Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Tillis in introducing the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act to ensure investors can continue to rely with confidence on the advice of proxy advisory firms by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to regulate all major proxy advisory firms under the Investment Advisers Act. This advice is critical for investors as they decide how to vote their shares on

important corporate governance matters, such as director elections or whether to sell the company.

Indeed, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has stated that the ``independence of the research provided by proxy advisors is a critical element of our right, as shareholders, to hold the board of directors accountable and to cast informed proxy votes on corporate governance and proxy voting policies.'' According to the Council of Institutional Investors, proxy advisers ``support their clients by making the research gathering and analysis process more efficient to minimize costs for the ultimate beneficiaries, including pension recipients and retail investors.'' And the National Association of State Treasurers has emphasized the need to ``maintain the integrity and efficacy of the relationship between institutional investors and proxy advisory firms.'' In short, proxy advisory firms are an important tool for investors.

But the current regulation and accountability for proxy advisory firms is inadequate. The purpose of the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act is to improve this state of affairs. Under our legislation, all major proxy advisory firms would be required to register as investment advisers under the Advisers Act. They will owe a fiduciary duty to their clients, and that duty will be enforceable under Federal law. So as to not discourage new entrants into the proxy advisory business, our bill provides smaller proxy advisory firms the choice to voluntarily register under the Investment Advisers Act but does not require them to do so. The legislation also directs the SEC to conduct periodic examinations, which must include a serious review of the conflicts of interest policies of registered proxy advisory firms and whether firms knowingly made false statements to any of its clients.

Lastly, our bill requires the SEC to consult with all relevant stakeholders and report back periodically to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee with recommendations for any additional investor protections beyond continued access to proxy advisory firms so that investors have the tools to make informed investment decisions and exercise their rights as shareholders. In short, the intent of this legislation is to preserve the critical role played by proxy advisory firms and to hold them accountable to investors.

I would like to thank Senator Tillis for working with me in crafting this bipartisan legislation, and I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join us in working to pass the Corporate Governance Fairness Act.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Tillis in introducing the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act to ensure investors can continue to rely with confidence on the advice of proxy advisory firms by requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to regulate all major proxy advisory firms under the Investment Advisers Act. This advice is critical for investors as they decide how to vote their shares on

important corporate governance matters, such as director elections or whether to sell the company.

Indeed, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has stated that the ``independence of the research provided by proxy advisors is a critical element of our right, as shareholders, to hold the board of directors accountable and to cast informed proxy votes on corporate governance and proxy voting policies.'' According to the Council of Institutional Investors, proxy advisers ``support their clients by making the research gathering and analysis process more efficient to minimize costs for the ultimate beneficiaries, including pension recipients and retail investors.'' And the National Association of State Treasurers has emphasized the need to ``maintain the integrity and efficacy of the relationship between institutional investors and proxy advisory firms.'' In short, proxy advisory firms are an important tool for investors.

But the current regulation and accountability for proxy advisory firms is inadequate. The purpose of the bipartisan Corporate Governance Fairness Act is to improve this state of affairs. Under our legislation, all major proxy advisory firms would be required to register as investment advisers under the Advisers Act. They will owe a fiduciary duty to their clients, and that duty will be enforceable under Federal law. So as to not discourage new entrants into the proxy advisory business, our bill provides smaller proxy advisory firms the choice to voluntarily register under the Investment Advisers Act but does not require them to do so. The legislation also directs the SEC to conduct periodic examinations, which must include a serious review of the conflicts of interest policies of registered proxy advisory firms and whether firms knowingly made false statements to any of its clients.

Lastly, our bill requires the SEC to consult with all relevant stakeholders and report back periodically to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee with recommendations for any additional investor protections beyond continued access to proxy advisory firms so that investors have the tools to make informed investment decisions and exercise their rights as shareholders. In short, the intent of this legislation is to preserve the critical role played by proxy advisory firms and to hold them accountable to investors.

I would like to thank Senator Tillis for working with me in crafting this bipartisan legislation, and I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join us in working to pass the Corporate Governance Fairness Act.

Will the Senator yield for a question? I think he will.

Thank you very much.

First, let me say that you are demonstrating incredible courage and conscience today and last evening as you stand here and point out the grave situation this country faces. You have clearly indicated--and I believe you are right--that the direction of this administration is toward authoritarian rule. Step by step, unfortunately, we seem to get closer.

One of the great ironies of the administration is that President Trump loves to sort of fake people out, if you will, while he is doing something he doesn't like or we wouldn't like. For example, for 56 times, he has talked about the deep state, the deep state, while at the same time it appears he might be building such a deep state.

