Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true patriot, a dedicated public servant, and a lifelong defender of the United States: Major General Arthur Holmes.

Major General Holmes celebrates his 95th birthday this month. As such, I would like to honor his distinguished career of service to the United States. Major General Holmes was a founding member of my U.S. Service Academy Advisory Board and served over 20 years as its leader. In that capacity, he played a key role in advising me on the nominations of the young men and women who will enter the service academies and become the future military leaders of our Armed Forces. Major General Holmes carried out his duties with thoughtfulness, integrity, and a deep understanding of the qualities that are required to serve our country in this significant way. I am grateful to him for his two decades of service on my advisory board.

Our country owes Major General Holmes immense thanks for his devoted service to our community and Nation in a myriad of ways.

Arthur Holmes, Jr., was born on May 12, 1931, in Decatur, AL. He earned his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Hampton University and his master's degree in business administration from Kent State University in Ohio. Major General Holmes is also a graduate of the Naval War College.

Major General Holmes began his military career through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Program and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1952. He served in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, holding various positions, including maintenance battalion commander, member of the Logistics Directorate for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and chief of ordnance branch at the U.S. Army Personnel Center. Major General Holmes made history as the first combat service support officer to serve as executive officer to the Secretary to the Army. Holmes later commanded the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command. He retired as a commanding general, earning the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Distinguished Service Medal.

Major General Holmes also contributed 12 years of tremendous service to Maryland's Montgomery County. He served as the director of Go Montgomery!--an agency dedicated to implementing the county's master transportation plan--before assuming the role as director for the department of transportation. Notably, he worked to significantly improve transportation infrastructure surrounding Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005.

In all his endeavors, Major General Holmes has been continually strengthened by the faithful partnership of his wife Wilma Holmes, with whom he has enjoyed 47 years of marriage. He is also supported by his daughters Deborah Cook and Sharon Key; his stepdaughters Sharon and Ricki Fairley; and six loving grandchildren--all of whom are his pride and joy.

In short, Major General Arthur Holmes is an American hero. I am honored to call him not only my constituent but also my friend, and I am truly grateful for all that he has done to make a difference in our community and in our Nation. I had the privilege of his leadership on my academy advisory board, and I know that his contributions will continue to guide the board in the years to come. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking this outstanding American for all that he has done for our country.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator Schiff's War Powers Resolution to end President Trump's illegal war against Iran.

Let's begin with a simple fact. We are now over 60 days into this illegal war. The war was started on February 28. A few days later, on March 2, President Trump and his administration submitted the notice to Congress. So even if you take the date of submission, tomorrow will be the 60 days. Of course, we don't want to create incentives for any administration to delay the submission of the notice. So the clock has run. But let's just be clear. Accepting their view of the world, tomorrow will be the 60th day--60 days since President Trump, together with Prime Minister Netanyahu, started this war against Iran--a war started without congressional authorization, without articulating any clear American interest, and without telling the American people the truth about what this war would cost.

This war is making Americans less safe, and we are worse off because of it. The American people know that, which is why they overwhelmingly oppose this war and they want to see us bring it to an end now. Yet here we are over 60 days later. Fourteen American soldiers have been killed, hundreds of American troops wounded, thousands of civilians in the region killed, and at least $25 billion of taxpayer money already burned. We face even more regional instability in an already volatile part of the world. And we have an administration that cannot explain what it is they are trying to achieve. They can't explain it today. They couldn't explain it the day they started the war.

In fact, over the last few weeks, President Trump has repeatedly pledged that the war would be resolved ``quickly''--a promise he has made and then broken many times.

In fact, you may recall, colleagues, it was over a month ago that President Trump declared that we had won. He said: ``We won.''

Well, if we won, what the hell are we doing there? And the reality is we haven't won anything. Negotiations to

end it are off again. Then they are on. Then they are off.

Of course, a big part of these negotiations is about reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open the day before this war started. And now, reportedly, the President is preparing for an extended blockade of Iran, prolonging a conflict that has already driven up prices daily in the United States.

We just saw that average gasoline prices have reached a 4-year high in the United States. He has also kept American servicemembers deployed overseas for recordbreaking periods and expended a huge amount of munitions, creating shortages in our supplies elsewhere.

So what is the plan? What is the plan? Just to pursue an open-ended blockade, costing taxpayers billions of dollars--in fact, $1 billion a day--and further jeopardizing the global economy, offering no clear path to ending the war?

Sometimes, President Trump says that this war was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Well, this is the President who tore up the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, that was negotiated by President Obama, which kept Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and had probably the most intrusive inspection regime in arms control history.

And last year, before President Trump started this war, his own DNI said that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. And, of course, after the military operations, in June of last year, against Iran's nuclear program, President Trump told the country that Iran's nuclear program was ``obliterated.''

I also think it is worth reminding people what Citizen Trump said back in 2011 because it is revealing as to the President's mindset. We know that this President often engages in projection. Here is what he said, back in 2011, about then-President Obama. He said:

Our President will start a war with Iran because he has

absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's

ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to

get reelected--and as sure as you're sitting there--is to

start a war with Iran.

Citizen Trump back in 2011 about President Obama.

Well, President Obama negotiated an agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. President Trump, in his first term, tore it up.

But here is Donald Trump, essentially telling us what he thinks. Obviously, Donald Trump couldn't negotiate a deal with Iran, and so he started a war with Iran, exactly what he was claiming that President Obama would do, because he claimed President Obama didn't have the skills to negotiate an agreement to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

So here we are. Just to recap, the President started a war to stop what he had called an ``obliterated'' nuclear program and to reopen an international waterway that was open before he started the war. And since he started this war, along with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the justifications have been inconsistent and ever-changing, zigzagging here and there.

