Floor Statements

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill:

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

protect small businesses from increased costs incurred as a

result of duties imposed by President Trump's Tariffs.

Senators Wyden and Schatz have asked to be noted as

supportive of this amendment.

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

strike any provision that would result in the increased

likelihood of rural hospitals being forced to close, convert,

or reduce or stop providing services, including emergency

care, mental and behavioral health care, and labor and

delivery services.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

with changes that would remove the Social Security number

requirement for purposes of the Child Tax Credit.

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

make sure no monies are taken from critical access hospitals,

skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, or

certified community behavioral health centers.

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions to ensure that the bill does

not exacerbate the nationwide shortage of mental and social

health providers by making it disproportionately harder for

student loan borrowers in graduate programs in mental and

social health services and allied professions to access

financial aid.

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

strike any provision that would increase the likelihood of

rural hospitals being forced to close, convert, or reduce or

stop providing services, including emergency care, mental and

behavioral health care, and labor and delivery services in

the Northeast region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

and Vermont).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

strike any provision that would increase the likelihood of

rural hospitals being forced to close, convert, or reduce or

stop providing services, including emergency care, mental and

behavioral health care, and labor and delivery services in

the Midwest region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,

South Dakota, and Wisconsin).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

strike any provision that would increase the likelihood of

rural hospitals being forced to close, convert, or reduce or

stop providing services, including emergency care, mental and

behavioral health care, and labor and delivery services in

the South region (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas,

Virginia, the District of Columbia, and West Virginia).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

strike any provision that would increase the likelihood of

rural hospitals being forced to close, convert, or reduce or

stop providing services, including emergency care, mental and

behavioral health care, and labor and delivery services in

the West region (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,

Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

make sure no monies are taken from critical access hospitals,

skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, or

certified community behavioral health centers in the

Northeast region (Northeast region: Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

make sure no monies are taken from critical access hospitals,

skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, or

certified community behavioral health centers in the Midwest

region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and

Wisconsin).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

make sure no monies are taken from critical access hospitals,

skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, or

certified community behavioral health centers in the South

region (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, the

District of Columbia, and West Virginia).

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Finance to

make sure no monies are taken from critical access hospitals,

skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, or

certified community behavioral health centers in the West

region (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and

Wyoming).

Mr. President, first of all, I just want to say how powerful the presentations were talking about the tragedy in Minnesota and how all of our hearts go out to the families and to the entire State because it is obviously something that had a profound impact upon the entire community, and it is something that has all of us grieving for them. I was just touched, as I think everyone who heard them was, with the presentations that we heard.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Republican's ``Big Billionaire Boondoggle,'' which is economic sabotage and climate denial masquerading as fiscal policy.

Last night's Senate Finance Committee text doesn't just double down on repealing smart clean energy tax credits, it erodes our progress and our chance at a livable future.

Senate Republicans are doubling down on egregious attacks against historic investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, cutting more than $500 billion in investments and programs, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs, and raising monthly household energy bills.

In 2024--this is the big number--in 2024, 94 percent of all new electricity generation added to our country was wind and solar and batteries. I want to repeat that. In 2024, 94 percent of all of the new electricity generation capacity added in our country was wind and solar and batteries. That is 50,000 megawatts of solar, 4,000 megawatts of wind, and 11,000 megawatts of batteries. Compare that with the fuels of the past. Last year, only 2,500 megawatts of natural gas were added and zero from coal.

That is the present state of affairs for electricity generation installation in our country in 2025 as we begin this debate in the Senate over the reconciliation bill--over the tax policy for our country.

Unfortunately, it is why the oil and gas and coal industry, through the Republicans, are using the budget bill to rig the game while eliminating incentives that lower energy costs and reduce collusion, but they are not going to remove the tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry.

So what is about to unfold is that we are going to see the pursuance of a vendetta against wind and solar energy by cutting incentives for the cleanest and cheapest sources of electricity, all to pad the pockets of the big oil and big gas industries.

This bill eliminates the residential clean and efficient energy incentives. Let me say that again. If you want to put solar panels on your roof, that tax break is going to be gone. If you want to make your home more energy efficient, that tax break is going to be gone. Heat pumps, all of it, is gone. Robbing homeowners--homeowners--of the ability to save money on energy bills, breathe safer air indoors at home, and ensure a livable future for their families. And it also removes support for families looking to buy a clean vehicle, an electric vehicle, and saving money at the pump.

It imposes draconian restrictions on large-scale solar and wind incentives.

That is the solar and wind installations that the utilities may want to install in our country. So it is a multipronged attack upon what is--in 2024, and it is already unfolding again in 2025--the future. It is wind and solar and batteries.

And it is unfolding in a way which, again, threatens the incumbent energy sources. And in place of these programs, there are no solutions. There is just more pollution that is going to be what happens as a result of what the Republicans are trying to do with this bill.

And you wind up with higher prices. You wind up with fewer jobs. If this bill passes, solar deployment is expected to drop nearly 40 percent by 2030 than what was expected before.

And as energy demand increases driven by power-hungry AI data centers and natural gas LNG exports, Republicans are choosing to strangle America's supply of cheap solar and wind, which we are going to need for the AI revolution. The estimates are that AI itself over the next 10 years could double the need for electricity in our country.

And what this bill will do is take wind and solar and batteries off the field and then say to the natural gas industry and oil industry: You figure out how to get it done.

But that is not what, obviously, people in our country want. They are making decisions that have resulted in 2024 with 94 percent of all new electricity being wind and solar and batteries. So it is heading in just the opposite direction of where the American people are headed.

So this is just economics 101: High demand plus low supply means higher energy prices for everyone. That is what they are setting up if we take wind and solar out of the mix, forcing families, on average, to pay $150 more per month on their energy bills just in 5 years, and $260 per month more each month in 10 years because there won't be the competition, and there won't be the supply.

And the less the supply is the higher the price for the remaining electricity in our society. And it will also destroy 840,000 American jobs by the year 2030, jobs that would have been people up on roofs installing the solar or having offshore wind work or electricians off the Atlantic Coast or installing coal efficiency into homes across our country and just going through the home to make it more energy efficient, solar installation, and fewer manufacturing jobs for solar and wind all across our country.

Republicans want to frame their cuts as eliminating wasteful Democratic spending, but the communities and constituents they were elected to represent, they are going to stand to lose a great deal. The States with the highest spikes in energy prices are going to be South Carolina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana under this bill. We are taking out the alternatives that could have helped them moderate the prices in those States.

And the States with the largest job losses: Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Georgia. So this isn't a red State or a blue State issue; this is creating a national economic crisis. Eighty percent of the IRA funding has gone to red States--80 percent, only 20 percent to blue States. And by the way, that is how the bill was designed.

The extra tax breaks went to the States that would be energy transition States, and there has been an explosion by the hundreds of thousands of new jobs. And the Republican bill would make the United States the laggard, not the leader in innovation.

Already China is investing four times more than the United States in renewable energy. Here is China's plan. They plan on investing $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years every year--$10 trillion--and the same thing is true for Japan. They have already made an announcement that they are going to invest a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

So we might as well just be gift wrapping the clean energy industry, gift wrapping it for China and other countries to be the global leader.

So that is where we are. Instead of catching up and overtaking China, this bill will cede more jobs and more progress, and Republicans are putting our health and our planet up for sale. This bill would increase emissions equivalent to putting 72 million more cars on the road and eliminates pollution-reduction programs, leading to approximately 930 additional premature deaths every single year.

So that is the plan when it comes to clean energy, and it is going to be an absolute disaster for us. And, additionally, as affirmed last night, Republicans want to slash over $1 trillion from our healthcare system, and the House already passed cuts that would rip $800 billion from Medicaid and $500 billion from Medicare.

The Senate Republicans released text last night that doesn't just support these cuts but makes them actually worse, and their changes would make it harder for people to stay on their insurance. It would create more paperwork for patients to fill out. It would make it more difficult for States to fund their healthcare programs, and it would leave less people with access to healthcare across our Nation. It would take 16 or 17 million people and take away their insurance in our country.

So this isn't just line items or a spreadsheet; this is people's lives. If we cut people off their health insurance and less money goes to hospitals, nursing homes, health clinics, people will not be able to get healthcare. People will lose their local hospitals, nursing homes, and clinics. Health workers will lose their jobs, and rural communities could lose their biggest employers.

People will be forced to make impossible decisions about whether their healthcare is worth going into bankruptcy or medical debt. And if Republicans pass this bill, instead of addressing our country's healthcare crisis, we will be supercharging it.

But they don't need to listen to me. Here is what the experts have found. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that Republican cuts would increase the number of people skipping medical care because of cost from nearly 129,000 people to nearly 839,000 people a year.

A study from Yale and Penn found that Federal cuts from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act would lead to 51,000 deaths per year. And just last week, I released data produced by the Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina about how substantial cuts to Medicare and Medicaid could force 338 hospitals across the country into financial distress, leading them to cut services or close the hospital altogether.

Where are those hospitals? Well, in Kentucky, there are 35 of them that could be at risk for their viability. Louisiana is 33 hospitals. These are rural hospitals. They rely upon Medicaid. They rely upon the Affordable Care Act to pay the bills.

So this is something that is going to be very, very dangerous, hundreds of rural hospitals put on the brink because of the decisions made by Republicans in this Congress and in this White House. This is a lethal risk to take on to pay the tax breaks for billionaires.

If this bill passes and even one patient loses their insurance because of burdensome paperwork in a single hospital or nursing home, the responsibility will fall on anyone who voted yes on this bill.

And our State and local public health officials know this risk, which is why they are asking to stop these cuts. The Louisiana State house, with a Republican majority, passed a resolution just this week asking Congress to ``oppose sweeping or indiscriminate cuts to Medicaid and to instead work in partnership with states to strengthen and preserve the program for the future.'' That is the Louisiana State house Republicans.

The Houghton County Board of Commissioners in Michigan voted to oppose Medicaid cuts. Mr. President, 52 organizations in Alabama, including the Alabama Cancer Society, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, churches all across the State, wrote to the Governor urging opposition to healthcare cuts, citing the need for more care and less bureaucracy.

And on June 12, 900 State and local elected officials from across the country--including mayors and State senators and representatives, attorneys general--all stood up to come out against ``the damaging and reckless plan.''

And these proposed cuts are as dangerous as they are pointless.

So I am going to conclude on this: Donald Trump and Republicans only need to rush these cuts through to guarantee tax breaks for billionaires.

So the people who will benefit the most are the upper 0.1 percent. And as millions more Americans lose their healthcare, billionaires who can afford concierge medicine will get a handout from the government.

The rich will get richer, while the sick who are the poorest are going to be left without their healthcare. The other ones are going to lose their insurance.

This is what this billionaire boondoggle is all about. It takes financial security from children, rips dinner off the family table, and crushes people's opportunities for health and financial security and sells it away to the ultrawealthy.

This is not a big beautiful bill, as Donald Trump would call it, it is a big billionaire buyoff and a bludgeoning of our health, our economy, our future.

We don't have to do this. Making these cuts is optional, and I am asking my Republican colleagues to please vote no. We can do a lot better with this legislation. Please--please--let us negotiate a sensible resolution of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a remarkable U.S. Senate staffer Sean Moore for his 30 years of dedicated public service in the U.S. Congress. Sean's path to public service started early in childhood. His father was a longtime staffer at the National Security Agency, and Sean always knew he wanted to follow in his footsteps and dedicate his life to serving the greater good. He wasted no time embarking on his career in public service: immediately after graduating from the University of Delaware with B.A.s in international relations and history, Sean arrived in the Senate, beginning as a legislative correspondent for then-U.S. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware on May 30, 1995.

In 1997, he joined the office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, where he worked for 17 years until her retirement in 2016. He was a trusted and invaluable adviser, rising through the ranks all the way from legislative aide to chief of staff. Sean also served as Senator Boxer's legislative director and led her foreign policy team for many years, including during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Though his humility prevents him from admitting so, he was key to some of her incredibly impactful work, including her 2008 efforts to secure visas for Vietnamese adoptees; her advocacy to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW; her work on the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005; and notably, her landmark vote against declaring war on Iraq in 2002.

After Senator Boxer's retirement in 2016, Sean came to the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, where he became staff director under then-Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen. Nine years later, he continues to serve in this role today, having served under three different Democratic leaders of the committee.

Sean embodies what a Senate staffer should be, mastering complex policy, grasping complicated political dynamics, giving studious attention to every detail, understanding the intricacies of the institution, and always working to advance the priorities of the committee and its membership. Sean anticipates every situation and is ready with politically astute and intellectually sound advice on how to approach any challenge.

This was never more apparent than in 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and America's small businesses faced an existential threat unlike anything seen before. Under then-Senator Cardin's leadership, the committee led the effort to save small businesses by creating programs like the Paycheck Protection Program, Restaurant Revitalization Fund, Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program, and other critical relief efforts. Sean rolled up his sleeves and worked tirelessly to help create, enact, and implement multiple bipartisan relief programs. Ultimately, these programs provided over a trillion dollars to small businesses and helped keep them and the American economy afloat. A staffer to the core, he will never accept credit or recognition for any of his work, but he was truly a key part of our country's monumental response to a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. He not only was a witness to history but played a critical role in it.

Not only is Sean an excellent adviser and staffer, but he is also an exceptional leader. He empowers his staff, draws out their strengths and abilities, and never fails to uplift their work. He believes that part of his public service is mentoring and raising the next generation of staffers, and he takes this responsibility very seriously. He has a unique ability to identify hard-working, talented staffers who rise to the occasion regardless of their years of experience or degrees. This mentality has led him to build smart and effective teams for several U.S. Senators throughout his tenure.

As with many public servants, his career is made possible by the support of his family. The Moores are a force on Capitol Hill. Sean and his wife Shane Moore met while they both worked under then-Senator Boxer. Shane is also a longtime public servant who went on to serve former U.S. House Representative Loretta Sanchez of California for nearly two decades and continues to serve in the House of Representatives today. Sean and Shane raised two children McKenna and Ryan in Bethesda, MD, and together, they have built a life dedicated to serving the American public and this institution. Together, Sean and Shane helped this body navigate some of our country's most challenging moments, including 9/11, the Iraq War, the Great Recession, and, most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. Careers like theirs do not come without sacrifice. Thirty years of service is as much a milestone for this remarkable family as it is for Sean.