For example, the Washington Post reported that the former chief data officer for the Social Security Administration has said that Elon Musk and his DOGE gang copied a mainframe database containing the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans, including names, birth dates, addresses, and more. In fact, if you step back, DOGE has pilfered information from every Federal Agency, and we are in a situation where I believe Trump is prepared to weaponize that information against the American people in so many different ways.

So I would just ask: Did you hear my distress that Trump could use this information to attack his opponent? Could he use this information to disrupt the elections in '26 as a path to further authoritarian influence in the United States?

If the Senator would yield?

DOGE, it has been my observation, has pilfered information from every major Federal organization, and the Social Security Administration's former employees have indicated they have taken the most critical files that have detailed information on every American.

I think you are right. There are only two things you can really do with this kind of data. You sell it or you weaponize it or you do both. The concern I think we both share is weaponization.

In addition, I believe that the administration has sought from secretaries of state throughout the United States information about their voting rolls, which is specifically directed perhaps at electoral interference.

I yield the floor.

Well, I concur.

If I may raise one additional question?

You have seen firsthand what is happening in Portland. It is outrageous. The situation has been completely distorted by the President to suggest that there is major civil upheaval. That is not the case at all from the reports I have heard.

His also suggesting that military personnel can enforce the laws of the United States violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which has been a barrier to police powers by the military since the 1870s.

I assume, like myself, you are particularly disturbed that he is, again, not only weaponizing data, but he is weaponizing our military forces to go in and carry out civil wars.

Your comments?

Thank you very much, Senator.

Mr. President, millions of Americans are starting to get notices that their monthly health insurance premiums will be going up by $100 or much more because President Trump and congressional Republicans are letting critical health insurance tax credits expire.

Donald Trump likes to put his signature on things, and to be fair, he should be putting his name on each of these premium increases because-- there is no other way to describe it--this is a

Trump health tax on working families. It is part of the Trump plan.

Think about it. Trump demanded $4.5 trillion--and just to be clear, that is trillion with a ``t''--in tax giveaways in his deeply unpopular budget, but in all those tax cuts for billionaires, for gun manufacturers, for wealthy oil and gas companies, Trump and congressional Republicans couldn't find any room to extend the tax credits that help 22 million Americans keep their health insurance.

In fact, to add insult to injury, they also cut $990 billion from Medicaid for the 70 million Americans who rely on it. Let's take a second to put Trump and Republican priorities in perspective.

They passed a massive tax giveaway for approximately 902 billionaires. They slashed $990 billion from Medicaid, which covers 70 million Americans. And they decided to let health insurance help for 22 million working Americans just go away.

Trump and GOP leaders are so committed to blocking anything good for Americans' healthcare that they are shutting down the government to prevent us from fixing the problem. That is where we are today.

We all know that shutdowns are costly, wasteful, and needlessly disruptive. But not having health coverage because Republicans ended it, that is devastating.

I want to be very clear: This is about the healthcare of 22 million Americans, not undocumented immigrants, as some Republicans have misleadingly claimed. Those in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for these tax credits or for Medicaid or Medicare, for that matter.

This is about the healthcare of American families. There is a simple path forward: fund the government and help Americans keep their healthcare. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we can wait to address this issue, the American people can't wait.

Open enrollment for people who purchase health insurance for themselves or their families through the State marketplaces starts on November 1. That is less than a month away, and notices are already going out the door.

In Rhode Island, these notices start to go out on October 17. If the Republicans keep us from acting now, premiums will more than double--a 114-percent increase. The new premiums will be so high that many people will forgo coverage.

Indeed, it is likely that younger and healthier people will forgo coverage, leaving those under coverage with more complicated and more expensive healthcare needs, also driving up the costs of healthcare.

In Rhode Island alone, roughly 13,000 people will likely lose their healthcare coverage for next year because of these price increases. We need to act.

Last Friday, I met with small business owners in Warren, RI. They stressed the need for this tax credit. Even with this credit, it is difficult for them to afford health coverage and keep their businesses open.

One of these businesspeople made a profound point. I call it the Uriah Principle after the first name of its proponent. What is the Uriah Principle? Simply, the most serious side effect or one of the most serious side effects of the lack of healthcare insurance is poverty.

Yes. When you have no healthcare coverage and you get ill, you can't work. When you have no healthcare insurance you are in a very difficult position, and you are scrambling just to get by.

That is not conducive to the initiative it takes for small businesses to thrive in this country. And my colleagues are always proclaiming their devotion and dedication to small businesses everywhere. This is a blow to small businesses everywhere.

Now, it is unfortunate but Donald Trump and his handlers don't want to solve this problem, and congressional Republicans seem only to be interested in what Trump wants.

Since August, right after congressional Republicans rammed through their $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare programs, the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have been asking to sit down and negotiate to resolve this problem. But at President Trump's direction, Republican leaders ignored the request.

Trump said:

Don't even bother dealing with [Democrats].