But the results are clear, which is that President Trump has led this country into a complete strategic mess, with no end in sight, and ever- rising costs that Americans have to bear, both in tax dollars expended and in higher prices at the pump and elsewhere.

And the reason for so many weeks that this administration refused to have one of their decisionmakers testify in front of Congress was because what he heard behind closed doors revealed that there was no plan and no endgame.

Now, in the last 2 days, we are hearing, finally, from Secretary Hegseth, and the American people can see in plain view that they have no plan. And yet this is the Secretary of the administration that is now asking this Congress to provide a $1.5 trillion defense budget.

They just want to blow the roof off of the budget. And, of course, this is a Pentagon and Defense Department that have been unable to meet an audit.

So what are we going to do at this point? We have got $25 billion gone. In fact, many people think that is a lowball estimate. But the reality is that we could put that money to much better use.

We could use it to help our fellow Americans. But, no, Donald Trump said: We can't do that. We don't have the resources for that because we need the resources for this war--a war he said he would never start. In fact, what he said is--and I am quoting:

It's not possible for us to take care of day care, [and]

Medicaid, [and] Medicare, all these individual things

[because] we're fighting wars.

The wars he said he would never start.

Well, maybe higher gas prices don't matter much to President Trump and his billionaire buddies and the biggest billionaire Cabinet in American history by far. Maybe they don't care about higher gas prices. But, I can tell you, Americans who are going to fuel their cars at the pump, they care. They are the ones bearing the burden here in America of this illegal Trump war.

And we also know that we are burning through our munitions at a very rapid rate, munitions that should have been reserved for real national emergencies that we might face elsewhere in the world.

We also heard something very disturbing again from Secretary Hegseth, when he testified in the House yesterday, which is his utter contempt-- his utter contempt--for the guardrails we put in place to prevent civilian harm in war. That is why I led nearly the entire Democratic caucus, a few weeks ago, in demanding answers and accountability on the U.S. airstrike that hit an elementary school in Iran, killing over 175 people, most of them children.

But Secretary Hegseth, he is dismissive of all of these concerns. In fact, he said that the rules of engagement were ``stupid''--rules designed to prevent innocent people from getting killed in war.

He should never have been nominated. He should never have been confirmed, and he should be relieved of duty today.

And how can we trust an administration with additional funds when they so brazenly say they don't want to comply with rules designed to prevent civilian harm which, in the long run, are also designed to help protect the lives of our troops?

And yet they are asking for more money and more resources, and all without any congressional authorization to go into this war.

Now, I want to just say something about the War Powers Resolution here because, as I cited at the top of my remarks, we are now 60 days into this war, yesterday, or if we accept the administration's interpretation, tomorrow--60 days.

Now, under the War Powers Resolution, the President doesn't have the authority to start a war and fight a war for 2 days, 3 days, 4 days-- let alone 60 days. But that is what President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu did. They started the war.

The idea behind the War Powers Resolution is, if the United States faces an imminent threat that requires the President to engage in hostilities overseas, that we will have a clock to make sure that Congress, as representatives of the American people and given the power in the Constitution to declare war, has time to consider and debate. And it says you have 60 days, even if you are fighting a war that somebody else started.

So we are hearing that the Trump administration--the President--may exercise the ability under the War Powers Resolution for another 30 days, on top of the 60 days. So that gives you 90 days.

But here is the thing. The War Powers Resolution is very clear. That additional 30 days is not to ramp up a war. It is to ramp down a war. It is to bring American troops who are in hostility safely home. And yet here we are, around the 60th day, and President Trump, reportedly, is contemplating upping the tempo of the war, increasing strikes against Iran.

That is a gross violation even of my Republican Senate colleagues' interpretation of the War Powers Act. Are they going to sit here and say nothing and do nothing while the President blatantly violates the War Powers Resolution? So far, they have been silent as he violated the constitutional requirement that only the Congress can declare war.

But even if you adopt the world view that some of my Senate colleagues have expressed, the plain reading of the War Powers Resolution says: The next 30 days have to be used to wind down hostilities.

Now, I understand that Secretary Hegseth, today, in the Armed Services Committee here in the Senate, said: Well, we are now in a cease-fire. So the clock was paused. It is not ticking.

What a pile of nonsense. Here we have a full-on blockade, which we know is an active war, and the Secretary of Defense, who clearly just makes things up as he goes, is arguing that that somehow paused the statute.

I hope my Republican Senate colleagues have the self-respect not to buy into that ridiculous interpretation of the law. But that is apparently the lie that the Secretary of Defense is trying to perpetrate as we speak.

So let's be honest with the American people. We have a situation where the President, along with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, started a war against Iran. There was no imminent threat. They started it, and they did it without any congressional authorization.

In fact, our colleagues here won't put forward a resolution to authorize the use of force. It would be great to see people take that kind of accountability. If you support the President's action, put forward an authorization for the use of military force--not a peep about that.

But now, we have an actual statute that has already passed, the War Powers Resolution, which even the interpretation of Senate Republicans requires the President of the United States to spend the next 30 days winding down this war, not stepping up this war.

So really, colleagues, you should level with the American people. We have a President who promised to keep us out of wars. We have a President who said he was going to bring down prices.

He has done the exact opposite. He started wars. Prices are going up. Americans have been killed. Americans have been wounded. Thousands of civilians have been killed, thousands more wounded. And we are less safe and worse off.

When you are digging a hole, stop digging.

Vote for this War Powers Resolution, and let's put an end to this illegal war.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize David S. Schless, a strong advocate, leader, and Marylander who has dedicated his career to caring for others with a true passion for helping our Nation's seniors.