I would like to share quotes from some of my colleagues for whom Sean has worked during his career. I believe his impact on Capitol Hill is best summarized by them:

U.S. Senator Boxer (retired): ``Sean is the best of the best: wise, humble, respectful and committed to serving the people. Sean was able to take the toughest issue, break it down and lay out a clear plan to solve the problem, whether it was legislation, a hearing, a letter, a press conference or a simple phone call. He always knew the staff's strengths and weaknesses and put together the right team at the right time. He was always on top of everything which is what a true leader does. I still stay in touch with Sean because I still want to hear his perspective and his ideas. Congratulations on 30 years of outstanding work.''

U.S. Senator Shaheen: ``For thirty years, Sean Moore has been serving families in Delaware, California and, through the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, every state,

including New Hampshire. Like many of our best public servants, Sean may not be known by most folks in the country, but I can tell you that many families and small businesses certainly know his work. I worked closely with Sean as both Chair and Ranking Member of the committee and his work supporting small businesses through COVID, including with the Paycheck Protection Program, helped so many small businesses get through the pandemic. I know Sean isn't going anywhere right now and hope he continues to serve, but on behalf of the countless Granite State families and businesses that have and will continue to benefit from Sean's work, I join my colleagues in thanking Sean for his thirty years of public service.''

U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (retired): ``Sean Moore is everything a senator needs and wants in a staff director--or any staff person. He is a consummate professional. He is an honest broker and a calming influence. He knows the Senate and the agencies with which he connects daily. He gets things done and doesn't worry about who gets credit--but he is always quick to uplift and spotlight the quality work of more junior staffers. I was blessed to have Sean as a resource and partner during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks to his round-the-clock work and innovative thinking, we quickly created new programs like the Paycheck Protection Program to save jobs and keep small businesses afloat during the most challenging economic crisis in a generation. We saved nonprofits and live entertainment venues. We did all this on a scale never expected. Sean made this possible. The best thing I can say to describe Sean Moore and his 30-year tenure with the Senate is that he is a true public servant. He understands that our work is for the American people, and he fights daily to make people's lives better. I will forever be grateful to Sean for his dedication, kindness and service. He is a legend.''

These quotes show the remarkable impact Sean has had and how his tireless work has left the country a better place. I want to thank Sean for his dedication to the institution and to serving the American people. Congratulations on 30 years of service and counting.

Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next opportunity to move on the legislation to liberate small businesses from the tariffs of the Trump administration, I would just like to speak for a few minutes about the attempts by the Republican leadership to truncate the process by which California is able to have a waiver to increase the efficiency of the vehicles which are driven in California, but the same thing would be true across the rest of the Nation.

All I want to say is that, right now, China is investing $1 trillion this year in clean energy, low-carbon technologies--$1 trillion in 1 year. Japan has just announced they are investing $1 trillion in clean energy, low-carbon technologies.

So what we are debating here is going to absolutely allow for these other countries to catch up to us, and we will ultimately fall further and further behind, especially in the efficiency of the vehicles which we drive in this country. We might as well put a bow on an entire industry over the long term and just hand it over to countries around the world that are focusing on these technologies.

That is why this is a big mistake. We should not be allowing for a procedural trick to be played here that is unprecedented in the history of the Senate, to then have the underlying issue be really not debated the way it should in terms of the consequences for our Nation and for the planet in terms of the greenhouse gases, additionally, that are going to go up that will endanger our planet.

So I just wanted to make that comment. I will come back later in order to speak on it.

At this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I rise to advocate to my colleagues in the Senate for my Small Business Liberation Act, and I do so with Leader Schumer and Senator Hirono, who have each already spoken on this very important issue.

Here is what the bill would do: The bill would give relief from President Trump's disastrous, destructive, small business-killing tariffs that have been turning Main Street into ``Pain Street'' all over our country for the last 7 weeks.

I would also provide with my bill certainty to the constant whiplash and chaos that is President Trump's tariff policies by exempting small businesses from the baseline 10-percent tariffs and the tariffs that have been on a 90-day pause since April 9.

So let me just explain what I am talking about. On April 2, President Trump imposed a 10-percent tariff on pretty much the whole world. In other words, a 10-percent tax on anything coming into the country--10 percent.

He also imposed an additional--called reciprocal tariff--on April 2 as well. And those tariffs, for example, were an additional 20 percent on the EU or an additional--we will just say--32 percent on Fiji, for whatever reason.

So that was an incredible additional tax on top of the 10-percent tax, which he imposed on the same day.

So on April 9, the President said: Well, we will wait--we will wait 90 days on those additional tariffs; on the EU for 20 percent; the 32 percent for Fiji; the 24 percent additional for Japan--we will put that aside, but we are going to keep the 10 percent on.

Now, for a big company, maybe they can figure that out. They can ride that out, the 10 percent. However, if you are a small business in our country, and all of a sudden, there is a new 10-percent tax you have to pay on all of those goods which you are bringing into our country, and then there is a sword of Damocles sitting out there, as well, that there could be, in July--which is only 6 weeks away--an additional 20 percent if those products come in from Europe. You are going to have a chilling effect that is placed on your business decisions, without question.

They don't have the leeway to be able to make the kind of riskier decisions that, perhaps, a bigger business could to just ride through all of these tariffs. So all across every Main Street in our country, these small businesses are getting paralyzed by the Trump actions.

Again, we are going to start with this: There is a 10-percent tariff--tax--already in place right now, since April 2, on every good coming into our country. So this is a very dangerous place to put the small businesses of our country.

Even as the vast majority of small businesses are seeing massive tariff-induced cost hikes, this administration is offering exemptions-- exemptions--for billion-dollar corporations.

If you can get a dinner invitation to Mar-a-Lago, like the heads of Apple and Google, you can secure an exemption for your industry.

Now, in almost every instance, that is preceded by a big, big multimillion-dollar contribution to some entity that the Trump administration would like you to give that money to.

And then Apple is out; Google is out. They are not any longer affected by the tariffs. But no one on Main Street can afford to go to Mar-a-Lago to give the President $1 million. That probably exceeds the total worth of their business.

So that is the problem with where we are. And, by the way, it is also why the national chamber of commerce says that small businesses should get an exemption. It is not me. It is the national chamber of commerce that says that they should get an exemption.

And 97 percent of all companies that do business on an international basis are small businesses, and they constitute 30 percent of all trade. The national chamber of commerce is saying they should all be exempted. That is what my bill does. It says: Exempt those 97 percent of all businesses that constitute 30 percent of the trade from these tariffs--from the 10-percent tariff; from the upcoming, 6 weeks from now, upward of 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent more tariffs that are being imposed on countries around the world, while we are waiting for the President to negotiate bilateral agreements with each one of these entities.

Well, so far, after a month and a half, he is up to one agreement with the United Kingdom. That is it. He has got dozens and dozens to go and no time on the clock, and that is what small businesses are looking at. They are looking up at the clock. They are saying: How long can I last? I survive week to week. I survive month to month. I can't afford to be paying these tariffs or wondering if there is a new tariff which is coming in.

And all across our country, these numbers are unbelievable. In Massachusetts, we have 7 million people. We have 700,000 small businesses. Well, the same thing is true for the country. There are about 330 million Americans, and there are 33 million small businesses. There is a small business in America for every 10 people, and that person right now is looking up with fear that their future has a cloud over it.

And those small businesses, they account for two out of every three jobs added to our economy in the last 25 years. They are our engine of growth.

So I have heard from small businesses all across Massachusetts, all across our country, about how they are forcing those businesses to lay off employees, scale back benefits, or even shut their doors in some cases.

I spoke with Brandale Randolph, founder of the 1854 Cycling Company, an electric bike manufacturer based in Massachusetts, and here is what Brandale told me. He shared the story that his company finally-- finally--after years of work, recovered from the $45 million which they lost during COVID, only to now be forced to decide whether or not they can weather this new tariff disaster hanging over their head.

So they moved from COVID to tariffs--none of this having been in any way instigated by the small businesses of our country. They don't have anything to do with it. It just keeps coming into their lives. And the messages from 1854 and other small businesses across the country are clear: These tariffs are going to threaten to put them out of business.

Small businesses are not Democrat. They are not Republican. This should not be a partisan issue, and I am disappointed that President Trump continues to ignore the outrage and the opposition to his irrational and ill-advised tariff policy.

It is time for the Senate to stand up and exempt small businesses in our country. There is a trade war going on. We should allow small businesses not to be drafted into this war because they are the ones that will be the casualty.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1593, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Well, a small business is defined in the Small Business Administration definitions, and those would be the ones which we would exempt. And it can be different, depending upon the industry or its status, but, in general, what we are using is the definition used by the Small Business Administration.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Ohio.

But here is the bottom line: This isn't just about China. The President hasn't targeted just China. He hasn't explained his ``just China'' strategy. He has imposed these tariffs all across the world-- all across the world, every country.

And yes, the legislation that we have, it doesn't touch the steel tariffs that are imposed. We don't touch those. They can stay in place. We don't touch them.

But here is the bottom line: You can't make silk for U.S. ties in the United States. You can't grow coffee in the United States. I could go on and on and on and on, about product after product that is sold in Main Street in America. Putting a 20-percent tariff on and, on top of that, an additional 20

percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, it is not going to do anything for the person on Main Street with the small business. It is just going to make it almost impossible for them to import those goods that they need to sell in their stores on every Main Street in America. That is what they are saying to us. And this 10-percent tariff is still going to stay on.

We are only 6 weeks from having the sword of Damocles of 20 percent more for the EU and countries from all around the world--Japan, Israel, you name it, India--it is just dozens and dozens of countries that aren't China. But there is no plan. The President is making it up as he goes along, and the people who are going to suffer are going to be the small business people.

If you import toys, and there are maybe 20 different countries from which you import your toys to put on the shelves of your stores on Main Street everywhere, and parents can go in to buy the presents for their child--I just think it is unrealistic. The President is saying: Well, maybe the kids can get by with 3 dolls instead of 30.

Well, that is not how it is going to work. The store is going out of business. The store has a certain predictable business model in terms of how much revenue they are going to have per year, based upon what they can import.

If the President had a plan, I would like to hear it. But I don't. I don't want to hear him talk about how he is ultimately going to get a deal with dozens of countries in 6 weeks. There is no likelihood of that happening. But a small business person can't take that risk.

So that is why, again, this short-term pain that the President keeps talking about for long-term gains, well, honestly, in the short run, these businesses are going--they are going under, the small businesses. And there may be some posthumous indication of the President's theory about these tariffs, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years from now. That won't really do these small businesses any good.

So let the big businesses fight it out, and don't allow the Googles and the Apples to buy their way out of it.

You know, in the Civil War, there was an old saying: It was ``a rich man's war but a poor man's fight''--meaning the rich man could buy his way out of the draft. Rich man's war; poor man's fight.

So big business war, but it is going to be fought by small businesses on Main Street, who are going to be the victims. Those are always the casualties. And they have been drafted into this battle of big businesses.

So, again, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Ohio. I think he is wrong. I think we should exempt small businesses and let them know that they are not going to be driven out of business by this still-unplanned guided missile heading right toward every Main Street in our country that is going to be destructive of the hard-earned success those small businesses have had.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am here to defend clean air regulations that tackle the climate crisis, protect public health, and save drivers money at the pump.

For more than 50 years, California has had the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to adopt stricter emissions standards than the Federal baseline. For 50 years, both Democrat and Republican administrations have granted these Clean Air Act waivers that are essential for reducing toxic air pollution, protecting public health, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions that dangerously warm our planet. No Congress has ever dared to revoke these waivers--until now.

My Republican colleagues say this is about protecting consumer choice. Well, let me ask: Who is really choosing this? Not the parents. Not the residents near busy highways. Not the doctors and nurses. Not even the drivers.

It is the polluters. This dependence on fossil fuels allows Big Oil CEOs to turn drivers upside down at the pump and shake money out of their pockets.

The Republicans say ``all of the above.'' No. No. It is ``oil above all.'' We put 70 percent of the oil we consume into gasoline tanks. And with cleaner, smarter, more efficient technologies, we can reduce and reduce and reduce the amount of oil that we put into the vehicles which we drive. This terrifies the oil industry.

America is a technological giant. We have a capacity to invent new technologies. By the way, the Chinese are just on the HOV lane of new technologies for the vehicles which they are driving. They have invented a technology that allows for the charging of a battery in 5 minutes in a vehicle that people are driving.

That should be us. We should be the ones leading.

That is not what the Republicans are doing. Donald Trump is saying he wants to repeal the tax breaks for electric vehicles in our Nation, just take those tax breaks off the books. He wants to repeal the laws which incentivize the development of even better batteries in our country--batteries that, with one charge, will go further and further and further. Maybe we could compete with the Chinese. But Trump wants to take them off the books, and the Republicans are going along with that.

Maybe we could put more charging stations across the country to make it easier for people to drive all-electric vehicles. No. Trump is saying we want to take away all those tax breaks too. Let's just make it easy for the Chinese to take over the electric vehicle industry of the 21st century. Let's just hand it over to them on a silver platter.

We are only 5 percent of the world's population. The other 95 percent is going electric.

The other 95 percent is moving to the future. That is not going to be the United States. The Republicans are working here tonight in order to absolutely short-circuit this future that was ours.

You know, honestly, gas-guzzling cars aren't just bad for drivers, they are bad for every one of us. According to the American Lung Association, more than 131 million people live in counties with unhealthy levels of ozone and particulate pollution.

And what is the largest source of that pollution? It is vehicles. It is the cars and the trucks which we drive in our country. That is what sends up the pollution. That is what gets into the lungs of Americans.

And now my Republican colleagues are trying to rip away the safeguards that help to protect public health and to save our country money. By triggering the Congressional Review Act to repeal California's waivers, it would allow for 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon emissions; more than 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen oxide, all going up into the air; 17,000 metric tons of fine particulate matter, the type of pollution that penetrates deep into your lungs, the lungs of your children, the lungs of your loved ones, and enters the bloodstream to wreak havoc on the body in the form of asthma, respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, and more--much, much, more--all spewed into the air.