And Republican leaders have listened.

At one point, the President agreed to meet but reversed course, apparently, at the direction of Speaker Johnson, who has kept the House in recess for the last month.

Finally, the day before the shutdown--the day before the shutdown-- the President finally agreed to meet, not negotiate, just meet. Since then, nothing. Apparently, he has plenty of time to host the President of Argentina and has no problem sending him home with 20 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars, but he has no time to talk about helping the American people with their skyrocketing healthcare costs.

While President Trump is ignoring this issue, he is demanding a blank check so he can run the government exactly how he wants to. Unfortunately, GOP leaders are willing to hand it to him and not for the first time.

Late last year, shortly before President Trump took office, Democrats and Republicans reached a bipartisan agreement on a full-year funding bill for fiscal year 2025. It would have funded the government for the entire year, and it would have provided critical disaster relief, funding for national defense, childcare, the healthcare system, transportation infrastructure, and much more.

But Donald Trump insisted that Republicans walk away from the agreement until he came into office so he could call all the shots. They delivered, and he took advantage.

I didn't vote for the year-long CR that Trump eventually backed last March because even then, his excesses were already on full display. His wanton claims of Executive powers, his firing of thousands, cancellation of grants, misuse of law enforcement, politicalization of the military, and general lawlessness were apparent.

And true to his nature, under the fiscal year 2025 continuing resolution he signed into law in March, Trump has illegally-- illegally--delayed or withheld Federal funds for medical research, including for childhood cancer; for Head Start; for Job Corps; for disaster recovery and mitigation; for foreign assistance, including lifesaving therapeutic nutrition for starving children in the world; for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which provides food and shelter throughout the country under the auspices of Catholic Charities, the Jewish Federation, and the United Way.

He has used the so-called pocket rescission to illegally cancel $4.9 billion foreign aid, and he has even tried to close entire Departments and Agencies without congressional approval.

To have the President sign a bill into law and simply flout its requirements like this is irksome, to say the least, particularly for members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle.

Indeed, as a member of the committee, I know how hard we work to prepare bipartisan bills every year. Some of my Republican colleagues have been privately outraged by the President's actions. A few of them have had the courage to speak up publicly. But President Trump's campaign of petty vindictiveness and hard partisan ideology continues.

Trump and his Budget Director Russ Vought say the shutdown will force them to fire Federal workers.

That is nonsense.

From day one, President Trump, Mr. Vought, along with Elon Musk and his minions, have tried to fire Federal workers by the thousands without cause and without thought. They have terminated experts in national security and intelligence, and in some cases, they have had to beg them to return to their jobs because they were, in fact, irreplaceable.

Just this past Friday, the administration fired hundreds of workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But before the weekend was over, they were scrambling to reinstate an estimated 700 employees who work on critical issues like measles response and containing the spread of Ebola.

The administration has also fired many other Federal workers precisely because they have done their jobs with professionalism, honesty, and integrity, replacing them with loyalists with little background or expertise to

do the jobs they have been appointed to do.

Trump has allowed his political appointees to rifle through the personal data of nearly every American. I asked the FBI Director, after DOGE had gone through all this data, can he assure us that that data is not in the hands of anyone unauthorized to have it. He mumbled a response that was really nonresponsive.

If you stop and step back, DOGE has pilfered the data in every major Federal Agency, and no one can tell you where it is; who has it. That could be the greatest crime committed against the American people in the history of this country.

Trump's tariff taxes are driving up costs for food, electricity, clothing, and nearly every basic necessity for American families. Small businesses are facing these same cost increases too. As I said, when talking to small businesspeople in Warren, RI, they are looking at a very difficult challenge, and it is not being helped by Trump.

This list goes on and on as does the list of lawsuits against the administration. And for 9 months, congressional Republicans have had the chance to show some true independence--to say no to Trump on his price-rising tariffs, to say no to Trump's misuse of Federal funds, to stand up to the administration's abuse of the personal data of Americans, to reject some of the least qualified and most dangerous Cabinet members in history, to conduct even the most basic taxpayer oversight of the numerous conflicts of interest and money-making ventures of the President, his family, and his allies.

But when their votes have mattered, they have gone along with every bad decision this President has made.

If this capitulation to the executive branch continues, the Senate will be rendered a hollow, powerless body, with Senators powerless to represent their constituents and States.

And I would remind everyone that the iron law of the Senate is: What goes around, comes around. And my colleagues should ask themselves: Do they want their States and constituents treated this way, the way that Trump is treating his perceived political enemies, cutting off valuable public assistance to blue cities, putting U.S. forces into blue cities, the military, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

I think the answer would be no. And what is good for one side has to be good for the other side.

The President is not popular. What he is doing on every issue now is not popular. Costs matter to Americans in every State of this country, and this healthcare debate is all about costs.