Mr. Schless discovered his interests in gerontology and related policy at an early age and earned his bachelor of science degree from the Center for Aging and Human Development at the University of Connecticut. He then went on to earn a master of science degree from the Department of Applied Gerontology/Center for Studies in Aging at the University of North Texas.

Mr. Schless has been president and chief executive officer of the American Seniors Housing Association, ASHA, since its inception in 1991. He has tirelessly pursued a comprehensive approach to senior living and care. He helped launch the senior housing industry's first- ever consumer education initiative ``Where You Live Matters,'' which supports seniors and their families in identifying ideal housing and care options. Under Mr. Schless' leadership, ASHA membership has grown to over 500 owners, operators, and developers of senior living and their support providers.

A devoted philanthropist, Mr. Schless has led ASHA in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. Since 2014, ASHA has worked to support expanded care and support for those affected by Alzheimer's and other dementias, along with research in risk reduction and early detection.

Mr. Schless resides in Rockville, MD, with his wife Sue Schless and their two children Ethan and MacKenzie. He is a member of the advisory board of the Cornell Institute for Healthy Futures and the Granger Cobb Institute for Senior Living at Washington State University. Mr. Schless is also a member of the advisory council of the Vision Centre, which seeks to grow academic programming focused on senior living leadership.

I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Schless' incomparable efforts to secure accessible, affordable, and diverse housing options for our seniors, an end to Alzheimer's, and a stronger future for all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this War Powers Resolution to make clear that the United States will not be dragged into yet another conflict, this time with Cuba--a conflict that would not serve American interests and does not have authorization from this U.S. Congress.

Americans are already paying the price for President Trump's illegal war against Iran--a war that has no end in sight, a war that is making us less safe and worse off. And, of course, before the war in Iran, we saw Trump's illegal act of war against Venezuela, where he put our troops in danger in order to grab Venezuela's oil for his billionaire buddies. The administration continues to carry out illegal, monthslong boat strikes in international waters, which have killed at least 185 people since September. Now President Trump has also floated the idea of using force against our allies, like his scheme to seize Greenland, which, of course, is part of Denmark, which is part of the NATO alliance. And the list goes on and on and on.

Our Constitution is explicit: The power to declare war rests with Congress--with the Senate and with the House--not with the President of the United States. Yet we are once again confronted with a situation where Trump appears ready to tear up our Constitution--a Constitution when he was once asked whether he had to abide by, he said: I don't know. And we are seeing that mindset in action every day.

We have seen deeply alarming rhetoric and actions from the administration when it comes to Cuba. What began as economic warfare has now edged into open discussions of military intervention. President Trump himself has said:

Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I

can do anything I want with it.

But we all know that Cuba is not property to be acquired by Donald Trump, and military force is not supposed to be a tool for Presidential impulse or political theater. And no President--no President--has the legal authority to unilaterally send American troops into conflict starting a war. But Trump has shown again and again that he thinks he is above the law and above the Constitution.

Many of us just joined the King of England, King Charles, where he talked about the Magna Carta and checks and balances. This President of the United States thinks he is a King and thinks he is not bound by checks and balances. Any of our colleagues who aid and abet him are complicit in undermining the Constitution of the United States--one that he has shown disdain for time and again.

To understand why we are here, we need to look at the choices this administration and previous administrations have made and the consequences that have followed.

President Trump's current policy on Cuba is not a total aberration; it is him and Secretary Rubio doubling down and putting on steroids over 65 years of a failed, bankrupt policy.

Since 1960, Republicans and Democratic administrations alike have pursued a policy of isolation and economic pressure and strangulation toward Cuba. After 6\1/2\ decades, the promise of political change still has not been realized.

You would think that when you keep doing something and don't get the result you want, you would do something different. Instead, we see the Trump administration doubling down and putting their foot on the gas of failed policies.

I recall that under President Biden, the United States began to turn the tide. It began to take some positive steps. The Obama administration restored diplomatic relations, expanded travel, and made an effort to engage with Cuba in a way that had not been done in decades.

I had a chance to see this newfound diplomacy up close. My first trip to Cuba was to visit an American called Alan Gross. He was part of an international development contractor with USAID, and he was a constituent of mine in Maryland.

He was imprisoned by the Cuban Government for 5 years. I worked closely with the Obama administration to help secure his release and joined the bipartisan delegation that included Senator Leahy and Senator Flake at the time that ultimately brought Alan Gross home in 2014.

That breakthrough played a role in opening the door to a new chapter in U.S.-Cuban relations. At the time, we began to see some shoots of real progress and liberalization in the Cuban economy. The problems at hand were, of course, not solved overnight, but the light at the end of the tunnel was beginning to look bright, and it was clear that this new approach had real potential. But that chapter was short-lived, as President Trump in his first term reversed course, reimposing strict travel restrictions and tightening sanctions--back to the failed playbook of over 60 years.

A diplomatic relationship cannot be repaired overnight--especially with two countries with decades of fraught history like the United States and Cuba--and the Biden administration failed to take meaningful steps to get us back on the course that the Obama administration had taken us, which brings us to where we are today, with the Trump administration not only reverting to their first-term policies but doubling down on this hostile, ineffective, and proven failure of an approach.

The Trump administration has pursued an aggressive pressure campaign against Cuba: tightening restrictions, cutting off critical fuel supplies, and effectively imposing an oil blockade on the island--an oil blockade that is exhausting the country's supply of fuel, restricting both travel and daily life within the country while also crippling the Nation's healthcare system, resulting in preventable deaths. Here is a headline from the March 26 New York Times. It reads ``Cuban Patients Are Dying Because of U.S. Blockade, Doctors Say.''