And that is what they want. That is what they want.

After the Surgeon General in 1964 issued a warning about smoking, America went from 50 percent of the country smoking down to 18 percent. People started to wise up. They said: We don't want that stuff in our lungs, and we are going to tell our kids not to smoke because it is dangerous.

Your lungs--your lungs--are vulnerable if there is an inhalation of dangerous substances.

So what does it look like in real life? Well, it means more kids are going to suffer from asthma. It means grandma and grandpa dying earlier. It means more death and destruction from extreme weather events, such as the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricanes Helene and Milton. By the way, those three events caused $500 billion worth of damage--those three events, all related to climate change, all related to the warming of the atmosphere.

Just assume that the ceiling here on the Senate floor is capturing all of the heat all day long, and there is no air-conditioning down below. That is the greenhouse effect. It just gets warmer and warmer and warmer, which is why, by the way, the Senate used to adjourn in the beginning of May because it just got too hot in rooms like this before air-conditioning.

Well, there is no air-conditioning for the planet. You have to engage in a preventive strategy, lower the temperature right from the beginning, lower the thermostat right from the beginning.

Ultimately, it is just going to raise costs on everyday families. By blocking the California waivers, consumers would spend more than $89 billion in additional fuel costs through the year

2040. It is much less expensive to be charging a battery than to be putting that pump into the side of your car and watching that dollar sign just skyrocket as you are watching your hard-earned money go to Big Oil all across our Nation.

That is more money at Big Oil's gas pump and less money at your kitchen table. This comes at a time when Trump is waging war on clean cars, repeals to clean vehicle tax credits, attempts to flip a U-turn on fuel economy and EPA vehicle emissions standards.

In 2007, I worked on a bipartisan basis as the chairman of the committee over in the House to enact a provision in the energy law that increased our Nation's fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years. We were actually going backward by 2007, and the rest of the world was zooming right past us.

It is one of the laws I passed which I am most proud of, and that is what led to the rulemaking that promulgated the higher fuel economy standards for our Nation. I am very proud of that law and the work I played over in the House authoring it.

And the industry, they were able to do it. They were still stuck at 27 miles a gallon. That was the law from 1975. It was 2007, 32 years later. They still couldn't figure out how to improve the efficiency of the vehicles which we drive.

Meanwhile, the Chinese and others, they were getting on the speedway. They were getting ready to catch up to us. And starting in 2009, the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation built upon that law to negotiate a historic agreement with the State regulators, with the automakers, with labor unions, and the environmental community.

But now--now--Trump, Republicans, at the behest of the oil industry, are trying to do a U-turn on these standards and the benefits that they give to our consumers, to our families, to our planet.

It is not enough for Republicans to promote chaos and conflict in our economy for the sake of billionaires. They now want to create chaos and conflict as well.

By intentionally modifying the Senate rules that protect this institution at a moment when Donald Trump is actively undermining the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution, that is a serious threat, not just to the Senate but to our country. It is a threat to the rule of law. It is a threat to our health, to our communities, and access to clean air. It is a threat to our planet.

With this action, my Republican colleagues are opening the door for future votes on the countless unlawful and unethical actions waiting to be carried out by the Trump administration. There will be no putting the genie back into the bottle.

It is going to unleash the President who says he is a stable genius to continue to perpetrate more of his unconscionable actions on the people of our country.

So let's not trigger this nuclear option. Let's not unleash a mushroom cloud of pollution on our communities. Let's not allow polluters to rewrite Senate precedent. Let's not steal the right of States to set high standards that result in children breathing cleaner air, not having their vulnerable lungs be sucking in these particulates, sucking in this unhealthy air that vehicles emit.

We have another direction in which we can head. We have a better vision for us. By the way, this is not rocket science. We are not asking anyone to go to Mars. We are just asking people to improve automotive technology. This is car mechanics. It is not a mission to the Moon.

So while I hear Trump bragging about his buddy Elon and a mission to Mars and all these satellites out in outer space and how he wants to have a Golden Dome over our Nation that is going to protect us from incoming Soviet missiles at 2 a.m. in the morning, and here is vision of a Golden Dome that is going to protect us.

Then, when you turn to him and say: Hey, can we improve the efficiency of the cars which we drive, Trump and his oil buddies said: What are you crazy? That is auto mechanics. That is too difficult for us to figure out.

Well, it is not too difficult for the Chinese. They are coming. They are coming. And country by country, it is going to say: ``Made in China.'' ``Made in China.''

Unfortunately, for too many of our domestic auto companies, they are using this as the excuse to just walk away. And maybe for the short run, it will be OK, but in the long run, that is not a business plan.

Maybe it makes it to their retirement as executives of the companies, maybe they make it a few more years, but the country--the country--is going to suffer.

You know, when you look at Fortune magazine or Forbes magazine and there is a picture of one or another businessperson on the cover, that is great. That is great for that individual. But when you look at the international magazines, you know what is on the cover, just a picture of China.

It is a country with a plan. It is a country with a vision. It is a country that is just speeding past us in terms of their capacity to deploy new technologies. That is what we are confronted with right now--a plan from our arch rival economically that we are going to ignore on behalf of the oil industry in our Nation.

They will reap the short-term profits for sure, but our country and the children in our country will reap whirlwinds economically as each year goes by because we are going to be left in China's technological dust.

So that is what we are voting on, and they are going to use a perversion of Senate rules to attempt to accomplish it at the behest of the oil industry, but the price--the price--not only for this institution and its rules but also the well-being of our economy, the health of our planet is going to be way too high to pay.

You can't preach temperance from a barstool. You can't tell the rest of the world they have to reduce greenhouse gases if the Senate continues to pass laws which allow for all of this dangerous pollution to go up in historically high quantities.

That is absolutely the wrong path for the next several generations of American children. You are endangering their lungs right now, and you are going to endanger their ability to have a job in the future.

We are going to wind up with China dominating the auto industry and the planet. That is what we are voting on tonight: Who is going to win in the long term?

By the way, the Republicans have a comprehensive plan to hand this entire industry over to the Chinese. They are going to do away with all the tax breaks for electric vehicles, do away with all the tax breaks for chargers. They are going to do away with all the tax breaks for battery storage technologies to be developed.

This is systematic. This is a plan that our country has to pull us out of the competition with the largest industry in the world, this automotive industry, tied to the oil industry--just an absolutely reckless, historic mistake.

And by the way, they are doing the same thing over in biotech. They want to cut NIH funding by 40 percent. That is finding the cure for Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes and Parkinson's and every other disease.

You are saying to all the young, brilliant people in the country who are going to dedicate their lives to finding the cures for those diseases: Don't go there. There is no guarantee you are going to have a job next year or the year after or the year after. Again, another industry we are going to put a bow on it and hand it over to Beijing: Hope you enjoy this great present we are handing you--the technological leadership of the United States in biotech, in automotive technology, in battery technology, just handing it over.

So this is a pretty sad day in the history of the Senate, that there will be a compromise of our procedures--our rules--that have been sacred on behalf of the oil industry in our Nation. It is not the first. There is an ongoing systematic plot that Donald Trump came up to the Hill to say: Get my ``big, beautiful bill'' passed.

Well, he might see it as a ``big, beautiful bill,'' but this thing is one big economic disaster for our Nation.

And I will say it again. It is all to get the tax breaks for the billionaires, all of the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our society.

So, please, Senate, please say no. Please allow us to retain our procedural prerogatives. And please, on this

larger issue of the planet and the leadership which the United States should be playing, please say no to these industries.

They are going to look back at this moment--children alive today--and they are going to just wonder, What were they thinking that every car is coming in from China into every country in the world, and eventually our barriers will come down, too, because we won't be able to compete.

It is just a sad commentary on the Senate today that they will acquiesce to such a pathetic concession made to the oil industry in our Nation. But it is the perfect example of the outsized influence that is now playing in our society.

When Trump promised them last April if they gave him a billion dollars, he would do away with all the clean energy technologies in our country, he is paying them off right now. There is no transition plan. There is no promise that maybe we will help the oil industry so they catch up to the Chinese Government.

Mr. President, no. They are going to cede the field, and ultimately it will be the next generations that pay the price.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Donald Trump's Department of Energy announced the largest deregulatory effort in the Department of Energy's history, with 47 regulations in the Department of Energy slashed in one fell swoop in the name of freedom on the same day that the House Ways and Means Committee proposed to slash clean energy tax credits and just a few days after the House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed to destroy critical programs that reduce hazardous air pollution in exchange for fast-tracking dirty fossil fuels.

This isn't one big beautiful bill, as Donald Trump calls it; it is a big billionaire bailout--that is what this whole thing is about--and the only freedom this announcement guarantees is the freedom to pollute, overcharge, and mislead the American people.

So let's be clear. These attacks are not common sense. These attacks on energy policy--on the environmental policy of the United States--is not common sense; it is nonsense which they are trying to sell. They are not about choice; they are about giving fossil fuel corporations and manufacturers a license to pollute on the one hand and to be profiteers on the other. This is not deregulation; it is the desecration of decades of bipartisan progress on public health and on the truth.

Republicans are willing to throw $420 billion in clean energy investments and 400,000 jobs in red and blue States right down the drain. This would be a disaster for our economy and good-paying jobs. What does that look like in action? Well, let's just go through it. Let's go through what they are doing.

By the way, Chris Wright is the Secretary of Energy, and Chris Wright says: Well, I am a reasonable man.

And he seems like a very likable person. But, in fact, Chris Wright is a radical. He is an absolute, outright radical, trying to destroy the clean energy future of the United States. So while he says he believes in all of the above, we know he is an oil man; he is a gas man. He really believes in oil above all, not all of the above. That is for sure.

Chris Wright, with his radical, anti-capitalist attack upon the clean energy future of the United States is absolutely destroying our ability to be able to compete with China in the clean energy sector for the rest of eternity. He is just deciding to completely and totally eviscerate our future, and he does so at the behest of Donald Trump, who is tied to, of course, the oil and gas and coal industry and their profit-making opportunities.

Now, again, Chris Wright, that is where he made his money--oil and gas; so it is kind of natural for him to be a

radical, a radical oil and gas guy who wants to destroy wind, destroy solar, destroy new battery storage technologies. These are the technologies that compete against oil, gas, and coal and their profits. By the way, they would substitute technologies which would not pollute, not cause asthma, not warm the planet dangerously that would cause the storms and the fires and the floods, which we have been seeing. It would accomplish all that. But a radical--a radical like Chris Wright as Secretary of Energy--would rather destroy all of it in order to increase the profits of the oil and gas industry. That is what he is doing--creating this absolutely destructive policy that is going to ultimately have the next generation of young people today pay a huge price in the future.

So let's just take a few of these tax credits which they are destroying, which would create good-paying jobs, which would help to spur our economy. Let's just take a look at a few of them to see what he has orchestrated in the House Ways and Means and House Energy and Commerce Committees.

It would remove the tax credits that a local restaurant can use to lower its electricity bill by putting solar panels on the roof of the restaurant: Gone. Incentives that a local connoisseur could have used to buy electric delivery trucks and install charging stations: Gone. EV battery and offshore wind manufacturing factories that source steel from red States: Gone.

And why is he doing it again? He is doing it to help the oil and gas industry from which he came. He is a radical. He sees the world in the rearview mirror. Let's just stay in the oil and gas era. Let's stay in the coal era. Let's not move to a new innovation economy. Let's not move to a clean energy economy. Let's just stay back in the past. We will let China have the future. We will let Germany have the future. We will let India have the future. But we own the past, says Chris Wright. We own the energy past, and we are going to protect it against any innovation in America that would, in any way, inhibit the ability of the past to continue to reap profits from America.

By the way, one of the things which he killed is my offshore wind- manufacturing bill, which was going to give incentives to companies in the United States to manufacture the offshore wind technologies to be deployed. He killed that. That was going to keep the jobs here. That was going to incentivize American companies to innovate in the manufacture of offshore wind technologies. He wants to kill that because he wants to kill the offshore wind industry.

Why does he want to kill the offshore wind industry? What is Chris Wright's thinking? Here is what he is thinking, and here is what Donald Trump is thinking: Ah, the more you deploy offshore wind, the less gas you need to generate electricity. Since that is where he comes from, that is the past, so he has to protect the past. He is a radical, Chris Wright--just an absolutely rabid radical looking at the rearview mirror at the past; and anything that would interfere with that, including the massive deployment of offshore wind, must be killed. So that is what he has recommended here in the House Ways and Means and the House Energy and Commerce Committees bill.

But that is not all. That is not all that Chris Wright is engaging in, that Republicans are engaging in, that Donald Trump is engaging in.

They are also cutting billions in historic investments from the Inflation Reduction Act, in environmental justice, in air pollution reduction programs. Even in schools--even where kids are exposed to the pollution--they are removing any of the protections against kids breathing in this dangerous asthma-inducing air that has been polluted by oil and gas and coal. That includes $20 billion in the climate bank, the green bank, which Chris Van Hollen and I secured in the Inflation Reduction Act. Also, it is called the Inflation Reduction Act because Joe Manchin, who voted for it, did not want it to be called the biggest climate bill or the biggest clean energy bill in the history of the world. OK? But that is what it is. It is the biggest clean energy bill in history. What McKinsey has analyzed is that the $20 billion green bank will unleash $250 billion worth of private sector investment in clean energy technologies.

Well, if you are Chris Wright, you have to kill that. You can't allow for a massive revolution in clean energy to come out of the green energy bank. So Chris Wright--Mr. Radical, Reactionary, ``Look at the World in the Rearview Mirror'' Secretary of Energy--has killed that too--at Donald Trump's behest, by the way. At Donald Trump's behest.

Again, he looks like a very nice man, but that is not what the job of the Secretary of Energy requires. It requires vision. It requires looking ahead, leading the way, having America be competitive with the Chinese in new technology. We are in a big battle with China over trade. Well, we won't have anything to send to them in clean energy. It is going to be a one-way street--a one-way street coming from them to us--after they finish off our clean energy industry, which is what they are trying to do. In the same way, they have made massive cuts to the National Institutes of Health. Research in Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes and other diseases is going to finish off our ability to be competitive in biotech. This is the next step: Let's finish off the clean energy industry as well.