One of the ironies is that some of the biggest impacts of these healthcare changes will be on the red States. Everyone suffers across the country, but there is significant suffering in places that are prominently Republican. So why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, ``Oh, we don't care''?

They should think long and hard about that and remember why they wanted to be Senators in the first place: to improve the lives of their constituents, to help, to serve. And that requires compromise here.

We saw that last week when we passed the National Defense Authorization bill with overwhelming bipartisan support in very efficient and rapid procedures.

When you get compromise--bipartisan compromise--you get results. When you get a body that seeks only to carry out the will of one person, you get what we have now: stalemate, suffering by poor people who can't get healthcare, but great benefits to the wealthy.

For the last several months, appropriators have been working on bills to protect and invest in the American people. Together, we passed eight appropriations bills out of the committee, most on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes. Three of those bills have been passed by the full Senate. Throughout this process, Democrats have shown our commitment to doing the hard work of government.

We have been flexible and willing to compromise. And, frankly, if it was in the Senate's power, both Republicans and Democrats, we would have legislation--appropriations legislation--before the President today, but we have been unable to because of the roadblocks he has established using his leverage over my Republican colleagues.

In fact, I think it is fair to say that President Trump and Speaker Johnson don't really want compromise and don't really want Congress to pass appropriations bills. They want Democrats to go away and give them another blank check, another CR.

But forget whether it is a CR or an appropriations bill. If the President doesn't like the program, he just takes the money away, which is contrary to the Constitution, but that is just a detail.

It takes 60 votes to pass a law here in the Senate. So Democrats are here, ready to reach a principled agreement on spending and protect the healthcare of 22 million Americans.

We are ready. We just need the President and the Speaker and the majority leader to sit down and talk, not about their partisan interests but the welfare of their constituents.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to COL Johnny Brooks--a distinguished officer, a devoted servant of our Nation, and a remarkable friend and family man.

Johnny served the Army and our country with great distinction. The son of an Army officer, Johnny grew up moving from post to post and decided early on to commit his life to service. He enlisted in the U.S. Army and soon earned an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a testament to his skill and determination.

Commissioned as an infantry officer, Johnny advanced through the ranks with remarkable success. During his career, he commanded the 4th Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment and deployed to Panama as part of Operation Just Cause, served as an exchange officer with the British 1st Parachute Regiment, led the infantry training brigade at Fort Benning, and later became chief of staff of the 82nd Airborne Division. He was, through and through, a soldier and a leader.

Throughout his distinguished service, Johnny inspired those around him with his professionalism, his courage, and his deep loyalty to his soldiers. His character, skill, and sense of duty made him a model officer and an example to all who served with him.

I was privileged to know Johnny personally. As West Point classmates, we shared the formative lessons of ``Duty, Honor, and Country'' that shaped his life and career. Johnny's steady presence, humility, and good humor were constants to those of us who knew him well.

After retiring from the Army, Johnny and his wife Christine made their home in Alabama, where they spent the past 25 years. His love for his country was surpassed only by his love for his family: his wife Christine; his children Heather and Matthew; his grandchildren; great- grandchildren; and sisters. To them, I offer my deepest condolences and my gratitude for sharing Johnny with our Nation for so many years.

Johnny Brooks was a selfless and inspiring person. He dedicated his life to leading and serving others, and his was a life well-lived. He will be missed by all who had the privilege to know him and to serve alongside him.

I am proud to honor the legacy of COL Johnny Brooks, and I know the Members of the Senate will join me in recognizing the remarkable contributions he made to our Army and our Nation.

Mr. President, I oppose the Paul amendment. This amendment would remove one of the primary tools used by the Federal Reserve to implement monetary policy. The Fed used these tools that have been indicated on the floor with great effectiveness to contain the damage in financial crises in 2008 and 2020.

In this uncertain economic moment, handcuffing the Fed would be a grave mistake. Unemployment is increasing, inflation is not contained, markets are highly volatile, tariffs are imposed and rescinded, and the Fed is under constant attack from the White House.

The Fed needs all the tools in its box to prevent a crisis. We cannot wait in another crisis to have the Fed ask Congress to respond. That would be going in the wrong direction. If Congress does remove these tools, then the Fed could be forced to begin a fire sale on Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities worth trillions of dollars, and the Fed will no longer be able to control the monetary system.

We have to do what we can to ensure that the Federal Reserve can prevent a crisis, and that it is not left waiting on the sidelines in the crisis unable to respond effectively.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, this amendment would not change the current budget or program of the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force is already planning to keep the B-1 fleet longer than 2030, but this will signal a congressional intent to do so.

I would also request a voice vote.

Madam President, Senator Marshall's amendment would prohibit any flag other than the U.S. flag from being flown outside or in publicly accessible areas of military installations, public buildings in the United States, American Embassies and consulates, and public areas of congressional office buildings, including hallways.