The stated goal was to force political change in Havana, but months into the Trump administration's belligerent approach, it is clear they have not begun to achieve the intended result. Again, same old policy, no better results--in fact, worse. The Cuban authoritarian government remains fully in control. Instead, what we are seeing is the rapid deterioration of conditions for the people of Cuba.

Across the island, families are living through prolonged blackouts and an energy crisis that has crippled infrastructure across the island. Without sufficient fuel, hospitals cannot function properly, schools and businesses are forced to close, and families are left to navigate daily life without the most basic necessities.

The only change--the only change--that the United States has succeeded in forcing upon Cuba is a humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people, because of Trump and Rubio's reckless blockade that is punishing the Cuban people, not the Cuban regime.

We have seen this approach before. We have seen it for 60 years. We know how it ends. The longer we continue down this path, the more severe the consequences will become--not for those in power but for the millions of people caught in the middle.

That should force all of us to ask a critical question: What exactly is the Trump-Rubio strategy here?

We see they don't have a strategy in Iran, and they clearly don't have a strategy here, because if the goal is to support the Cuban people, then it is failing--failing, failing, failing--because what we are seeing is yet another policy built on the assumption that maximum pressure will produce quick political change. Instead, it has produced maximum citizen and civilian suffering with minimal results.

Now, instead of reconsidering this failed approach, the administration appears to be considering an even more dangerous step-- that of military escalation. Of course we want democracy and fundamental freedoms for the people of Cuba, but we have seen over decades that economic strangulation does not work, and we have learned the hard way in Afghanistan and now Iran that bombs don't turn dictatorships into democracies. Yet here we are with reports that the administration is considering yet another war that is not in this country's interest.

Americans are asking for stability. They are asking for lower costs. The idea of launching another illegal, costly, regime-change war is completely out of step with what their hopes and aspirations are. Yet that is what this administration is pursuing even though Candidate Trump promised he would focus on bringing down prices and keeping us out of war.

The American people are already bearing significant costs of the war in Iran--lives lost, treasure expended, making us less safe--and all of this not authorized by this Congress. And now, instead of bringing that conflict to an end, this administration is signaling it may open the door to yet another one in Cuba.

We have to ask what gets crowded out when we have a President and a White House that are focused on getting Americans into war rather than on the economic well-being of the American people.

We have a responsibility here to the American people to represent them and to act in their interests. And decisions of war and peace, whether it is Iran or Cuba or anywhere else, must be made with the involvement of the representatives of the American people. That is not just my sentiment; that is what is in the Constitution of the United States.

So we have the opportunity today to get ahead of another bad decision by the Trump administration, another bad decision to drag us into an illegal war, and to do it now before that conflict begins instead of hoping we can end it once the fuse is lit. In fact, it is our duty--it is our duty--to uphold the Constitution and make clear that we will do our jobs here in the U.S. Senate.

So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to uphold our constitutional responsibilities and to vote in favor of this War Powers Resolution.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we gather here, prices and costs around the country are going up and up and up. The cost of gas is going up. Electric bills are going up. The price of groceries is going up. The costs of rent and mortgages are up. Childcare costs are up, and the list goes on and on. So rising costs and prices are clearly on the minds of the American people as they try to make ends meet.

Dealing with those costs should be a priority for this Congress, but in this bill, Senate Republicans are telling the country--telling our fellow Americans--that rising costs and affordability are not their problem, are not their priority.

Budgets always tell us a lot about what the President and the Congress think is important, and the budget reconciliation process that Republicans are using right now specifically tells us a lot about what the Senate majority's priorities are. It tells us what, in this moment, Senate Republicans are focused on.

That is because it is a special procedure that allows the majority party--in this case, the Republican Party--to pass something without a single vote from the minority party. The Senate Republicans are preparing to pass this without any Democratic vote. You can only do this once per fiscal year. So it is reserved for the biggest goals, the top priorities, the things that the majority party--the Senate Republicans--thinks are the most important, the things it wants to become law.

When the Democrats were last in the majority, we used the budget reconciliation process as well. We used it to pass the Inflation Reduction Act. That allowed us to require Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. We used it to cap the price of insulin for seniors. We used it to accelerate the deployment of clean energy to create good-paying jobs and to expand Affordable Care Act tax credits to make healthcare more affordable for millions and millions of our fellow Americans. That is what we used it for. In fact, it was those Affordable Care Act tax credits that Republicans allowed to expire at the end of last year.

So, last year, Republicans passed a reconciliation bill as well. They called it their Big Beautiful Bill. Well, it was beautiful if you were a billionaire, but it was pretty much a big betrayal for everyone else. It provided permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, and it was in that bill that Senate Republicans and the President allowed the Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire, causing premiums to go up for 22 million of our fellow Americans. In fact, they went up so high that 4 million Americans lost their coverage altogether. But in that bill, wherein tax credits for working Americans to better afford healthcare were not extended, Republicans and President Trump provided big, permanent tax cuts for the rich.

I want colleagues to focus on this chart for a moment because it tells you exactly what the tax priorities were in the Republicans' reconciliation bill from last year.

As I said, it was a Big Beautiful Bill if you were a billionaire. As you can

see, 72 percent of the tax benefits went to the richest 20 percent of the American people--72 percent of the tax benefits went to the top 20 percent. In fact, it gets even more skewed than that. If you zero in more closely with a magnifying glass, 22 percent of the total tax benefits went to the top 1 percent--the richest Americans. That is what Republicans did in their so-called Big Beautiful Bill. That is why I say it was beautiful if you were a billionaire. We know that it was skewed in that direction not only by the numbers but because Republicans chose to make the tax cuts for billionaires and the very rich permanent. Those go on forever.