Unfortunately, the investments in the clean energy technologies would have created jobs by the millions. They would have strengthened our energy independence because all of that energy, by definition, is produced here in the United States of America. It is our Sun; it is our wind; it would be our batteries that we could store that electricity with. We don't need the Chinese. We don't need anybody else. We could just do it right here. What could be more conducive to being able to have a headline of energy independence than capturing all of these God- given gifts which we have in our country, destroyed across the board? And they are going to be killing the funding that would save consumers money at the pump by increasing the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive in our country.

The one thing the oil industry hates--I just talked about the natural gas industry. They hate wind and solar and batteries--you know, generating new electricity. What does the oil industry hate? Well, the oil industry hates vehicles that are twice as energy efficient as oil vehicles. Instead of 27 miles a gallon, they get 54 miles a gallon. Instead of 54 miles a gallon, they get 108 miles a gallon, or if it is a plug-in all-electric or a plug-in hybrid, it is pretty much an infinity sign that is next to how efficient that vehicle is and how little oil they need. That is a death star for the oil industry, so they have got to kill the fuel economy standards that make all of the vehicles which we drive more efficient because it is just going to protect the past, which is what Donald Trump is all about. This is some kind of nostalgia he has for 1958, OK? He wants to go back in time, but America can't afford to be looking in the rearview mirror because our European, our Asian, and our South American competitors, they are coming for us.

We are only 5 percent of the world's population, and up until the Trump administration, what has given us our edge is innovation; it is investment in research; it is looking ahead; and it is trying to lead the way. That is where young people in our country want to go, but instead of the dawn of a clean energy future, Republicans are sunsetting incentives that would spur a clean domestic manufacturing for industries inside of the United States.

By the way, let me say it again: In just a very brief period of time--about 3 years since the passage of the biggest climate bill in history--we have created 400,000 new jobs in the clean energy sector in the United States and have already unleashed $400 billion worth of energy investment. So they are committed--the Republicans, and they are proud of it, led by Chris Wright, an oil and gas man--to being the world's laggard, not leader, and to just falling behind everybody in the clean energy sector. That is what their plan is--to destroy everything that has been unleashed in our Nation. We not only won't be the leader in the global economy or the clean energy economy; we are just going to cede the jobs; we are going to cede the progress to our economic rivals, led by the Chinese.

And who is making this worse? Again, it is Energy Secretary Chris

Wright, the fracker in chief. He is a fracker. He really believes in fracking for oil, in fracking for gas. He is a man who, just last week, told the Congress that his Agency had paid all its bills, canceled no clean energy grants, laid off barely a handful of staff, and wasn't freezing funding. Every one of those statements is false.

Now he is doubling down with a thoughtless regulatory bonfire, and this deregulatory blitz eliminates standards for everyday appliances in our homes--microwaves, refrigerators, dishwashers, and washing machines.

All the regulations say is make all those devices more energy efficient so you don't have to burn coal in order to have the washing machine work, in order to have the refrigerator work. We are not asking anyone to put a mission to Mars in place. We are not asking for anyone to be a rocket scientist. We are asking for people to make dishwashers more efficient and washing machines more efficient.

Do you know what Chris Wright says? Impossible. Impossible. We can't figure out how to do that, so we are just going to stop all progress that we are making in ensuring that all these electricity-consuming appliances are more efficient.

The less efficient they are, the bigger the electricity bill for every single American. That is their goal. What happens when you have to consume more electricity? You have to pay the natural gas industry for all the extra electricity which is coming into your home. That is the plan.

The oil industry wants automobiles and trucks to be less efficient. The natural gas industry wants all appliances, homes, everything less efficient and not to use wind and solar and battery storage technology. They each have two simple business plans, which Chris Wright, who is one of the most radical people who has ever had a position in the American Government, wants to put in place--the fracker-in-chief.

I am the author of the law that the Department of Energy uses to set the standards for dishwashers and for refrigeration in our country. I put that law on the books in 1987. So far, it has saved the need for somewhere around 200 coal-burning plants to ever be built in the first place because those devices never needed the electricity that otherwise would have been needed if there was less efficiency.

The bill itself, according to experts, has now saved $2 trillion in energy bills since 1987. Can I say that again? I am very proud of this. My bill has helped to save $2 trillion that consumers otherwise would have had to have paid in their electricity bills to have inefficient refrigeration, inefficient dishwashers in the house, inefficient air- conditioning in the house. Two trillion dollars has been saved.

It has also prevented 3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from going up. That is a law. Greenhouse gas emissions never went up because we made those appliances so much more energy efficient. And it then saved consumers $500 a year because they never had to pay those electricity bills.

So you would think the Secretary of Energy would say: Let's keep moving forward. Let's keep making all of these devices more and more efficient.

But no. He works in natural gas, he works in oil, so his goal is to roll it all back because it harms the business model of the natural gas industry or the oil industry.

Here is the thing: I personally believe in Darwinian paranoia- inducing competition. That is what I believe. I am a capitalist. Let's just have everybody be able to do everything. That is not the socialistic attitude that Chris Wright has. He wants to use socialism to protect the oil and gas industry from real competition.

Is he going to take the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry off the books? Oh, no, he is not taking those tax breaks off the books. Is he going to take off favorable regulatory protections for the oil and gas industry? He is not going to do that. No. No. No.

This is all the old boys' network, the billionaire boys' club network in the energy industry to thwart the movement that young people want toward a future of clean energy, of solar and wind, the all-electric vehicle--the future for our country.

So Chris Wright and Trump want to throw everything out because nothing says ``freedom'' more than smog and higher utility bills. They want us to have the freedom to have more smog. They want us to have the freedom to have more asthma. They want us as a nation to have the freedom to pay higher utility bills for natural gas and generated electricity. That is his idea of freedom--Chris Wright. Again, it just goes back to the bottom line of those companies that he used to run before he just became Secretary of Energy.

Now, I don't mind him saying that he wants to have a new future for our country, but you can't say it simultaneously when you are killing the future.

You are killing it, Chris Wright. You are the worst example of what the Trump administration is bringing to Washington. You are going to make us more dependent on fossil fuels. Consumers will have to pay higher prices. It is going to lead to higher levels of disease in our Nation. We are going to see more storms like Hurricanes Milton and Helene last year, which caused $300 billion worth of damage. We are going to see more fires like those which we saw in L.A., which caused $140 billion worth of damage. Those are just three storms that caused $440 billion worth of damage, those three storms alone.

So you just say: Hey, Chris, Mr. Secretary, what is your answer to that?

Do you know what his answer is? More fossil fuels. Warm up the planet even more. Turn it up a few more degrees. The temperature is too low; let's put the temperature up higher.

What are young people saying? They are saying: Turn the thermostat down. This planet is getting too warm. Just turn it down.

That is renewables. That is the way in which you do it.

We have seen Chris Wright make outlandishly false claims before. Back in March, Chris Wright took the stage in front of oil and gas executives and delivered what might go down as the most egregious fossil-fueled fiction ever spoken at a podium--and that is still saying a lot. It was part sermon, part standup, and part 100 percent spin.

Chris Wright said:

The previous administration's policy was focused myopically

on climate change with people as simply collateral damage.

That is his statement.

The Inflation Reduction Act, on the other hand, did create 400,000 clean energy jobs. It unleashed $400 billion worth of investments. That is not collateral damage. That is a climate comeback. That is a middle- class revival in our country. That is 400,000 middle-class jobs in our Nation that the Inflation Reduction Act--also known as the biggest climate bill in our history--has produced. They are committed to stopping it. That is what Republicans are willing to tank with their latest proposal.

Now I am going to give you the killer stats. This is why they have to kill it. Last year in the United States, 94 percent of all new electricity generation capacity installed was wind and solar and batteries. So the natural gas industry is saying: That can't happen. You mean we were left with 6 percent?

Yes, that is right. This thing is moving--wind, solar, and battery storage--for electricity generation in our country. If you do it every year for the next 10 years or the next 25 years, then the natural gas industry just won't be able to compete in the marketplace.

So Adam Smith is spinning in his grave, looking at what Chris Wright is doing today--tampering with the free market, tampering with incentives for the competition to oil and gas, which have received tax breaks for 100 years.

Adam Smith is spinning in his grave, thinking how capitalism is being completely distorted, although he wrote a whole chapter in ``Wealth of Nations,'' and the chapter was just about how much he hated monopolies, how much he hated oligopolies, which are anathema when it comes to competition, when it comes to capitalism. He really wanted Darwinian paranoia-inducing competition--Adam Smith. That is not what Chris Wright wants. That is not what Donald Trump wants. Donald Trump wants to be able to put his thumb on the scale for the oil and gas industry and for the coal industry just to destroy the future competition.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already cost America more than 50,000 clean energy jobs and over $8 billion in private sector clean energy

projects. If anything is collateral damage, it is our economy under Donald Trump and the Chris Wright chaos agenda in the marketplace for the clean energy industry.

Here is what Chris Wright also said:

Natural gas . . . has been the fastest growing source of

energy over the last 15 years. Wind and solar supply roughly

3 percent of global primary energy.

Chris Wright must have brought a calculator from 2005 because those numbers are just completely wrong. In reality, wind and solar are the fastest growing electricity sources in history. In 2024, as I have already said, they made up over 90 percent of all new electricity generation in the United States.

Listen to this--this is scary for the oil and gas industry--96 percent of all new electricity generation installed worldwide last year was wind and solar and battery--96 percent globally, wind and solar.

He is saying: Oh, it is just such a small part.

No, it is not, and it is going to grow and grow and grow and grow. That is what is putting the fear into the hearts of the oil and gas industry. They have got to stop it, so they have ordered the House Republicans to kill it in the Ways and Means Committee, kill it in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and then they want to send it over here so that Republicans can rubberstamp this decision to kill the future. I guess that is inaccurate. It is not the future; it is right now. It is over 90 percent of the United States and 96 percent globally, last year, the installation of new electricity generation capacity.

So they are desperate, totally desperate. They wish they had killed the Affordable Care Act 10 years ago because now they don't have the nerve to try to kill the Affordable Care Act because now people already are benefiting from those changes. They are trying to kill this, kill it right now, kill it before it gets more momentum and destroys the business model of 100 years of the oil, gas, and coal industry.

By the way, in the United States alone, we added 50 gigawatts of new solar in 2024. Think of it like this: In 2009, we only had 2,000 megawatts of solar from the beginning of time until 2009. Last year, 50,000 new gigawatts of solar was installed in our country. If it was 50,000 next year and the year after and the year after, when 10 years is done, you will have a half a million new gigawatts of solar.

So the oil and gas industry is listening to Donald Trump, who said: If you raise $1 billion for me--he said this last April in the middle of his campaign--I will kill the clean energy revolution. I will kill it.

So this is just pay to play.

Here is an industry that is growing, creating new jobs hand-over- fist, just growing at a faster rate than the economy itself--growing way faster than the economy itself--and what we now see are the fossil fuel apologists saying that new solar just doesn't work when, in fact, new solar is now cheaper than simply operating an existing coal plant. Offshore wind is half the cost of building a new gas plant. That is what offshore wind amounts to--half the price.

They have to kill it. It is too efficient. It is too clean. It doesn't pollute. It doesn't cause asthma. They have to kill it now, says Chris Wright, says the oil and gas industry.

Chris Wright also said:

Wind has been singled out because it's had a singularly

poor record of driving up prices and increasing citizen

outrage.

That is just not true. In fact, the States with the most wind and solar--Iowa, South Dakota, Texas--also have lower electricity rates than other parts of the country.

Clean energy isn't just clean; it is cheap. If Republicans really cared about communities, they would stop exporting our liquefied natural gas, which drives up prices at home. So let's stop these fossil fuel companies from gouging families with price spikes and pretending that pollution is patriotism.

The administration has made its tradeoff clear: your future for their profit. That is Trump's ``art of the deal.'' They get to be rich, and young people don't have a future when it comes to clean energy or protecting against climate change. That is the ``art of the deal.'' It is an intergenerational deal. The older generation gets all the money, and the next generations take all the risk. That is his deal, and he is expecting everyone to respond like a candidate on ``The Apprentice.''

Well, they are not going to. Young people are going to rise up. The word is going to get out. This is very dangerous, what he is doing.

The Trump administration--

said Chris Wright--

will end the Biden administration's irrational, quasi-

religious policies on climate change that imposed endless

sacrifices on our citizens.

That is Chris Wright. This is kind of radical, irrational, nonfact- based but, ultimately, Trumpian-at-its-soul policies that Chris Wright has to defend. Now, you would hope that he knows better, but I think it is different. I think that what Chris Wright has is a remarkable ability to harness voluminous amounts of information to defend a knowingly erroneous premise, and that erroneous premise is that wind and solar and batteries aren't working right now. So he has to just tell lies about it, plain and simple. Lie, lie, lie.

And I get it. This is a religious war, pitting economic stimulus policies that drove investment in the free market against their religion of pure Trumpism; pitting corporate profits against breathable air, drinkable water, and a habitable planet.

Do you place your alms at the foot of an effigy for Harold Hamm? Well, Republicans do. He is the biggest natural gas guy in the country, and he said he would raise the money for Donald Trump.

Here is the real gospel. Clean energy is not polarizing; it is popular in the polls. Not only do people like it, 70 percent of registered voters support the biggest climate bill in history, with over 70 percent of registered voters saying the United States needs to use more renewable energy than it does today. That is not religion; that is stimulus in solar panels. And again, it is the public saying: Move to the future, move away from oil and gas.

If we want to talk about sacrifice, it is our communities that are sacrificing their lungs to pollution, their homes to floods, their paychecks to fossil fuel price spikes, all for the religion of climate denialism.

I think all these guys, they must have gotten their climate degree from Trump University--I think, Chris Wright and all of them inside of his administration--because it is just the opposite of what is happening out there. The planet is dangerously warming.