This amendment raises serious constitutional concerns about the right of free expression. But one example would be that a Member of Congress could not fly the flag of Israel, for example, unless he or she were being visited by an Israeli Ambassador. And that is a constraint, I think, on speech and the rights of Members of Congress, as well as others.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this.

With respect to specific military installations, in the fiscal year 2024 national defense bill, section 1052 gave the Secretary of Defense discretion to indicate what flag would be appropriate on a military installation. So we have dealt with this issue before in a bipartisan manner.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on Senator Marshall's amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3213

Mr. President, first, I would like to commend Chairman Wicker whose leadership was absolutely essential to reaching this moment. He, too, is a veteran. He, too, understands the needs of our men and women in uniform, and he also recognizes and has contributed significantly with his floor staff, which has set a new standard for acquisitions.

We have to get it through the conference, but I am sure we will.

The hallmark of the Senate Armed Services Committee has long been bipartisanship, and I am glad we have continued this tradition for the 65th consecutive year.

I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We were able to adopt, as the chairman indicated, hundreds of amendments during the committee markup, and I am glad that with bipartisan cooperation this evening, we adopted dozens more.

This is strong, forward-looking legislation that we can all be very proud of.

I am confident we will provide the Department of Defense and our military men and women with the resources they need to meet and overcome the national security threats that we face in a very, very challenging world.

I, too, would like to take this opportunity to recognize the phenomenal staff that made this bill possible. I want to specifically recognize the director of the Democratic staff Elizabeth King and the director of the Republican staff John Keast. They have led their staffs, and they have worked together with the utmost professionalism.

And I would also like to take the time to thank the staffers on the Democratic side, since the chairman has rightfully identified his staff members: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jenny Davis, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Kevin Gates, Creighton Greene, Gary Leeling, Maggie McNamara Cooper, Mike Noblet, Chad Johnson, John Quirk, Andy Scott, Cole Stevens, Meredith Werner, Isabelle Picciotti, Brittany Amador, Sofia Kamali, and Noah Sisk.

Also let me thank the floor staff and leadership staff. You have been a part of this process the last several weeks, and you have done a remarkable job. We thank you for that very, very much.

Mr. President, this is a good moment. Now on to the next moment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to deliver two statements on the two resolutions that are before us. First let me comment upon the proposal S.J. Res. 71, led by my colleagues Senator Kaine and Heinrich, to overturn President Trump's sham energy emergency.

You would think that, in an energy emergency, the President would be pursuing the all-of-the-above energy policy his administration has touted, but instead he is throwing up roadblocks at more than 90 percent of the power set to come online, as his Energy Secretary has acknowledged. Meanwhile, President Trump has invoked emergency powers to fast-track dirty fossil fuel projects, primarily to reward the Big Oil donors whom he reportedly asked to donate a billion dollars to his campaign.

The fact is, energy prices are a real emergency for the American people, and we need more energy on the grid to keep up with the proliferation of AI and data centers. But the truth also is, President Trump and the harmful actions his administration is taking are actually restricting supply, killing good-paying jobs, and increasing energy prices, which have risen at more than twice the rate of inflation this year under President Trump.

I will highlight two examples of President Trump's reckless actions in my home State of Rhode Island. Right now, the Rhode Island AFL-CIO is leading a critical lawsuit against President Trump's cancelation of the $7 billion Solar for All Program, which was designed to help low- and middle-income families install solar panels on their homes, saving those families about $400 each year on electricity costs.

Rhode Island received nearly $50 million under this program to help thousands of Rhode Island households install and utilize solar energy while supporting hundreds of good-paying jobs in the State.

President Trump claims to support workers, but he is actually killing good jobs that would bring affordable energy online for our constituents. And just weeks after canceling the Solar for All Program, the Trump administration paused work on Revolution Wind, a nearly complete offshore wind project off the coast of Rhode Island. This project is 80 percent constructed, with over $5 billion invested and 45 turbines already installed in the Atlantic Ocean. It supports more than 1,000 local union jobs and is poised to deliver enough low-cost energy to power 350,000 homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut. State officials estimate that losing this project could cost New England ratepayers up to $500 million a year.

I am encouraged that a Federal court in Washington, DC, granted a motion allowing work on Revolution Wind to proceed and that work has restarted, but these cynical moves show that the President doesn't really care about energy prices or supply or jobs; he cares, really, about pleasing his Big Oil donors.

He is also pleasing China, which is becoming the global leader in clean energy technology, building almost three-quarters of the world's solar and wind projects, according to the Global Energy Monitor. And despite President Trump's claims that China is simply exporting these technologies and not utilizing them, the New York Times reported that ``In China, more wind turbines and solar panels were installed last year than in the rest of the world combined.''