I asked the Director of the President's Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, about this phenomenon in a hearing just last week. He conceded that the bill last year, the reconciliation bill, provided permanent tax cuts for the very rich, and he conceded that the tax cuts and benefits for everybody else, which are much smaller as a proportion of the whole, were made temporary. For example, the ``no tax on tips'' provision will expire at the end of 2028. Smaller tax cuts for working people--temporary. Big tax cuts for wealthy Americans--permanent. They have admitted to it. That was a choice that was made by Republicans as part of that bill.

That is why I introduced an alternative, the Working Americans' Tax Cut Act, which provides 100 percent of its tax benefits not to the richest 20 percent but to the 80 percent of American taxpayers who are working hard--paycheck to paycheck--to make ends meet for themselves and their families.

Now, the Trump tax plan that he worked on and passed with Republicans not only provided very wealthy individuals with these big tax cuts but also big profitable corporations. In fact, the changes that were made by President Trump and Republicans have enabled 88 of the largest corporations in America to pay no--zero--Federal income taxes, despite having more than $100 billion in total profits among them. At the same time that these huge tax cuts were given to big corporations and the very wealthy, Republicans cut by $1 trillion our investments in health and nutrition programs for our fellow Americans. By the way, all told, it adds $4 trillion to our national debt.

There was another major part of that bill that Republicans passed last year with the President, and it was a massive slush fund for their mass deportation agenda. They put in that bill $140 billion for ICE and CBP. So, just for comparison's sake, for ICE, that was seven times their previous annual appropriation. They stuffed that into that one so-called Big Beautiful Bill. You know, that is as much money as many countries spend on their militaries in a year.

The results have been predictable--a bloated, unaccountable Agency that is not focused on deporting the ``worst of the worst,'' as the President said he would do, but that goes into communities and indiscriminately abducts people, ships them around the country, and then tries to deport them. Overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--they are people with no criminal records who, according to DHS' own data, pose no risk to our communities: small business owners, pastors, veterans, parents taking their kids to school, even children.

When the American people rose up against these brutal policies and exercised their right to protest, when they took to the streets to exercise their First Amendment rights and to take pictures of what ICE agents were doing, we saw in Minneapolis two American citizens shot and killed--a mom, Renee Good, who was killed as she tried to drive away from ICE agents who were aggressively approaching her car, and a VA nurse Alex Pretti, who was killed when he stopped to help a fellow observer. He was shot in the back by CBP agents.

And the Trump administration--what was their response? They called the victims--they called Renee Good and Alex Pretti--domestic terrorists.

That is the mindset of this out-of-control, lawless ICE operation.

Well, my constituents in Maryland and Americans across the country have been horrified by these actions. They said it has to stop, and it needs to stop. These Agencies need to be held accountable. They need to be reined in. We need independent investigations.

So Democrats put forward some pretty straightforward proposed reforms: require Federal agents to show identification, take off the masks that allow them to evade accountability. Our local police officers don't wear masks. Our local police officers provide identification.

We also said: You have got to cooperate with State and local law enforcement investigating these incidents. When you have an administration calling the victims domestic terrorists, it is hard to trust the outcome of an administration that is doing the investigation. We want the local and State law enforcement authorities involved.

And our list of reforms went on, but they were rejected by Republicans and rejected by the White House. They didn't want meaningful reforms. They wanted to keep the blank check going.

And so then Democrats proposed that: OK, let's set aside ICE and CBP, and let's negotiate those, but let's immediately fund other parts of the Department of Homeland Security, like TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard. We were resisted for a very long time, and then finally Senate Republicans agreed. There was no reason to hold TSA, for example, hostage to an out-of-control ICE operation. So we passed that out of the U.S. Senate, allowing those other entities to get funding.

But what happened in the Republican-controlled House? Speaker Johnson refused to even let it come to a vote.

And so here we are, and Republicans are putting forward their reconciliation bill for this fiscal year. Their top priority? At this moment, when Americans are seeing their bills go up, their costs rise, when American families have had to absorb the huge increases as a result of Trump's illegal, unconstitutional tariff taxes--which is estimated, on average, to cost American families $1,700 a year. By the way, the President should give those families their money back, and do it now.

But as all of these costs are rising, Republicans here in Congress have decided to focus, instead, not on affordability but on using this special, rare process to do something else: to add to the slush fund for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. And they are doing it in a way that doesn't require any Democratic votes. So this is Republicans only, so that is how we know that this is their top priority.

And, by the way, they are wasting a ton of taxpayer money in the process--a lot of taxpayer money--on these warehouses that they are buying up around the country to retrofit for detention centers, often paying way over market value. In my State of Maryland, they have spent $102 million to buy a warehouse in Western Maryland to turn into a detention center. They did so without adequate notice, without consultation with the community, and it is going to put strains on local water supplies and sewage capacity.

That warehouse project has been halted by a judge and is now being reconsidered by DHS, but $100 million of taxpayer money, already wasted.

I don't think any of us are surprised by the priorities that have been put forward by the Trump administration and now with Republicans in Congress because it was right down the hall here that Donald Trump was sworn in, and he promised a golden age for America, for Americans. Well, he has been delivering a golden age--a Gilded Age--for his billionaire buddies.

And despite what he said during his campaign when he said he was going to stop wars and bring down prices, he has started wars. Prices are going up. He is focused on building a gold-plated ballroom in the White House and new monuments to himself. He is focused on hiding portions of the Epstein files from survivors and the American people. He has been busy lying to the American people time and time again, telling them that prices are going down and the world is more peaceful and everybody is doing just great.