We have got a response that is massively capturing a private sector investment all across our country to deploy the renewable energy resources that reduce greenhouse gases. Yet--again, I am going to come back to Chris Wright--he claims:

The previous administration's climate policies have been

impoverishing to our citizens, economically destructive to

our businesses and politically polarizing.

The cure--

This is Chris Wright--

was far more destructive than the disease. There are no

winners in that world except for politicians and rapidly

growing interest groups.

Is he talking about the 450,000 asthma deaths every year worldwide? Let me say that again. Is he talking about the 450,000 people who die from asthma every year globally or the billions in extreme weather and climate change-related damage every year? That disease sounds pretty damaging.

The cure? Well, regulations that this administration is going to try to roll back right now. They are going to try to roll back the protections that are now in place to reduce dramatically the number of people who die from asthma. And the rest of the world, of course, is also deploying the cure--the renewable energy technologies.

So is there too little mercury up in the air? Are there too few air toxics up in the air right now, so that Chris Wright says we need more of them? We need more of them in the lungs of young people? We need more of them in the lungs of young mothers, pregnant women across our country and across the planet?

I don't hear anyone calling for more mercury, more toxics in the air. And if the regulations stayed in place, it would save 11,000 deaths every year.

And speaking of interest groups, let us not pretend this administration is for the people. The only group Trump has ever prioritized is the fossil fuel elite.

So now we come back to Chris Wright again, who is bringing that same attitude toward governing. And he just doesn't get the attention he deserves for the malevolent way in which he is trying to destroy the clean energy future of our country. Today's energy regulatory rollback--today--is a kamikaze mission against clean energy, against efficiency, against accountability. And the Republicans are more than happy to sign our planet's death sentence. That is what they are doing. That is what their plan is this year on the floor of the Senate and in the rollback of all the regulations that have been promulgated over the years at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency--a death sentence for the planet.

We are talking about rescinding energy and water conservation standards for dozens of products that most Americans have in their homes--microwaves, faucets--that save billions of dollars and billions of gallons of water annually.

And what are we going to get instead? What is Chris Wright promising? What is Donald Trump promising us? A rule book written by and for fossil fuel companies. That is what we are going to have--fossil fuel profiteers. No science. No data. Just the same old special interests pushing the same old lies.

So when Chris Wright and Republicans say they want to cut redtape, what he really means is cut clean air, cut consumer savings, cut climate future, cut clean water, cut safe lands. Cut, cut, cut.

So let's call this what it is: the Trump deregulation doctrine. If it saves money, repeal it. If it protects public health, gut it. If it curbs emissions, cancel it. And if it benefits the American people, sabotage it. This isn't a regulatory review; it is a regulatory revenge tour. And it is not just about energy efficiency; it is about justice-- because it is frontline communities, the poorest communities, Black and Brown communities, poor communities already overburdened by asthma, heat, and energy insecurity who are going to pay a disproportionate price because of what Trump is doing, because of what Chris Wright is doing.

It is almost unconscionable what Chris Wright is attempting to perpetrate upon the poorest, the most vulnerable in our society, but he is doing it all because they are not rich enough--the oil barons, the natural gas barons, the coal barons. They are not rich enough. We have to have more people die. We have to have more people get sick.

Madam American, Mr. American, the American people deserve better than this. They deserve an Energy Secretary who believes in science, who tells the truth, who doesn't measure progress in barrels sold or rules repealed.

We should be investing in the future, not dismantling the future. We should be building cleaner, safer, and more affordable systems, not resurrecting pollution in the name of profit.

So to Chris Wright and Donald Trump, I say: We will fight you in the courts. We will fight you in the States. We will fight you on the floor of this Chamber--because every rule you tear down, we are going to rebuild stronger. Every lie you tell, we are going to counter with the truth. And every time you try to sell out the American people to pad a corporate balance sheet so that the rich become even richer, we will be back there to push against you, to protect the American public, to attempt to protect those who are most vulnerable in our society.

So you are not going to back down; we are not going to back down. This is a fight for the future. This is a fight for the planet. They are trying to write the death certificate of the planet right now, and we are not going to let them get away with it. They are in for a historic resistance coming up from the streets of our country because this is too important just to be another source of revenue for the tax breaks for the already too rich in our society.

Let me just finish with this. The three richest guys in America who sat behind Donald Trump at the inauguration, they control more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of our population combined. Do they really need more? Do oil and gas barons really need more? Does it have to come at the expense of the future of all the young people in our country? Does it have to come at the expense of the health of everyone in our Nation? Aren't we better than this? Aren't we really the innovation country?

So that would be my message: You are in for a fight. It is a fight for the future against those who want to pull us back toward a past which ultimately has created the issues, the problems, the risks that we are confronted with today.

So with that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on this motion to confirm Casey Mulligan to be chief counsel of the Office of Advocacy.

In the last 3\1/2\ months, we have seen an unprecedented assault by the Trump administration on America's small businesses.

Elon Musk and DOGE have taken a chain saw to SBA. They have done away with 43 percent of its staff and an estimated 2,700 people, and I say ``estimated'' because SBA won't share who has been fired and who has been retained with the public or with the U.S. Senate. We don't know.

We requested a meeting with DOGE in February and have yet to hear back. The little we do know about what DOGE is doing at SBA is gleaned through media reports rather than through their responses to our congressional requests.

Because of this administration's utter contempt for accountability and its shameless lack of transparency, we don't know if SBA has sufficient staff on hand to carry out its day-to-day operations.

We don't know which congressionally authorized and funded programs have been illegally shut down. We don't know which SBA field offices will remain open to serve small business owners where they live and work. And yet, the Senate Republicans want us to rubberstamp their slash-and-burn tactics and confirm this SBA nominee by unanimous consent with a total disregard from the Trump administration to tell the U.S. Senate what is going on inside of the SBA.

They have the SBA inside one big ``witness protection program.'' We can't get them to tell us anything about anything.

And they want us to come out here by unanimous consent and to start to confirm appointees to the SBA to further dismantle programs that are essential to small businesses all across our country?

And let me say this: My Republicans do not see how the Trump administration is turning Main Street into ``Pain Street,'' and it is in their home States. Small businesses are being forced to absorb skyrocketing costs because of President Trump's destructive tariffs. They are terrified of losing customers, as consumer confidence levels take a historic nosedive. They are listening with shock and disbelief.

Small businessmen and women across the country have to have their bottle of Pepto Bismol right next to them every single day, not knowing what the impact is going to be of the Trump tariffs on their small businesses across the country.

And by the way, there are 34 million of those small businesses right now, and we have got a Small Business Administration that won't even talk to the U.S. Senate, much less to those small business people who are terrified right now.

They, right now, are terrified. They are shocked, as President Trump tells American consumers that they are going to pay luxury prices to shop at mom-and-pop shops in the United States.

Does anyone in this administration understand the harm they are causing to small businesses?

I can tell you at least one entity that does: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called on the Trump administration to develop a tariff exclusion process to prevent irreparable harm to small businesses and to stop the country from falling into a recession. The U.S. Chamber is speaking on behalf of chambers of commerce all across this country--every city and town. They are speaking for them. They are saying: Protect small businesses from the Trump tariffs.

That is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That is what we should be debating out here on the floor right now--a bill to protect all small businesses from the Trump tariffs.

Instead, we are talking about confirming someone who absolutely should

not be debated on the Senate floor at this time, because those little businesses don't have the protections that big companies with big margins have. They are very, very vulnerable, and Casey Mulligan, the nominee for Chief Counsel for Advocacy, has actually questioned the value of longstanding and widely expected worker protections, including sick leave and paid healthcare and the right to unionize. And, not surprisingly, not a single Democrat on the Small Business Committee voted to advance his nomination.

So this is not the right time, and he is not the right person to have this job. Confirming Dr. Mulligan will only further President Trump's radical, damaging attack on small businesses and their workers.

And with that, I object.

Mr. President, I rise this evening in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 7, the Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal the Federal Communications Commission's commonsense rule allowing schools and libraries to use E-Rate funds--``E-Rate'' stands for ``Education Rate funds''--to ensure that there is access to the educational tools of a school or a library to every child in America, and that would occur by extending out the way in which we view this program so that Wi-Fi hotspots can be provided to students and to educators so that they can use them even when they are not in the school, even when they are not in the library.

If we pass this resolution--the resolution which the Republicans are malevolently bringing out onto the floor--we are not simply undoing a regulation; we are pulling the plug on progress in our country; we are abandoning millions of students who lack the internet access needed to complete their homework, to attend class, to reach their full potential.

This repeal will widen educational disparities in our country, it will deepen the digital divide, and it will slam shut the doors of opportunity for millions of children in our country.

We should be doing everything in our power to close the homework gap that exists between rich and poor in our Nation, not reopen it, not make that homework gap even larger, making it more difficult for poor kids to get access to these educational tools they need. In this modern era, that absolutely meets the definition of a Wi-Fi hotspot. That is the society of 2025. You have to move to that era.

That homework gap is the cruel chasm that separates students who have reliable internet access at home from those who don't. It is a gap that existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was laid bare when schools closed and kids were forced to learn from kitchen tables and living rooms. For some, the transition was difficult; for others, it was impossible. For too many children, especially in low-income, rural, and Black and Brown communities, they were locked out of virtual learning because, simply, they lacked a basic internet connection.

You didn't have to worry about the families that had a good income. Those kids had internet at home when their schools were shut down during COVID. But you had to create some kind of a solution for kids who didn't have that at home.

We saw the stories of the students sitting in parking lots outside fast-food restaurants just to pick up a Wi-Fi signal strong enough to complete their assignments. We saw families choosing between paying rent and paying for broadband. We saw the urgent, indisputable need for action.

In that moment of need, Congress stepped up. We passed, at my request, $7 billion to help provide hotspots and other connectivity tools to students and educators. Demand was overwhelming in our Nation. We had a COVID shutdown. Schools were closed, and there was going to be a huge digital divide which would open up because kids in the suburbs, for the most

part, had access, but kids who were poorer--and, disproportionately, they were Black and Brown--in our Nation did not. And we are still reeling from the effect that period of time had upon young people in our Nation.

The program, as it was implemented, however, helped nearly 18 million students at 10,000 schools and libraries connect to the internet. I am very proud of that. It was a big difference in the lives of those kids. But that funding ran out, leaving millions of students across the country at risk of falling back into the digital divide.

That is why, last year, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to extend the reach of the E-Rate Program--a program that I was proud to author in 1996 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

If I can take you back to that period of time, not one home in America had broadband. We still lived in an analog world, not a digital world. We lived in a world of dial-up internet technology. Broadband had not been deployed.

So the legislation, which I am proud to have been the House author of, along with Senators--what we did was we broke down every monopoly that existed. The telephone monopolies, the cable monopolies--they all were eliminated. Telephone companies could do what cable companies do. Cable companies could do what telephone companies do. All of a sudden, Comcast can offer phone service, and Verizon and AT&T can offer cable service. So they need to deploy broadband in order to accommodate all this information.

We are going to move very rapidly into a digital era, into a broadband era, and it happened pretty much in the blink of an eye for about 80 percent of our country. We are still working on the final 10 percent of our Nation, but for the most part, it happened by the year 2000, 2001. It was done. People had it. Broadband was deployed.

But what we did was we said to ourselves: We have got to take care of the poorest kids in our country as we move rapidly on a technological revolution. Yes, the economy is going to be absolutely exploding. In fact, about $1.5 trillion worth of private sector investment was put into that broadband expansion in just a 5-year period. It was incredible. It transformed our Nation.

A 14-year-old girl today thinks that she has an entitlement to a 65- inch screen in her living room and a little digital device on her lap at the same time. That didn't exist in the year 2000. It all happened in the blink of an eye.

Now, what would happen, though, to the kids that didn't come from suburban or wealthier families? So what I suggested was that we have a program, an education program, so that every time someone made a little phone call, there would be a little tax on it, and that tax would then create a fund. I called it the education fund, the Education Rate, and it ultimately just had a nickname called E-Rate. That is what helps to provide for internet service in schools--in schools in Harlem or Roxbury, MA, inner city, Washington, DC. That is what helps to supplement that, to make it possible for every kid to have access to the internet.

That program works, and so far, it has spent about $70 billion. It is still the largest educational technology program in the history of the United States--$70 billion, very profitable. But times change, and we learn about what has to happen as we are changing the way in which our country operates and new technologies get developed.

So, yes, we had that revolution from the 1996 act. I am very proud of it. We called the companies that got created Google, eBay, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube. I am very proud of that. We wanted a Darwinian, paranoia-inducing revolution out in the marketplace. We would no longer be tied to this old telecommunications system that Alexander Graham Bell would have recognized. No. We were moving on to the future, but with it, we had to bring along the young people in our Nation, and I mean every young person had to have access to it in their school, at their desk. So it was ensured to make sure that the schools and libraries had the connectivity which they needed. That is essentially what the E-Rate Program is all about.

But as the technology evolved, so too did the nature of education in our Nation, and today, learning doesn't end when the school bell rings. Learning follows students home, and so should internet access for everybody--everybody.

The Federal Communications Commission's decision to allow schools and libraries to lend Wi-Fi hotspots was not a radical idea; it was a responsible idea. It recognized that in the 21st century, a student's ability to succeed should not depend on whether their parents can afford a broadband subscription. It helped ensure that millions of students that relied upon the Emergency Connectivity Fund during the pandemic wouldn't suddenly lose access to crucial connectivity at home.

In other words, the Federal Communications Commission learned from what happened during the pandemic, learned from what happened when I was able to move over the $7 billion for these Wi-Fi hotspots to help kids at home get it, and they said: Well, do you know what we should do? We should just make sure that no student is left offline. We will make it a permanent program. And they passed that regulation.

You don't have to take my word for this. In study after study, it has been shown that students without access to broadband internet at home performed worse than their better educated, better connected classmates. It is not that these kids are smarter in the suburbs than the kids in the inner city. Those kids are just as smart. But you can't allow an education gap because the kids who have access are going to get a better education because they have access to the technology by which young people in our Nation get their education in the 21st century. So you have to make sure everyone gets access to it; otherwise, without access to broadband internet at home, those kids are going to perform worse than their better connected classmates. It is not that their intelligence is less than the kids in the suburbs. It is not that they wouldn't study as hard. They would. It is just that they don't have access.

The Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, has repeatedly shown that high-performing students had much better access to the internet at home. I don't think you have to be Horace Mann--the founder of the public school system in the United States--to think that that makes sense. Of course it does.

In 2023, a study of Michigan students found that a student without access to home internet earned significantly lower grades--actually, 0.6 lower on the 4.0 scale--than their connected classmates. Not because they weren't as intelligent. Not because they wouldn't have learned equally well on their device. But you need the device. You need access. You need a Wi-Fi hotspot. You need internet at home. You need something that is going to help you to compete.

By the way, we have another word for those kids. We call them the future of the 21st century in the United States of America. Kids that are 20 percent of our population, they are 100 percent of our future. We are living in a digital world, and it is a portable skill set that every child should be able to take to anywhere they want to go in the world for the rest of their lives. It will be a skill set that employs them, educates them, makes them better citizens. But you can't reach that stage if you are denying it to them when they are 6 years old, 8 years old, 10 years old, 12 years old, and expect them to be able to compete with the kids that come from wealthier families. That is what this vote is all about. It is all about that one issue.

When I was a boy, I had my books. I could take them home. My father drove a truck for the Hood Milk company. I would take my books home. The school superintendent's kids would bring their books home. I could compete against them. Books are equal. That is not the world we live in anymore. If you don't have the internet at home, the other kids essentially have their books in their knapsack. It is called their iPad. They have their home computer. They have access.

I am only here because it was books and I could compete against any kid in Malden, MA, in a blue-collar community. That is why I am a Senator. I had never even been to Washington before I got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. That was my first visit to Washington. I am 29, 30 years old, but I have been competing because you give me the books you give the kid

whose father is the school superintendent, and I will compete against him.

As a matter of fact, I actually sit here at the desk which Jimmy Stewart--``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''--had in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He had never been to Washington. I had never been to Washington.

But it didn't mean you couldn't do a good job if you had access to the same tools that young people had in the best school systems in America. That is what this debate is all about. It is about ensuring that every child has access to the internet through a Wi-Fi hotspot if they need it.

If the school, the library, says we have got to help them at home, they don't have it--because that kid will fall behind the kids who have it. And it won't have anything to do with their ability, won't have anything to with their desire to be a full participant in this great American experiment.

A study using Census Bureau data estimated that individuals with greater access to the computer and internet at home spent 28 percent more hours learning than those kids without that access. I mean, do we really need a study of this? Of course not. We know that is the truth.

So as this evidence on home connectivity piles up, there is no debate: Students without access to internet at home are seriously disadvantaged compared to their classmates, plain and simple.

I identified with this because my father was a truck driver. We didn't have trips to the Himalayas. We didn't have some kind of summer school at universities to help out my brothers and me when we were 15, 16, or 17. But we didn't feel deprived because we had the same books as the kids in the suburbs, in the private schools. We had the same books; and I am going to study as hard as I can.

Today, that is not possible. If you don't have a Wi-Fi hotspot, you can't do it. If you don't have internet at home, you can't do it. You might want to do it, but you can't do it. And by the way, they know they don't have it. They can see the kids on the other side of town who have it. They know it. They are 9; they are 10; they are 11; they are 12. They know it. That is what this program is all about. It is just to say: You have got it; you have got it at home. Go to it. Be whoever you can be.

These Republicans, they are going to vote this program out of existence. This is the great equalizer. This is the access to opportunity. This is democratization of access to opportunity through education, which is supposed to be the foundation of our country.

You know, when I grew up, I would look at Abe Lincoln and his story. I would look at the movies about Abe Lincoln. He would be reading books by candlelight in his house on the prairie. That is all you needed, was the light, because the book was there. You could do it.

Well, without a Wi-Fi hotspot, there is nothing to read. Your device is not working. You are denying that ambitious, hard-working, imaginative, creative young person--by the way, disproportionately Black and Brown in our Nation--from having the same opportunities that we have provided for 250 years since the dawn of our country.

So we are putting these young people at a serious disadvantage compared to their classmates. So now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want to just take that tool away. They want to rip the hotspots out of students' hands. Why? Let's just listen to a few of their arguments.

First, the Congressional Review Act supporters say: The hotspots rule is illegal.

This is simply untrue. It is not illegal.

In section 254 of the Communications Act, Congress provided the FCC with flexibility to adapt the E-Rate program for changing times and educational conditions. How do I know? I am the author of that provision. So when people tell me it is illegal, it is not illegal. I wrote the provision which says the Federal Communications Commission can do this for the children of our Nation.

Second, the Congressional Review Act supporters argue that the hotspots rule endangers students by allowing them to access inappropriate content, including on social media.

False. That is also not true. Under the Children's Internet Protection Act, schools and libraries receiving E-Rate dollars must ensure that hotspots block or filter images that are obscene or harmful to minors.

By the way, with all the crocodile tears coming down from my colleagues on the other side about their concern for children, I have had a children's online privacy protection act pending here in the Senate for years that gives total privacy protection to children under the age of 17 in our Nation, and we can't get it passed.

Why can't we get it passed? Because too many Republicans are concerned about what the big social media companies might say to them.

Well, where is their concern, then, for the poor child being exposed? Not there. They should be more concerned about what Meta is doing to them, what Google is doing to them, what those big companies are doing--because, under the law, it can't happen under the E-Rate dollars. It can't happen. It is illegal. We need another law to pass that makes it illegal to let the big social media companies in our country do the same thing.

If my colleagues are really so concerned about children's online privacy and safety, I urge them to support my legislation--if they care about it--because that would block it.

Third, they say that the program is wasteful.

That is false. Again, the hotspots rule limits the amount of money that can be requested by an E-Rate applicant and prohibits the duplication of the funding. It is all written into the law.

Let me be clear: This repeal will not save the taxpayer a dime. What does the resolution really do? It doesn't make our schools stronger. It doesn't make our libraries better. It doesn't improve student outcomes. It doesn't lower your taxes. It doesn't save the government money. All it does is strip away a lifeline for the children in our Nation who need it the most, that they can take it home with them, that they can study at home. That is it.

So this E-Rate expansion didn't just connect students; it connected futures. It helped make good on the promise that every child, regardless of their income, their race, their geography deserves a fair shot at learning, and that promise is worth defending. It is worth defending.

Education is a great equalizer. It is the foundation of our democracy, the engine of our economy, and the heartbeat of our shared American dream that any child, regardless of where they come from, regardless of who their mother and father is, can dream the great dreams. But we have to give them access to the tools they need in order to maximize all of their God-given abilities.

In today's world, to be cut off from the digital world is to be cut off from education. And that means that broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is an essential tool as much as a textbook or schoolbus or a lunch program. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is a children's issue. It is an American issue. It is who we should be. It is a fairness issue.

I urge my colleagues to not vote to deepen inequality. Instead, vote to affirm our values. Vote to defend every child's right to learn, to thrive, to reach for the stars. Let's reject this resolution and recommit ourselves to closing the homework gap so that all children have equal access to learning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here today to defend the standards for our appliances that save energy, that cut climate emissions. They reduce costs for American families and businesses. Yet Trump and his Republican allies are attacking these commonsense appliance efficiency standards.

This morning's vote overturned the Department of Energy's updated energy labeling rule that would have made it easier for appliance manufacturers to test, to certify, and to label their products in a way that consumers can understand.

Energy labels are like food nutrition labels but for your electricity bill. They empower consumers to choose cheaper, more efficient appliances. They drive competition. They create certainty. They help the American people make informed choices and avoid confusion.

The rule that Republicans overturned was not a ban. It was not a mandate. The rule didn't even change underlying efficiency standards. This vote comes after two additional votes earlier this month where Republicans repealed the Department of Energy's updated efficiency standards for gas-fired water heaters and walk-in coolers and freezers.

Let's be clear: These votes are not about appliance freedom. They are about fossil fuel fascism. This is about corporate lobbyists putting profits over people and destroying decades of bipartisan energy efficiency progress. Having the information to make an informed decision about your appliance that your family wants to buy is about choice--your choice. Not Big Oil's choice, not Big Gas's choice--your choice.

Here is the information. Make up your mind. Do you want one that is more efficient? There it is right in the middle of Best Buy, right there in the middle of the store. Pick that one.

Donald Trump's ridiculous culture war against energy-efficient appliances is a war against saving families money. The more efficient the appliance, the less money people pay in their electricity bill. The fact is that Federal appliance efficiency standards are one of the most successful climate and consumer savings programs in American history. And these standards have been around for decades.

Back in 1987, I wrote the law. I am the author of the law that gave the Department of Energy the authority to set binding energy standards for appliances in America, which are supposed to be updated every 6 years. That is my law. It was signed into law as the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act.

Now, I am going to be honest with you, Ronald Reagan vetoed it the first time because the oil and gas industry wanted him to veto it. And that law ultimately did pass, and it covered 13 major appliances-- kitchen refrigerators, dryers, air conditioners, and, yes, commercial refrigerators. And since then, the number of appliances has more than quadrupled.

Here is the way you should think about it. We need big electrical generating facilities all across the country. Everyone knows right now that AI is now going to be a huge drain on all of the electricity that we have in our country. So how do we handle that problem? Well, one of the ways of handling that problem is to say that refrigerators have to be more efficient in the amount of electricity which they consume. Light bulbs have to be more efficient. Air conditioning has to be more efficient.

For example, in Texas, in the summer, 80 percent of peak demand for electricity is air conditioning. So if you increase the efficiency by a third in air conditioners, you are dramatically reducing the need to have to build more electrical generating facilities in the country. Or maybe there is more electricity left over for the AI industry if you are working in a way that is trying to maximize American ingenuity. That is who we are. We make things that are smarter.

Now, a lot of people--I would say the natural gas and oil industry at the top of the list--they don't want there to be progress. Why is that? Because the less efficient something is, the more energy, the more electricity that has to be consumed. That is their profit. But what does it do? It says to the consumer: You have to pay more for more electricity. It says that you cannot have new options that make it possible for you to ensure that your family has the most modern, the most efficient air conditioning or lighting or refrigeration or stoves.

No, we are going to lock you into 10-years-ago technology. We are going to lock you into 20-years-ago technology. That is a dream for the oil and gas industry--a dream. But for the consumer, no, they are the big loser because what

we are seeing over the years is after my law passed in 1987, the number of appliances which have been covered has quadrupled--four times as many are now covered.

Former President Biden updated more than two dozen standards that have been delayed under the first Trump administration on behalf of the oil and gas industry. These updates were estimated to save households nearly $1 trillion annually over 30 years and save the average family at least $100 per year in lower utility bills. They were also estimated to cut approximately 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon emissions over 30 years. That is the equivalent of taking over 18 million gasoline- powered automobiles off the road each year for 30 years.

That is bad, by the way. That is bad for the oil and gas industry, with fewer greenhouse gases going up, and less oil and gas being consumed. All of that is part of a very bad equation for the oil and gas industry, but it is catastrophic for families. It is catastrophic for our planet that the industries are allowed to dictate policies here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

These appliance standards have also driven progress in States like Massachusetts, where strong State-level appliance efficiency programs are projected to cut energy costs by $13 million each year by 2044 for families and small businesses, while fighting climate change. Let's not forget that these rules have support from industry, but now they are the target of political theater out here on the Senate floor.

It is not too late to act. We have one more appliance efficiency Congressional Review Act vote ahead of us. This is why I am urging my colleagues to vote no to overturn the Department of Energy's efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators and freezers.

These standards update the minimum efficiency levels for new refrigerators and freezers at restaurants, grocery stores, and convenience stores that run 24/7, 365 days a year. This rule alone--the one we are going to vote on--would save businesses up to $4.6 billion over 30 years. These are savings that restaurants and grocery stores could pass on to their customers. And if you have ever worked in a kitchen, you know the importance of reliability and cost savings.

Eliminating this rule would only inject further uncertainty into the market, punish forward-thinking manufacturers, and raise prices on the very businesses--especially small businesses--we say that we want to support. Energy efficiency isn't just an environmental solution; it is an economic one. It cuts costs for renters, for seniors, for small businesses, for schools, and municipal buildings.

Make no mistake about it. Eliminating these standards is climate sabotage. Overturning even a few of them jeopardizes that future. It locks in dirty fossil fuel use. It worsens pollution in frontline communities that are already burdened by asthma, heat, and high energy bills. We cannot slam the brakes on progress just for fossil fuel profits.

A vote on this next resolution to overturn the updated standards for refrigerators and freezers is a vote against lower bills, against climate progress, and against consumer choice. We need to be investing in the future, not resurrecting the past.

When my mother got disappointed in me when I was a boy--when I was 10 years old--my mother would just say: Eddy, you have to learn how to work smarter, not harder. Otherwise, your father and I are going to donate your brain to Harvard Medical School as a completely unused human organ.

Ah, and what did she mean? She meant that you just had to be smarter and think the problem through.

That is what energy efficiency is. It is working smarter, not harder. It is making the refrigerator, it is making the air conditioner, and it is making everything that we use more efficient so we need less electricity, because that is all our nuclear powerplants, our coal- burning plants, and wind and solar are. They are just ways of providing electricity for the air-conditioning, for the lighting, and for the heating. That is all it is. If we make it 25 percent more efficient, then, all of a sudden, we need 25 percent less electricity which is being generated and 25 percent less pollution that goes up into the air and into the lungs of the children in our Nation. That is what we are debating here today.

Once again, the Republicans are going to side with the oil and gas industry, and they are going to say: America can't figure out how to improve the efficiency of appliances in our Nation.

That is what they are saying, but they are also saying the same thing about our automobiles: No, we can't figure out how to make them more efficient.

That is what they are saying about wind and solar: No, we can't figure out how to deploy it in our country as an alternative to oil and gas.

By the way, the story always comes back to that one issue--oil and gas and their money inside of this system--but the price is being paid by consumers who have to pay higher bills, and it is going to be a price that is paid by our planet, as it gets more and more dangerously hotter.

My mother would always say that the planet is running a fever, and there are no emergency rooms for planets. That is where we are. It is the young generation who is leading us. It is the young generation who is saying: You must do something about climate change.