At the same time, President Trump is trying to keep the United States hooked on expensive oil and gas and dependent on OPEC and other foreign actors with interests opposed to our own; and while he is doing that, China is launching into a new age of relatively cheap energy that will power their data centers and their infrastructure.

Rhode Islanders deserve infrastructure that creates good jobs; provides affordable, clean power; increases our energy independence; and reduces climate-destroying greenhouse gases in the process. And it is clear Trump's energy emergency is a sham, and I am proud to join my colleagues' efforts to overturn it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to move to the topic before the Senate with respect to the War Powers resolution regarding Caribbean military operations.

I rise to express my deep concern about the Trump administration's ongoing military operations in the Caribbean and to voice my strong support for the War Powers Resolution introduced by Senators Schiff, Kaine, Wyden, and Sanders.

Over the past month, the United States has carried out four lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean, reportedly killing 21 individuals. These attacks have been retroactively explained by the President's unilateral declaration that the United States is in ``armed conflict'' with unnamed ``non-state armed groups'' throughout the Western Hemisphere.

He has deployed thousands of U.S. forces, ships, and aircraft to conduct

these operations--all without congressional authorization and without any credible explanation to the American people.

Let me be clear. The drug cartels that traffic poison across our borders are violent and reprehensible. They have devastated families and communities across our country. We must do everything in our power through law enforcement, intelligence, and international cooperation to bring these organizations down. But that is not what this is all about. These are not police actions or defensive operations; these are targeted, lethal military strikes using weapons designed for warfare, not interdiction or law enforcement.

The administration has offered no positive identification for those killed, nor any information linking the boat crews to cartels. In fact, they have not proven that these vessels were engaged in drug trafficking, nor even that they were destined for the United States.

I would note that even if this evidence had been provided, that would only justify interdiction by law enforcement, not lethal military strikes.

The justification thus far has relied entirely on the President's word, and that is not good enough. Our Constitution does not vest the power to wage war on one man's word. The White House has claimed that these strikes are allowable under the President's article II powers as Commander in Chief, but article II is not a blank check. The Framers of our Constitution deliberately separated the powers of war and peace between the branches.

James Madison warned:

The executive is the branch most prone to war; therefore

the Constitution has, with studied care, vested that power in

the legislature.

The War Powers Resolution exists for moments like this. It ensures that before we send American forces into hostilities, the people's representatives have debated and voted on that decision. It ensures accountability. It ensures legitimacy.

If we allow these unauthorized operations to continue unchecked, we will have surrendered Congress's most solemn constitutional duty. We will have set the precedent that the President--any President--may initiate military action at will, without oversight, without transparency, and without the consent of the governed.

We have seen this pattern before. Over the past several years, this administration has repeatedly tested the limits of Executive power-- ordering strikes in Iran and Yemen and now the Caribbean, while refusing even a brief consultation with Congress. Each time, the lines blur a little further. Each time, the balance of power tilts a little more toward the Executive.

This body, the U.S. Senate, cannot afford to shrug and move on. The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process; it is a real and present threat to our democracy.

The War Powers Resolution before us does not tie the President's hands in responding to genuine threats; it simply requires him to do what every Commander in Chief should: come to Congress, present the facts, and seek authorization from the people's representatives before initiating hostilities. That is not weakness. That is constitutional strength. It is the principle that has guided our Republic for nearly 2\1/2\ centuries.

Finally, I will say this: Even setting aside the constitutional questions, this campaign is deeply unwise. The notion that we can bomb our way out of a drug trafficking crisis is not strategy; it is wishful thinking. Using the U.S. military to conduct unchecked strikes in the Caribbean risks destabilizing the region, provoking confrontation with neighboring governments, and drawing our forces into yet another open- ended conflict without a clear mission or exit strategy.

Conflict in the Caribbean or with Venezuela is entirely avoidable, but the risk that we stumble into war because of one man's impulsive decision making has never been higher. Our troops deserve better--much better.

This War Powers Resolution would restore that balance. It reaffirms that the Constitution has always required that decisions of war and peace belong to the legislature, not the Executive.

Mr. President, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to reassert the fundamental role of Congress in matters of war.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the New England Council, which was founded in September 1925 when the six Governors of New England gathered with business leaders in Poland Spring, ME, to better collaborate across our region's shared and intimately intertwined economic interests. Shortly after, the New England Council was founded as a nonpartisan and nonprofit entity to facilitate this work. For 100 years now, the council has been an indispensable partner advocating for the New England region.