He wants everybody to believe the dear leader; and, unfortunately, if you look at a Cabinet meeting these days, you can see all the Cabinet officials--the most billionaire-filled Cabinet in history--nodding along.

But we can do better than that, and we should do better than that. We should listen to the concerns being expressed by people all over the country, and we should focus on bringing costs down and letting people have and keep

a little bit more of their hard-earned money--working people, not mostly the billionaires.

Instead, we see this effort by Republicans simply to fatten an Agency that is out of control, engaged in lawless activity, instead of what is important to the American people.

So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose--to strongly oppose--this reconciliation bill, which is simply an effort to stuff an illegal Agency like ICE at the expense of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. James McArthur ``Mack'' Alsobrooks. Mr. Alsobrooks was a beloved husband, father, neighbor, and friend who centered kindness and faith in all that he did.

Mr. Alsobrooks was born on January 24, 1948, in Wadesboro, NC, to Adam Willis Alsobrooks and Sarah Daisy (nee Tillman) Alsobrooks. The eldest of three children, he stepped into his role as big brother with ease. He was a product of the District of Columbia Public Schools system, having attended Charles Young Elementary School, Brown Junior High School, and Spingarn High School. He continued to pursue his appetite for knowledge with the help of his teachers, including his music teacher, Roberta Flack.

On December 6, 1969, Mr. Alsobrooks married Patricia Ann Thompson. They raised their incredible daughters, Kimberly Patrice and Angela DeNeece in Suitland, Prince George's County, MD. Mr. Alsobrooks' daughters were the light of his life, and he sacrificed endlessly to provide them with the opportunity to chase their dreams. He was always their fiercest supporter and was able to stand by his daughter, our colleague, as she was sworn into the U.S. Senate. I saw him beaming with pride that day.

Mr. Alsobrooks applied his deep belief in humanity to every aspect of his life. He cofounded the Alliance of Concerned Men, an organization committed to interrupting cycles of violence and pursuing community healing. Through his church, he participated in a program to counsel, support, and uplift young men. He also served on the Prince George's County Commission on Fathers, Men, and Boys, where he advocated for policies and programs that empower men across generations.

Mr. Alsobrooks was also a man of profound faith and a lifelong member of the church. He worshipped with the Ebenezer AME Church in Fort Washington, MD, for over four decades.

The outpouring of love from friends, family, and community members since Mr. Alsobrooks' passing is a testament to the kind of life he lived, one filled with joy, devotion, and an uncompromising belief in humanity. He will always be remembered for his wit, his empathy, and his love for a good game of pool.

He is survived by his beloved wife Patricia; his daughters Kimberly and Angela; his adored granddaughter Alexandra; his sisters Carol and Barbara; his nephew Aaron; his godson Avery; and many dear family members and friends--all of whom will carry his legacy forward.

I invite my fellow Members to join me in offering our sincere condolences to our colleague Senator Alsobrooks and to her family.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for his powerful words, and I, too, rise in support of this War Powers Resolution put forward by our colleague Senator Duckworth, who knows a thing or two about the costs of war.

This is a resolution to halt President Trump's unjustified, illegal war against Iran--a war that the overwhelming majority of American people want to see end; a war that this Congress never authorized and where we have never had a hearing from a Trump administration decisionmaker about the war; a war that was started by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu that has made us less--not more--safe; and a war that has made us much worse off, not better off.

We have lost 13 American servicemembers. Hundreds more have been wounded. Thousands of civilians, innocent civilians, have been killed throughout the region.

And the sacrifice of our servicemembers deserves more respect than the President casually remarking that ``[s]adly, there will likely be more. . . . That's the way it is.'' That is what President Trump said.

Well, that is not the way it is, and it is not the way it should be, and it is not the way an American President should talk about our troops. We must not and cannot normalize President Trump's reckless actions that have brought us to this point.

The costs of this war are mounting. We just saw it today: The President intends to send thousands more troops to the Middle East-- 6,000 as part of a naval deployment and thousands more to come later.

This war has already cost us, in addition to lives, $52 billion--$52 billion--and another billion dollars every day from the American taxpayers. On top of that, on top of what taxpayers will be shelling out, we are seeing Americans struggle with rising prices: gas prices, oil prices. Of course, when you have rising gas and oil prices, it drives up prices on everything else, like fertilizers that our farmers need as we go into the season of growing. And all this coming from the President who promised that he would focus on lowering prices and ending wars. He promised the American people he would be ``a peacemaker,'' and he is a warmonger. He lied, and because of his lies, people are dying.

Now the President wants to put even more lives at risk to open the Strait of Hormuz. We should all remind our fellow Americans that the Strait of Hormuz was open before the President started this war. It was open before the President started this war, and now the President's main goal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The President also said the other day that we achieved regime change. He just didn't tell the American people that when he knocked off some of the top Iranian leaders--the ayatollahs--they were replaced by an even more militant and even more radical regime. That is the President's definition of ``regime change.''

Now, the President likes to claim periodically that we won. In fact, more than 3 weeks ago, the President of the United States said ``We won,'' the United States won. He said that a few days ago. The President said ``We won.''

My question for my Republican colleagues is, If we won, what the hell are we still doing there? If we won, why are we still there? Why are we still putting American lives at risk? Why are we spending a billion dollars of taxpayer money a day if we won?

Well, we didn't win. And it is impossible to measure how you win because the President never set forth clear rationales for this war because there wasn't really one to be had. And certainly they have advanced no endgame, like what does it mean for him to win the war that he already said that he won.