It is the young generation who is saying: We must figure out a way of reducing this pollution that we are sending up into the atmosphere.

Once again, the Republicans are bringing up another bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate that is going to dramatically increase pollution, and that is going into the lungs of every child, of every pregnant mother in our country, and it is absolutely irresponsible and absolutely unnecessary, except for the role that the oil and gas industry plays in the politics of the Republican Party.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 100 days ago, Donald Trump proclaimed ``the golden age of America begins now.'' But in 100 days, since Inauguration Day, ``King'' Donald has shown us that he sits on a throne of fool's gold--one built on empty votes, unfulfilled promises, and lie after lie after lie.

In just over 3 months, ``King'' Donald's reign has rained down chaos and corruption and cuts and crisis on the American people. And he is counting on you not to pay attention. He is hoping you don't notice that, every day, costs are rising, retirement savings are sinking, and families are living paycheck to paycheck and they are bearing the burden of the Trump world.

He is relying on all of us to roll over, accept his absolute rule, and let him and his caviar Cabinet enjoy the circus while they pass a massive tax break for their billionaire buddies out of all of the programs that would serve every family in our country.

So to help us all keep track here on the 100th day of the Trump Presidency, here are the 100 damages from Trump's 100 days:

In his first 100 days, Donald Trump, No. 1, propped up Big Tech billionaires at his inauguration, right here in this building.

No. 2, withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization.

No. 3, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to save our planet.

No. 4, created DOGE.

No. 5, called to end birthright citizenship through an Executive order, which is unlawful because it cannot override the Constitution of the United States.

No. 6, canceled nearly $400 million in funding to support communities' efforts to eliminate or reduce flood damage.

No. 7, eliminated the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, which addresses greenhouse gas emissions from the health sector and facilitates interagency coordination to address climate change impacts on the public health of all 330 million Americans.

No. 8, he attacked clean car regulations that save drivers money at the pump.

No. 9, unleashed ICE at schools and hospitals and churches to threaten children and families.

No. 10, disbanded the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which championed the first Federal gun safety legislation in more than 30 years.

No. 11, repealed the Biden administration's AI protections for minority communities in our country.

No. 12, he helped States refuse abortion care in life-threatening emergencies.

No. 13, threatened to take over the Panama Canal.

No. 14, he fired 18 inspectors general who work to eliminate government waste and fraud and abuse.

No. 15, threatened to hold California wildlife aid hostage.

No. 16, threatened to use military action against Greenland to take it by force and violate its sovereignty.

No. 17, illegally fired two National Labor Relations Board officials.

No. 18, banned transgender Americans from serving in the U.S. military.

No. 19, restricted access to gender-affirming care.

No. 20, he froze the Clean School Bus Rebate funding, standing in the way of keeping our air clean for kids on buses in our country.

No. 21, spread misinformation about vaccines and risked the health of millions of Americans.

No. 22, he blamed a plane crash on DEI--irresponsible.

No. 23, eliminated the public records office at the Centers for Disease Control.

No. 24, scrubbed health data related to HIV from the CDC website.

No. 25, allowed DOGE access to sensitive Treasury Department information about all Americans.

No. 26, fired the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because he favors the interests of his billionaire buddies over those of American consumers.

No. 27, gutted Federal protections for worker safety.

No. 28, scrubbed the mention of climate change from any Federal Agency in our country.

No. 29, froze $10 billion in disaster funding as part of a bogus investigation into nonprofit support for undocumented immigrants.

No. 30, cut cancer research funding.

No. 31, cut diabetes research funding.

No. 32, cut HIV-AIDS research funding.

No. 33, cut heart disease research funding.

No. 34, cut mental health research funding.

No. 35, cut family caregiving research funding.

No. 36, cut funding to recruit the next generation of health researchers, putting years of innovation at risk.

No. 37, withdrew grant opportunities with the Office on Violence Against Women.

No. 38, threatened providers, hospitals, and community health centers because of the type of care which they provide.

No. 39, froze funding for community health centers in our country.

No. 40, ordered the suspension of EV charging funding.

No. 41, tried to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

No. 42, illegally rescinded $80 million in congressionally appropriated FEMA funding for New York City bank accounts.

No. 43, fired--and then rehired--over 300 staffers at the National Nuclear Security Administration, jeopardizing

the security of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

No. 44, threatened to take over Canada.

No. 45, weakened NATO by cozying up to Russia and alienating our allies.

No. 46, cut Alzheimer's research, delaying breakthroughs that could find a cure for this tragic and deadly disease.

No. 47, terminated the American Climate Corps.

No. 48, cut hundreds of employees from the FAA.

No. 49, fired more than 200 probationary FEMA workers.

And No. 50, fired more--this is unbelievable--than 2,400 National Park Service workers nationwide, including at Minute Man National Park, Springfield Armory, and Cape Cod National Seashore.

No. 51, called to privatize the U.S. Postal Service, jeopardizing jobs and the fast, safe, and efficient delivery of our mail.

No. 52, fired workers responsible for answering the Veterans' Administration Crisis Line.

No. 53, worked with Republicans in Congress to gut Medicaid.

No. 54, terminated hundreds of VA contracts, including those in cancer research and suicide prevention.

No. 55, fired more than 1,000 NOAA employees nationwide.

No. 56, gutted USAID and halted global humanitarian assistance.

No. 57, fired 2,400 VA employees, with plans to cut 80,000 additional VA employees.

No. 58, froze funding and canceled classes at the National Fire Academy.

No. 59, canceled the Local Food for Schools and Local Purchase Assistance Programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ending subsidies that go directly to farmers for schools and costing Massachusetts alone and our farmers $18 million.

No. 60, ordered the closure of the environmental justice offices at the Environmental Protection Agency and not just at headquarters but at all the regional EPA offices as well.

No. 61, froze and announced the termination of the climate bank, the green bank funding.

No. 62, froze $20 million in community change grant funding to improve air quality in Springfield, MA, the former asthma capital of the United States; and cut another $1 million from Massachusetts Department of Public Health to combat asthma rates in Western Massachusetts.

No. 63, eliminated the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

No. 64, wiped the Surgeon General's advisory calling gun violence a public health crisis--wiped.

No. 65, called for the firing of judges who have disagreed with him, which clearly would violate the U.S. Constitution.

No. 66, illegally fired the Democratic Commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission.

No. 67, cut off legal representation for unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings.

No. 68, cut funding to fight the opioid epidemic in our country. It is still an epidemic.

No. 69, threatened to block a media merger if CBS didn't change its reporting.

No. 70, gave DOGE access to sensitive Small Business Administration data.

No. 71, Signalgate.

No. 72, abducted Rumeysa Ozturk off the streets of Somerville, MA--a graduate student whom I just visited in prison in Louisiana. The Trump administration has not charged her with a crime, has presented no evidence. The Trump administration must release Rumeysa now.

No. 73, cut funding to help kids get vaccinated.

No. 74, terminated collective bargaining for tens of thousands of Federal workers.

No. 75, called to end funding for the broadcasters of the public broadcasting system of our country.

No. 76, cut off $106 million in education funds for Massachusetts.

No. 77, threatened a military attack against Iran, which could have set off a full-blown regional war in the Middle East.

No. 78, fired nearly everyone who works on the low-income heating assistance program and their Federal staff--fired nearly everyone.

No. 79, fired 870 workers at the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, approximately two-thirds of their workforce. That is occupational safety and health.

No. 80, cut funding for the Head Start program. There are 800,000 young people in Head Start. Slashed that funding.

No. 81, canceled more than 1,000 National Endowment for the Humanities grants totaling more than $363 million.

No. 82, delayed broadband grant funding.

No. 83, allowed a measles epidemic to spread uncontrolled across our country--a measles epidemic in 2025.

No. 84, eliminated more than $880 million in Federal climate resilience aid that helps communities build disaster-resilient infrastructure.

No. 85, opened America's public lands to new coal mining.

No. 86, targeted State and local laws aimed at tackling the climate crisis.

No. 87, moved to end lifesaving parole programs for Afghans and Ukrainians and Cubans and Haitians and Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.

No. 88, moved to sunset critical environmental regulations.

No. 89, blocked $2.2 billion in Federal grant funding to Harvard.

No. 90, froze public safety grants for public broadcasters in our country.

No. 91, halted Federal leasing and permitting for wind projects in our country as they open our public lands for coal mining.

No. 92, gutted permitting processes in order to fast-track dirty energy projects to reward his Big Oil and Gas and Coal cronies.

No. 93, canceled $90 million in disaster prevention funding to Massachusetts alone.

No. 94, put all staff on the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness on administrative leave, essentially shutting down the Agency that works on homelessness in our Nation.

No. 95, suspended food safety inspections after firing the Food and Drug Administration workers--food safety inspections, suspended in our country in 2025.

No. 96, terminated $400 million in grants for AmeriCorps.

No. 97, suspended refugee resettlement in our country for the first time.

No. 98, arrested Judge Hannah Dugan, alleged that she helped an undocumented man avoid immigration enforcement.

No. 99, increased funding for the Sentinel ICBM program, which, as it increases the risk of accidental launch, makes nuclear war more likely on our planet.

And No. 100, deported children who are United States citizens.

100 days, 100 damages. This is where our country is right now, and this is what we must stand up and fight to prevent from becoming any worse.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a regime of censorship that is increasing by the day. It is the story of Donald Trump's relentless attacks on CBS and its flagship news program, ``60 Minutes.''

It is the story of how the Federal Communications Commission, an Agency with a storied history of protecting free speech--how it has been weaponized to pressure journalists to soften their coverage of President Trump.

It is a story of a campaign to turn our free press into a State-run media echo chamber, and make no mistake, it is a story that should alarm every single American, Democrat, and Republican alike.

Since leaving office and even before, Donald Trump has waged a nonstop war on the free press. He has called journalists the ``enemy of the people.'' He has used his platform, Truth Social, to attack reporters, to smear respected news organizations, and to incite harassment and threats against those who dare to report the truth.

But recently, we have witnessed something even more dangerous, the merging of Trump's personal vendettas with the official powers of the government.

So let's start with the facts. Trump and his allies' hatred for CBS and ``60 Minutes'' is no secret.

Trump has repeatedly attacked ``60 Minutes'' on his Truth Social account. Just 2 weeks ago, for example, he said that CBS should lose its license over its reporting--even though CBS, as a network, doesn't have a license.

He then told FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to ``impose the maximum fines and punishment on CBS.'' Earlier in February, Trump called for ``60 Minutes'' to be ``terminated.''

Around the same time, Elon Musk got in on the action. Just a few days before Vice President Vance traveled to Germany to accuse Europe of censoring conservatives, Musk called ``60 Minutes'' the ``biggest liars in the world'' and said its journalists ``deserve a long prison sentence.''

So let me repeat that. The richest man in the world, with limitless authority over the Federal Government, said that ``60 Minutes'' journalists ``deserve a long prison sentence'' over their editorial decision making. That is a terrifying statement. These comments aren't idle threats. They create an environment of intimidation and fear. They send a signal: Criticize us, and you will face not just public smears but potential legal jeopardy.

The goal is clear. Trump and his allies want to turn the hard- hitting, fact-intensive journalism at ``60 Minutes'' into ``FOX and Friends,'' and at the same time, as Trump and his allies have unleashed a torrent of attacks against ``60 Minutes,'' CBS's parent company, Paramount, has been seeking regulatory approval from the FCC for an $8 billion merger.

Although this deal has serious implications for the entertainment industry, Trump and his right-wing allies instead viewed it as a point of leverage against the news media.

For months, the Trump FCC has made clear that favorable merger treatment will come at a cost: favorable coverage or, more precisely, less critical coverage of Donald Trump.

Most notably, Chairman Carr has made clear that a frivolous, politically motivated complaint against CBS over its editorial decision-making would be a consideration in the Paramount merger review.

In fact, just yesterday, Chairman Carr said, cryptically, that ``all options are on the table'' in its investigation into that frivolous complaint.

It is not hard to read between the lines. CBS's news reporting--and its reporting on Donald Trump--would impact the FCC review of the Paramount merger.

It is a message intended to reverberate far beyond CBS and far beyond ``60 Minutes.'' The FCC has become the ``Federal Censorship Commission,'' and ``Federal Censorship Commission'' Chairman Carr is ready, eager, and willing to carry out Trump's crusade against the news media.

This is not regulatory oversight. This is regulatory blackmail, and it places Paramount and CBS in a difficult spot: Succumb to Trump's wishes and compromise CBS's journalism or stand strong and face the wrath of the ``Federal Censorship Commission.''

This position is already leading to upheaval within the companies. Last week, executive producer Bill Owens, who had worked at ``60 Minutes'' for over two decades, resigned, citing concerns about his ability to make independent decisions.

On Sunday night, just 2 nights ago, in a closing 1-minute statement, ``60

Minutes'' journalist Scott Pelley reported on Owens' resignation and called out Paramount directly. The full story inside Paramount, CBS, and ``60 Minutes'' remains unclear, and Pelley made clear that Paramount has not killed any ``60 Minutes'' stories.

But it is difficult to ignore the timing. This is how modern censorship creeps into newsrooms. It doesn't require book burning or secret raids. It requires weaponizing existing government authority to pressure the multinational corporations with diverse financial interests that run storied programs like ``60 Minutes.''

This is a five-alarm fire for democracy. The free press is not just another stakeholder in our public discourse; it is the check on power. And when government officials use their power to intimidate the press, to manipulate newsrooms, and silence dissent, they are not just committing an ethical breach; they are committing an assault upon the First Amendment.

So let me be absolutely clear: The FCC should never condition a merger on favorable news coverage. History teaches us that censorship rarely begins with overt tyranny. It begins with small concessions, subtle pressures, and self-censorship born of fear. But it always ends the same way: with a citizenry less informed, a democracy less vibrant, and a government less accountable.

We cannot allow that to happen in the United States of America. We must remember that freedom of the press is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. And we must have--and always have to have--the courage to stand up, to speak out, and to say: In this country, no President will dictate the truth.