The New England States--our economies, culture, and interests--have been interconnected since before the founding of our Nation. While we may have much in common, our States are often considered the most ``independent-minded'' states. At one time, this tendency may have predisposed our States to chart our own paths forward and work fervently to protect our individual interests. Indeed, this history of self-governance and independence led directly to the events that founded the United States and laid the foundation for the principles of the Nation that we cherish. Now, and for the past 100 years, the New England Council has helped carry our region's independent spirit forward by bringing our States' interests together and helping ensure that New England is heard on the ever-changing national stage.

To be sure, the New England Council's ability to be a convener of political leaders--on both sides of the aisle--business leaders, nonprofits, and academic and health institutions sets the council apart from many of its peers. Its ability to do so comes from the council's reputation as a nonpartisan, fact-driven organization that represents many diverse viewpoints embedded across our staunchly independent States. That is to say: when the Council speaks as one, we know the issue reflects consensus and is in service to its mission to promote New England's economic growth and safeguard a high quality of life for all New Englanders.

The council's mission becomes even greater in times of turbulence. Whether during shared national struggles, like World War II or the COVID-19 pandemic, or in times of sharp political debate, our region's shared economic interests become more pronounced. In these times, the council does more than bring people together and advocate for solutions; it amplifies the voice of a region. This ability again relies on its ironclad nonpartisan reputation. Because it is so well regarded, the council can ensure that all New Englanders, even those who may not be politically well connected, can be heard by their representatives and the Federal Government. That means that when the national environment is loud, when there are many different stakeholders making their perspectives clear, the New England Council can definitively speak in one voice to ensure that our region's priorities break through the noise.

On behalf of Rhode Island, I want to congratulate the New England Council, president and CEO Jim Brett, the entire board of directors, and all its members on a well-earned centennial. From working to address our region's housing shortage and infrastructure challenges to advocating for reliable and affordable energy, thank you for a century of working to advance Rhode Island's and New England's economic interests.

Mr. President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and audit firms.

Over two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial reporting frauds particularly the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which found various underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of an independent Board, the PCAOB, to oversee auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.

Under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the PCAOB oversees nearly 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing, and these proceedings are typically kept hidden from the public. Furthermore, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years.

This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.

Our bill will restore transparency and reaffirm Congress's intent, by making hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.

Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings strengthens investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. Our bipartisan bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Despite the regulatory reforms made after the financial crisis, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist.

The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute its enforcement duties during my time as the chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee in 2011. Around then, a Federal judge criticized the SEC for not pursuing a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major actor in the financial crisis. The judge rightly noted that Citigroup had settled with the Agency for an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC, however, indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' Unfortunately, a decade later, the SEC's statutory authority remains unchanged, and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited even though securities fraud is still as prevalent as ever.

The bipartisan bill we are introducing will discourage misconduct by raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws.

Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``thirds tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors.

Our bill also has two provisions to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street. The first would authorize the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing Federal court or SEC orders--an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These updates would reinforce the

SEC's ability to levy tough penalties against repeat offenders.

Our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency, deter bad actor, and maintain confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and audit firms.

Over two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial reporting frauds particularly the Enron and WorldCom scandals, the Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which found various underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of an independent Board, the PCAOB, to oversee auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.

Under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the PCAOB oversees nearly 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing, and these proceedings are typically kept hidden from the public. Furthermore, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years.

This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.

Our bill will restore transparency and reaffirm Congress's intent, by making hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.

Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings strengthens investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. Our bipartisan bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Despite the regulatory reforms made after the financial crisis, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist.

The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute its enforcement duties during my time as the chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee in 2011. Around then, a Federal judge criticized the SEC for not pursuing a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major actor in the financial crisis. The judge rightly noted that Citigroup had settled with the Agency for an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC, however, indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' Unfortunately, a decade later, the SEC's statutory authority remains unchanged, and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited even though securities fraud is still as prevalent as ever.

The bipartisan bill we are introducing will discourage misconduct by raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws.

Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``thirds tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors.

Our bill also has two provisions to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street. The first would authorize the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing Federal court or SEC orders--an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These updates would reinforce the

SEC's ability to levy tough penalties against repeat offenders.

Our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency, deter bad actor, and maintain confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to President Trump's nomination of Stephen Miran to be a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board.

The Federal Reserve is among the most important economic institutions in the world, let alone the United States. Simply put, it is authorized to create money and determine the cost of that money by setting interest rates, all with a goal of achieving maximum employment and stable prices. When its seven Board members have a degree of protection from political interference, then the Fed is better able to contribute to sound economic policy of the Nation. That is because they have freedom to make tough decisions that may not be favored by the White House but that are necessary to achieve the Fed's dual mandate.

It is unfortunate that Dr. Miran demonstrated at his nomination hearing that he is a political partisan and that he will be President Trump's man at the Fed. As if to emphasize the point, Dr. Miran intends to perform this job while ``on leave'' from his current position as the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers at the White House. In other words, he will be keeping his job as the President's chief economic adviser while being able to vote on interest rates.