So we know from the President's own words that there is no clear endgame here, and it is clear every day that this war is not in the interests of the American people.

Now, we have seen from President Trump not strength or leadership. What we have seen is recklessness. Now we in the Senate should apply some brakes and accountability. We have seen a President threatening massive war crimes in the name of the American people, threatening to end a civilization.

Colleagues, this is a time for sober and serious American leadership, and Donald Trump is not a serious leader.

In addition to threatening to end a civilization, he has attacked the Pope because the Pope seeks peace. He has posted an image of himself as Jesus Christ. This is the man in the White House who is running this war. He is putting American lives at risk and endangering people throughout the world, and he is simply not fit to be Commander in Chief.

So all of this without the consent of the American people. That is where Congress is supposed to come in.

So when the Presiding Officer is looking at a President of the United States who is so unhinged, how is it that we can only find one Republican Senator, Senator Rand Paul--how is it that we can only find one to stand up for the Constitution and against this President who clearly is not following the will of the American people, a President who took us into an illegal war that is making us less safe and worse off? That is our job. That is our job, and this Senate keeps ducking its responsibility.

This resolution put forward by Senator Duckworth is another opportunity for our Republican colleagues to show that they are going to exercise their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States. We will keep offering War Powers Resolutions so the American people know that we are working every day to end this war which they want to see come to a close. Maybe we can begin that process today.

I thank Senator Duckworth for offering this resolution and really urge my colleagues to search their souls and talk to their constituents and vote yes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the two resolutions offered by my colleague Senator Sanders that would bar the transfer of certain offensive weapons and equipment to the Netanyahu government.

Specifically, these resolutions would block the transfer of 12,000 1,000-pound bombs and 132 armored bulldozers, valued at more than $446 million and funded entirely by American taxpayers.

We cannot continue to provide a blank check to the Netanyahu government as it continues to use U.S. weapons in violation of U.S. and international law.

As I have long said, Israel was justified in its war against Hamas after the horrific attack of October 7, 2023. But the Netanyahu government is not justified in imposing collective punishment on all the people of Gaza.

As Senator Merkley and I wrote in our report after traveling to the region in August 2025, ``The Netanyahu Government is Implementing a Plan to Ethnically Cleanse Gaza of Palestinians. America is Complicit.''

And now, as Senator Sanders indicated, Israeli leaders are saying out loud they plan to apply the same plans in southern Lebanon as they implemented in Gaza.

Senator Sanders mentioned threatening what they did in Khan Yunis. As recently as March 31, Israeli Defense Minister Katz said:

All homes in Lebanese villages near the border will be

destroyed--in accordance with the Rafah and Beit Hanoun model

in Gaza.

Well, colleagues, I visited Gaza. I visited the Gaza crossing--the Rafah crossing--twice, along with my colleague Senator Merkley, first in January 2024, when Gaza's population had quadrupled from prewar levels to more than 1 million people who had been displaced within Gaza, from northern Gaza.

And then we traveled to the Rafah crossing, in August 2025, after the IDF's offensive against Rafah, one that the Biden administration claimed that they tried to stop. And on that visit, Senator Merkley and I climbed a rooftop, and you could look into Rafah--obliterated, reduced to absolute rubble.

And as we were told by former IDF soldiers--eyewitnesses who had the courage to speak with us--Israel has systematically dismantled essential infrastructure and brought near-total destruction of civilian sites throughout Gaza, including through the use of these bulldozers and 1,000-pound bombs. And now the Israeli Minister of Defense says they are going to do the same thing in southern Lebanon.

And, indeed, since the war in Lebanon restarted, Israeli forces have killed over 2,000 people, including 250 people in 10 minutes, the day after the cease-fire was announced. Entire villages have been destroyed and over 1.1 million people displaced.

Now, let's not forget how we got into this most recent round of destruction in the region. President Trump is fully responsible for getting America into this war, period.

But we know from Trump administration officials and public reporting how Prime Minister Netanyahu, for his own reasons, was pushing Trump to attack Iran. Indeed, he said it himself on April 11. Netanyahu boasted to the Israeli public that Israel was ``first to act because we knew what was at stake. But if I had told you a year ago that our pilots, men and women, would fly in Iran, who would have believed it?'' So said Prime Minister Netanyahu.

He went on to say:

If I had told you a year ago that the United States of

America, the strongest power in the world, would fight by our

side, shoulder to shoulder, wing to wing, for nearly 40 days

against the common enemy, who would have believed it?

And then Prime Minister Netanyahu went on to say:

All this happened because we initiated, we acted, we

attacked.

Now, those of us who have been around here a little while know that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pushing for a war with Iran for a very long time. In fact, he recently publicly acknowledged that the current U.S.-Israeli war on Iran ``allows us to do what I have been hoping to do for 40 years.''

That is what Prime Minister Netanyahu said.

I remember when Prime Minister Netanyahu actually spoke before a joint session of Congress, asking us not to support the JCPOA, which, of course, prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the current President then tore that up when he first came into office.

So Prime Minister Netanyahu had been trying to get previous Presidents to join him in attacking Iran, but no previous President was stupid enough or reckless enough to actually do it.

So here we are without facing any imminent threat, and President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu started an illegal war against Iran.

It is a gross violation of international law. Indeed, on April 2, a group of over 100 international law experts, people who actually believe in international law, which included former U.S. and U.N. officials, published an open letter stating that ``the initiation of the campaign was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter'' and that the conduct of the United States and Israeli forces in the war ``raise serious concerns about violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.'' That is on top of the illegality of initiating a war against Iran.

Look, earlier this afternoon, nearly all Democrats voted together to end Donald Trump's illegal war against Iran. Many of us have vowed that we will not support 1 taxpayer dollar to continue this war that is making us less safe and less well-loved.