That is the promise of the First Amendment. That is the promise of our democracy. And that is the promise that we must keep.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to lawfully extend the deadline by which ByteDance must either divest TikTok or face a ban in the United States.

In a few moments, I will ask unanimous consent to pass my legislation with Senator Wyden, Senator Van Hollen, and Senator Booker, the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act, to extend the divestment deadline until October.

My colleagues may be wondering: Didn't President Trump just extend the TikTok deadline last week by 75 days? Why are we passing legislation to do the same thing? Well, it is because we need legislation because President Trump's move was illegal, both the first time he extended the deadline in January and his second extension last Friday.

Although the statute permits the President to extend the TikTok deadline by 90 days if certain conditions are met, President Trump never triggered that provision in the statute. Instead, he twice issued Executive orders that directed the Department of Justice to not enforce the law for 75 days. Nothing in the statute permits President Trump to simply not enforce Federal law.

By Trump's logic, he could negate any statute enacted by Congress by simply directing his administration to not enforce it. That is not how our system of government actually works. It is lawless, and it is dangerous.

Beyond being an affront to the rule of law, these Executive orders are also unfair to TikTok's 170 million creators and users and the 7 million small businesses that rely on the platform to reach their customers.

By lawlessly extending the TikTok divestment deadline, Trump has effectively put the fate of TikTok in the hands of risk-averse corporate shareholders at major technology companies like Oracle and Apple and Google. That is because the TikTok ban imposes up to $800 billion in fines for companies like Oracle and Apple and Google that help keep TikTok online and distribute the app through their app stores.

Trump's lawless extension puts these companies in a difficult spot. They can comply with the law--take TikTok offline and face the wrath of Trump and the public--or they can violate the law--leave TikTok up and risk ruinous legal liability.

So far, the tech companies have been willing to risk that liability based on promises from President Trump that he won't punish them. But we all know that President Trump's promises aren't worth a whole lot. The President could reverse course at any moment or threaten to rescind his Executive order to coerce these companies into supporting unrelated political objectives. No good comes from giving any President that kind of leverage.

So while TikTok remains online today, these unilateral illegal extensions are unfair to TikTok's users and dangerous for our country.

So here is the thing: I actually agree with the President on extending the TikTok divestment deadline. There was no reason that TikTok should have gone dark in January, just a couple of days after the Supreme Court ruled on the law.

Clearly, the Supreme Court had only 2 days left to resolve all of the national security issues, all of the other issues that were surrounding this issue. It wasn't TikTok or anyone else's fault that it took all the way up until to 2 days before the deadline to have TikTok get an answer as to whether or not what was happening was constitutional. So we needed more time to have a negotiation over whether or not those national security issues and other issues could be resolved.

It is now, ultimately, again, a decision that has to be made as to whether or not TikTok should have gone dark last week as rumors swirled about potential new investors in TikTok's U.S. business.

We don't need to find a lawful solution; it is imperative that we find a lawful solution. That is why I am bringing my legislation out here. That will protect free speech rights of TikTok's 170 million users and will also give us some time to be able to negotiate an end.

I want national security issues to be the central part of this negotiation, and I believe such a solution is possible. But unlawful, ad hoc extensions only sow chaos for the tech companies facing ruinous penalties and for the millions of Americans who rely on TikTok as a vital communications platform.

Instead, Congress should pass my legislation, the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act, to lawfully extend the divestment deadline until October, creating legal certainty for TikTok's users and creators and giving all parties a longer period to reach a solution.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 103, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I just want to reiterate what I said in my remarks--that ByteDance ownership in TikTok does create national security risks--but I also agree with my colleague. We just spoke. My colleague who just spoke said: Let's allow the President to continue to negotiate. Well, that is what my legislation does. It says that the President has out until October to negotiate a resolution that solves the national security-related issues. That time is needed because, in response to my colleague who said that he doesn't want a half-baked solution--well, that is what would happen if there was a rush to try to negotiate. So we need to give the President the legal space, passed by the Senate and the House, to be able to negotiate. That is all I am asking for.

What the President is doing right now is illegally extending the time, creating a cloud of legal jeopardy over all of the American companies which deal with TikTok right now.

So I think what I heard my colleague say was that they want to allow President Trump to negotiate, and that is what I am saying, except I am saying let's do it with the Senate having passed the legislation that gives him the time to do it in a very deliberate way so that the answer is not half-baked and that ultimately we can get to a resolution of this issue.

I will also note, by the way, that in a filing at the U.S. circuit court of appeals, that the intelligence community did, in fact, say that they have no information that the Chinese Government has, in fact, compromised this information that can be used against the United States at this point in time.

I would also add that I do agree with my colleague when he says that TikTok does prey upon young people, does contribute to mental health issues, especially amongst the teenagers and children in our society. But so does YouTube and so does Facebook and so does every one of the American sites.

So if we want to deal with the problem of social media creating problems for young people in our society, let's pass a law. Let's pass a tough law. That is the law that I have been able to get out of the Senate Commerce Committee. It is a tough law. It is the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, up to the age of 16, and it says to companies: If the parents want this, you have to delete any information you have gathered about the child. It says: You can't target a teenager or a child with ads.

Let's pass that law on the Senate floor, not just for TikTok but for the American companies as well, which invented this targeting of children. That was invented here, the targeting of children, exploiting of teenagers, causing this mental health crisis in our Nation.

So it is time for us to, in my opinion, pass the legislation that has been objected to by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle so that the President has the time to negotiate with the Chinese, with TikTok, about the national security issues, so that there is a divestment that does work and provides real security for Americans.

But the next issue arises immediately because even if there is a divestment, that TikTok that is then American-owned, theoretically, is going to be targeting teenagers and children just the same way that every other American social media company does. Where is the concern about that? I hear it, but I don't hear any legislation coming out here on the floor from the Republican leadership to deal with the crisis, which everyone knows is front and center in our society right now.

So I think this debate really gives us a great opportunity to have a wider conversation about all of the impact social media is having upon our society.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, Social Security is under attack. Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE are revving up their chain saw and coming after America's earned Social Security benefits. They are cutting staff, slashing services, closing offices, and lying about the program.

Ten days from now, the DOGE chain saw is threatening to cut phone services at the Social Security Administration--cutting the phone services at the Social Security Administration--jeopardizing benefits that seniors earned through a lifetime of work.

In 2023, do you know how many people died waiting for their Social Security benefits? It was 30,000--30,000 Americans. What do we think now about doing away with 1-800 phone service, and what will that do to wait times that are already too long?

Yesterday, I just decided to get on and to dial 1-800 to just see how long it would take for a U.S. Senator to be able to connect with the Social Security Administration. It was a half hour, it was an hour, and then they just said there is at least a 2-hour wait. Well, for Grandma and Grandpa, we just don't want them waiting a couple of hours or more in order to get the information they need about--for most of them or a lot of them--the only check in their life, the only thing that gives them the capacity to be able to pay for the groceries, the rent, or even for phone service.

But at the Social Security Administration, over the last 8 weeks, it is now: 1-800, dial the number, and then just wait.

So the administration is then forcing people to, instead of being able to use the phone, they are saying: Get online, Grandma.

And then Grandma is saying: Oh, do you know what? I forgot to take that computer course 30 years ago, and I am 88 now.

But they are saying: You have got to learn to go online, Grandma, for those Social Security benefits because we are cutting off the phone service--or drive. Just get out there in the car.

Some of the Social Security offices are a couple of hundred miles away from people.

But that is the plan. We are 10 days away from that being put into place. And that is even if the field offices are still open for Social Security, because they are planning on cutting the field offices, as well, just for people to be able to access their earned benefits.

Why is this happening? Well, because of the lie that Social Security is rife with fraud. That is a lie--a lie just like claims of fraud made by President Trump when he said someone was listed in the Social Security system at age 360.

Let me say that again. He claims someone was 360 years old--older not just than the entire Social Security Program, but older than the United States of America because that person would have had to have been born in 1659. Yet Trump and Musk are lying in order to undermine, in order to discredit the entire Social Security infrastructure in our country.

A Federal judge called DOGE's fraud-finding mission at the Social Security Administration ``a fishing expedition . . . based on little more than suspicion,'' with no evidence at all that had been presented by the Trump administration that there was massive fraud inside the Social Security Administration.

And we heard at the State of the Union Address, as he is up there talking about people 200 years, 300 years old--and it turns out that none of it was true. Trump was using the State of the Union Address just to lie to the American people about Social Security.

Now, why would he do that? Why would he lie to seniors in our country? Why would he lie to people with disabilities? Because, very simply, the Republican Party, from 1935 on, opposed the Social Security system from being put into place in the first place. They harbor an ancient animosity toward Social Security. They actually didn't support putting Medicare on the books. They harbor an ancient animosity toward all of these programs, and now they feel that their time has come to undermine and to discredit them.

Instead of giving Americans a level playing field, the administration is hurling curveballs at Grandma, curveballs at Grandpa. And we are already seeing the effects on Social Security benefits.

Recently, a young woman contacted my office because her disability case, which had already been delayed by previous Social Security cuts, is now halted--halted, a woman with disabilities. This woman was homeless and had a young child to care for while she struggled to afford a place to live without benefits.

My office is contacted on a daily basis by people just like that, by senior citizens who are terrified that they will lose the earned benefits they rely on to eat and to keep a roof over their heads.

So instead of helping millions of Americans navigate life's transitions, this administration is implementing a roadmap to ruin the Social Security Administration.

What is that roadmap? It is very simple. First, lie about fraud in the program, with no evidence, to undermine the public confidence in the Social Security system. Second, use those lies as an excuse to hallow out Social Security and to cut benefits.

Third, raise the retirement age and privatize Social Security, handing your benefits over to Wall Street, making the billionaires richer and our seniors poorer.

Can you imagine if the Republican playbook had been put in place during the George W. Bush administration, which was to put all of this money out into the market? There would be seniors all across our Nation having a Pepto Bismol moment in the marketplace, wondering what was happening to their life savings.

So that was the program that they tried to put in place during George W. Bush's administration. It still is the plan, but we should not, in fact, fall for that because we can't trust the markets to guarantee the returns which seniors are going to need in order to have a predictable and safe retirement.

Social Security isn't a budget line; it is a lifeline. And for too many of the people who are advocating for privatization, ``GOP'' really stands for ``get old people.'' That is the plan. If you kick them in the heart, you are going to break your toe.

It is a lifeline. One in five people in Massachusetts relies upon Social Security benefits to put food on their table, to buy groceries, and to pay their bills.

Here is an astounding number: 22 million Americans are dependent upon Social Security to the extent to which they would be thrown into poverty if they just missed 1 month's check, and that includes about 16 million seniors, 268,000 of whom live in my home State of Massachusetts.

If you need a reminder why our seniors should never rely on Wall Street for a secure retirement, take a look at the stock market this week. Trump called Wednesday ``Liberation Day,'' but it should really be called ``Obliteration Day.'' We are seeing the stock market absolutely obliterated over the past 2 days, thanks to Donald Trump. Today, the Dow dropped 2,200 points. It was the worst day for the market since 2020. And now the market has lost more than 10 percent of its total value over the past 2 days. Grandma and Grandpa should not be trusting the casino of Wall Street for their retirement benefits. That is why we set up the Social Security system in 1935.

Donald Trump has instituted a reckless trade war, and seniors are seeing their 401(k)s and retirements evaporate, on top of his efforts to slash their healthcare and Social Security benefits. The only thing the Trump administration and Senate Republicans are offering our seniors is social insecurity.

Madam President, Social Security isn't rife with fraud. It is not a Ponzi scheme, as Elon Musk called it. It isn't something that can just be turned off. Social Security is a promise we made to current and future generations, who would be absolutely broke if we did not fulfill our promises to them.

Republicans and DOGE are taking a sledgehammer to the benefits that are a lifeline, a true lifeline, for people with disabilities and that seniors have worked hard their whole lives in order to earn. Social Security is not an entitlement; it is an earned benefit. And Republicans haven't been able to destroy Social Security yet. There is a reason why it is called the third rail of American politics. And we are not going to allow Musk and Trump or their billionaire buddies to succeed in destroying Social Security with their lies and their cuts and their cruelty. We will not neglect the promise we made, and we will preserve security and dignified retirement for everyone.

The loudest voices in this fight are those of countless Americans who simply want the government to honor its promise to retirees, to seniors, and to people with disabilities.

This is not an administration that works for the American people. Trump is not going to take from the American people all at once. He is going to do it inch by inch at a time, and Trump and his billionaire enablers will, inch by inch, steal from the workers to give tax breaks to the rich, steal from seniors to give tax breaks to the rich, steal from children to give tax breaks to the rich, steal from those who are sick to give tax breaks for the rich--to loot all the programs that have been put on the books in order to ensure that our society is so much better than it was in 1935.

And I will tell you this: In 1900, the average age of death--life expectancy--was 48 years of age. We had gone from the Garden of Eden to 1900. Life expectancy was 48 years of age. In 1900, 20 percent of all children died before the age of 5.

Then the progressive movement put programs on the books--Social Security, vaccines, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start--in order to make sure that everyone was able to enjoy the full benefits of our society. That is what this ancient animosity of people like Donald Trump want to rid the society of.

So I just want to say: Democrats will always be here, always fighting against these callous cuts and heartless efforts by Trump and Musk and the Senate Republicans. And we are going to do it on vote after vote, all night and into the morning, in order to make sure the American people understand who is on their side.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1529 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, in just over 1 week, Elon Musk has vowed to use his DOGE chain saw to hang up all of the telephone services at the Social Security Administration that Grandma and Grandpa use to access Social Security benefits. That would be OK if computer-savvy Gen Xers were the Social Security recipients, but they are not. It is Grandma and Grandpa in their eighties and nineties, who didn't take a computer course 30 years ago.

That is right. Musk and Trump are going to force Grandma and Grandpa to go online or drive to a field office if a field office is still even open. What if they can't use a computer? What if they can't drive themselves to a distant field office? How are they going to get their benefits?

So my amendment just says: No. We are going to keep the phone lines open to answer the call when Grandma and Grandpa are on the line. The phone line is the lifeline for Grandma.

They will permanently disconnect her from her Social Security benefits.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for Grandma.

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