work their way through the system and put upward pressure on prices.

So illegal tariff taxes and the illegal war in Iran and other policies the President is pursuing are making life simply unaffordable for our fellow Americans. Yet, when he was faced with the prospect of carrying out that dual mandate free of political interference from the White House, Mr. Warsh's record and his responses to questions raised very serious concerns.

When he served as a Federal Reserve Governor during the financial crisis and its aftermath, he was a consistent inflation hawk, supporting higher interest rates. He did that even as unemployment then approached 10 percent and the country was in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Despite that loss of jobs and high unemployment, Mr. Warsh repeatedly focused instead on inflation risks.

At a 2009 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee--that is the committee that sets interest rates--Mr. Warsh said he was ``more concerned about upside risks to inflation than downside risks''--again, at a time of very high unemployment.

He also argued publicly against quantitative easing--the policy that Chairman Bernanke put in place to lower long-term borrowing costs and support economic recovery.

So just to step back here, at a time when unemployment was near 10 percent, as Americans faced the great recession, Mr. Warsh was a hawk, pushing for higher interest rates over more near-term relief for American families. That was his position when the economy was weakest, weaker than it had been in generations, when millions of Americans were out of work.

But these days--these days--Mr. Warsh has had a complete conversion, a 180-degree flip. He is now a super dove on interest rates even as unemployment has recovered from the depths of the great recession, and, in fact, today, prices are too high. That is a situation where textbook economics would say that the big rate cuts demanded by President Trump will make inflation worse; they will make life even more unaffordable for the American people. Prices will keep going up.

Now Mr. Warsh says that rapid productivity gains, particularly from artificial intelligence, could justify easier monetary policy without reigniting inflation. Economists across the spectrum are overwhelmingly skeptical of this theory, especially when you look at the near- and midterms--certainly not something that would happen by the end of this year, and it is the end of this year where President Trump is demanding big interest rates. In fact, President Trump has repeatedly and publicly demanded sharply lower rates. We have seen him harangue the Federal Reserve over and over and over. And Mr. Warsh's views have conveniently moved in exactly that direction.

That doesn't automatically disqualify him, but it does create a very legitimate question: Is this a genuine change in economic judgment or is it a shift that reflects the preferences of the President who nominated him--specifically, a President who has been abusing his power to influence monetary policy and to strip the Fed of its independence; a President who has launched an unprecedented assault on the Fed, trying to fire Governor Lisa Cook, trying to concoct charges against Chairman Powell to push him out of the Federal Reserve. President Trump is doing all of this to try to get lower interest rates and much lower interest rates now.

It wasn't a secret that Donald Trump was looking for a Chair who would implement his preferences, who would lower interest rates significantly in the short term. And all of a sudden--all of a sudden-- on his nomination-day conversion or just preceding that as he was auditioning, Mr. Warsh now seems to think that is appropriate despite his clear prior views.

That question became even more concerning during the Banking and Housing Committee hearing. I asked Mr. Warsh a straightforward question about monetary policy.

President Trump has called for a massive rate cut--below 1 percent-- by the end of this year, so I asked Mr. Warsh whether a rate cut of that scale in an economy with steady growth and inflation already above target--whether that would likely put upward pressure on prices. Right? This is a simple, basic economics question, and he would not answer the question directly.

As I said, the basic framework is clear: Lower rates stimulate demand. If demand rises faster than supply, inflationary pressures increase, costs for families go up. That is Economics 101. If a nominee for Fed Chair will not directly acknowledge that basic relationship in a public hearing before this body, it is reasonable to ask whether he is avoiding an answer because it conflicts with the policy direction favored by the White House, favored by President Trump.

Now, colleagues, our economy works best when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve implements monetary policy based on their reading of the data, not on the reading of politics. And I am concerned about whether Mr. Warsh meets that standard because we have seen these questions of independence raised even more dramatically under this administration than any before.

And against that backdrop, members of the committee asked Mr. Warsh direct questions. We asked: Would he step down if pressured by the President over monetary policy?

We asked: Would he resist efforts to manipulate the composition or decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee?

We asked: Would he clearly reject political pressure on reserve bank leadership?

And over and over, Mr. Warsh refused to give direct answers.

I believe Americans deserve clarity about whether Mr. Warsh is committed to standing up for the Fed at a time of unprecedented attacks and political pressure from the White House.

And based on his record and his flip-flops and his answers to the Senate Banking Committee, I remain unconvinced. I hope, if confirmed, he proves my concerns wrong. I hope he does act independently, and I hope he makes decisions based on facts and evidence, even when those decisions conflict with the President's preferences.

But on the record before us today, I cannot support this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 386, S.J. Res. 130.

Mr. President, colleagues, overdraft fees are among the most abusive junk fees in our financial system. The average overdraft

is only $26 and is usually repaid within a few days, but many large banks charge $35 a fee per overdraft. That works out to an annual percentage of about more than 16,000 percent.

So I want you to imagine that you are walking into a 7-Eleven. You are a little short on cash. You want to buy a cup of coffee. You go to the ATM machine. You take out 50 bucks. You buy a $2.50 cup of coffee, but it costs you about $40; and you don't even know it because the bank doesn't tell you.

And then the next day you go to buy some groceries. This time you use your debit card, and they charge you another 35 bucks and don't tell you you have overdrawn.

Well, these fees fall hardest on families living paycheck to paycheck. Federal law requires that these banks can charge an overdraft fee on these withdrawals only if consumers opt in--if they opt in. But many financial institutions use deceptive tricks and confusing fine print to get consumers to enter into these programs and then do not inform them of the costs. And banks not that long ago made about $30 billion in one year from these overdraft fees.

So in 2024, the CFPB issued guidelines requiring banks to show proof that one of our constituents--one of our consumers--actually opted in, and that is what the Trump administration got rid of. They got rid of the enforcement mechanism that prevents our consumers from being gouged.

I know a 35-buck fee is a drop in the bucket for Trump and his billionaire buddies. I know he is focused on his billion-dollar ballroom, but we need to focus on our constituents.

And I will close with this. Just yesterday, President Trump said:

I don't think about Americans' financial situation.

Well, when they got rid of this rule, he proved he did not care about the financial situation of people living paycheck to paycheck. We should care. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

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

Vote on Motion to Proceed