Well, that commitment and determination should apply to the Trump administration and to the Netanyahu administration. We need to rein in Trump in this illegal war, and we need to rein in the Netanyahu administration in this illegal war.

Now, colleagues, I want to focus for a moment on the portion of the Sanders resolution that bans the transfer of bulldozers to the IDF. These are the bulldozers that helped raze Rafah in Gaza to the ground.

For those who don't remember, I ask them to recall the case of Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American peace activist who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to block the razing of buildings in Rafah over 20 years ago. Rachel Corrie has never gotten any justice, and her family will tell you that today.

In fact, just since January of 2022, at least nine more American citizens have been killed by extremist Israeli settlers or security forces in the West Bank. Not one of them--not one--has gotten justice, just like Rachel Corrie--no accountability.

There is no piece of equipment that has helped Israel and the Netanyahu government destroy civilian infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza and now Lebanon more than the bulldozer.

Just look at the titles of some of the reporting coming from what is happening in southern Lebanon. The Guardian title: `` `Everything is gone.' Israel destroys entire villages in Lebanon.''

And you can see it for yourself. I really encourage my colleagues just to look at the videos. Some of them have been shared by members of the Israeli military themselves. They showed controlled detonations and destruction of entire villages.

This isn't new. During the last war in Lebanon, Amnesty International documented how the Israeli military carried out extensive and deliberate destruction of civilian property across almost the entire Lebanese border with Israel, including 10,000 structures, primarily through the use of manually laid explosives and bulldozers.

In the West Bank, as we speak, we are seeing violent Israeli settlers kill Palestinian citizens with impunity. We are also seeing the use of these bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and other civilian infrastructures. Again, you can see it for yourselves in the videos.

This is all part of a slow-motion ethnic cleansing effort in the West Bank and de facto annexation of the West Bank. Indeed, the New York Times in September 2024 spoke about raids in the West Bank villages of Tulkarm and Jenin. The headline is this: ``Israeli Bulldozers Flatten Mile After Mile in the West Bank.'' In total, since the Gaza war started, Israeli authorities have demolished at least 4,900 structures in the West Bank and displaced 9,000 Palestinians there.

As this has gone on, so has settler violence, often with the complicity of the IDF. In the West Bank, over 1,000 Palestinians, including 230 children, have been killed with virtual impunity since October of 2023--with impunity. The Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din said that between 2000 and September 2025--that is a 20-year period--more than 93 percent of police investigations into settler violence in the West Bank concluded without an indictment.

So what are we going to do about this? We need to stop providing the Netanyahu government with an absolute blank check. We need to demand accountability for American citizens who have been killed there.

So I urge my colleagues now to support this resolution. If we want to rein in a Trump administration that wants an illegal war against Iran, we should also rein in the Netanyahu administration. It is doing exactly the same thing with American taxpayer dollars.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a remarkable Marylander, Dr. Mark Hallett. Dr. Hallett was a pioneer, a prolific researcher, and an unforgettable mentor. The impacts of his work will be felt for generations to come.

Dr. Hallett was born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, where he graduated high school before attending Harvard College. He then received his M.D. at Harvard Medical School and completed his internship at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston.

In 1970, Dr. Hallett began his work at the National Institutes of Health and quickly discovered his interest in motor control research. He completed his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital and his fellowship at the Institute of Psychiatry in London before returning to Peter Bent Brigham Hospital as chief of the Clinical Neurophysiology Laboratory.

Dr. Hallett later returned to NIH and created the Human Motor Control Section with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. He pioneered new methods to research human movement, motor control, and various motor disorders, and treated countless patients. He played a crucial role in the discovery of Havana Syndrome in American diplomats and successfully helped renowned pianist Leon Fleisher recover use of his hand.

For all his professional accolades, Dr. Hallett remained modest and treated everyone he encountered with dignity and respect. He served as a mentor to hundreds of researchers around the world. His leadership qualities were undeniable, earning him several influential positions, including with the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, and the American Academy of Neurology. His pioneering work has advanced the field of neurology and left an indelible mark on the way healthcare facilities treat countless illnesses and disorders.

Above all, Dr. Hallett's proudest achievement was his beautiful family, and we in the Congress have been fortunate to have the benefit of his wonderful wife Judy, an incredible researcher, brilliant historian, and storied leader whose work has defined generations of academic development. I invite my colleagues to join me in offering appreciation and condolences to Judy, his children Nicholas and Victoria, his grandchildren Celeste and Flora, and his siblings Eileen and Bruce.

Mr. President, I know we are waiting for the Senator from Nevada to come to the floor to make a few remarks, and I want to thank Senator Wyden for his remarks.

I am just looking around the floor here and thinking this would be a great time to propose a unanimous consent request that we fully fund TSA. I won't do it at this moment. I see the chairman of the Finance Committee here. But I want to make the point, Mr. President, that we could get it done right now. We could end the lines at airports around the country, we could fund TSA, we could fund FEMA, and we could fund the Coast Guard as we continue negotiations to rein in a lawless

ICE operation--an ICE operation that took the lives of two American citizens in Minneapolis; a lawless ICE operation that is not focused, as President Trump promised, on the worst of the worst; a lawless ICE operation that is trampling over people's First Amendment rights around the country and due process rights.

So as I was looking around the floor, I didn't see any Republican colleagues for a moment, and I think it is worth making the point to folks watching that we could have gotten unanimous consent to open FEMA, to open TSA, and to open the Coast Guard. That is what we should do, and we should do it now.

I see the Senator from Nevada.

I yield the floor.