An architect of President Trump's tariffs, which have stoked inflation and under which American families and businesses are suffering every single day, Dr. Miran will now have one foot in the Fed and the other foot in the White House. And someone with this record-- someone who has been a hardcore proponent of President Trump's policies that raise costs on everyday goods, that debase the value of the dollar, that are based on unconstitutional notions that Executive power has no limits--does not deserve a second job that comes with additional levers to damage the economy.

So I will be voting no on Dr. Miran, based on his track record and qualifications. I will also be voting no because he will be making a mockery of the law by refusing to relinquish his White House job.

The Federal Reserve Act says that ``the members of the Board shall devote their entire time to the business of the Board.'' This means, quite simply, that Dr. Miran should not and cannot have contact with the White House whatsoever while at the Fed. In other words, there must be very strong firewalls separating Dr. Miran's Fed duties from his White House duties.

Those firewalls will not work for this President, who demands that his advisers serve his own personal interests, who demands total fealty, and who acts as if he is above the law. Those firewalls will not work for this Agency because President Trump is obsessed with browbeating the Fed into submission. He routinely demands that the Fed cut rates from 4.25 percent to 1 percent. He has tried to intimidate Chair Powell, a

Republican whom Trump first appointed, calling him a loser, stupid, corrupt, and incompetent, simply because he won't do exactly what President Trump wants.

And traditional firewalls will not work for this nominee. As the President's chief economist, Dr. Miran will almost certainly pick up the phone if Trump calls. He will be reading Trump's social media posts. He has every incentive to do Trump's bidding so he can return to his White House job. And even in the unlikely event that Dr. Miran acts independently, then Trump will simply fire him from the Council of Economic Advisers.

Most troubling, Dr. Miran has testified that he has received advice from White House lawyers blessing this arrangement. This kind of self- certification is dubious at best, but Dr. Miran has failed to produce it. That is why I joined Ranking Member Warren and several of our Banking Committee colleagues in demanding that Dr. Miran share this analysis. And as is typical with this administration, he did not even respond to our request. Dr. Miran's stonewalling can only be read as a concession that this is a corrupt bargain.

Critical questions remain unanswered because of Dr. Miran's contempt of the Banking Committee, his evasion of our questions, and his refusal to provide details about this fraught proposal to retain his White House job while at the Fed. He must be straightforward and honest about how he intends to do this job, and he must acknowledge the reality that the President will have enormous influence and leverage over him.

We must have answers before the Senate votes on his nomination, which is minutes away, and we will not get those answers.

I will also be voting no because Dr. Miran has shown exceptionally poor integrity in this confirmation process. He tweeted in 2023 that no person ``on the planet can go from highly political operative to politically neutral just because he or she gets a promotion. That's just not how human beings work.'' He said this during the Biden administration when a Fed Governor resigned to become an economic adviser to the President in the White House.

Dr. Miran himself now wants to move between the Fed and the White House. Under Dr. Miran's own standard, he would need to violate the laws of physics to be capable of acting independently.

Just last year, Dr. Miran wrote a 25-page paper proposing an overhaul of the structure and governance of the Fed. In that paper, he wrote that ``short-circuiting the revolving door between the Fed and the executive branch is critical to reducing the incentives for officials to act in the short-term political interests of the president.''

Yet, he is now racing through this revolving door. He called for specific reforms to shut this revolving door. Those reforms include prohibiting any Governor from returning to the executive branch for 4 years, removing the ``for cause'' removal protections for Governors, and the current President voluntarily refraining from removing any incumbent Board members or Reserve Bank leaders during his term.

At his confirmation hearing, Dr. Miran didn't even try to stand by his proposal. He testified that this ``proposal was a package deal. It was a suite of checks and balances, and it's highly inappropriate to take one check or balance outside the context of the overall package.''

However, Dr. Miran badly mischaracterized his own work. In his paper, Dr. Miran never said that these proposals were a ``package deal'' or that they must be implemented in an all-or-nothing manner. To the contrary, he wrote that this ``proposal can be implemented in a piecemeal fashion, one policy at a time, if legislatively easier.''

Well, he has a chance to implement it one point at a time by simply resigning from the Council of Economic Advisers.

This nominee is asking for the American people's trust to set the Nation's credit and monetary policy. By misleading the Banking Committee, which was deliberate, he has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with this responsibility.

Like so many of this administration's nominees, Dr. Miran knew that standing by his previous views would take him out of the running, so he disavowed them to avoid getting crosswise with President Trump, who wants to get his man confirmed to the Fed today, which happens to be the day before the Fed's next meeting to vote on interest rates.

Trump's former economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the quiet part out loud on a podcast last week. He said:

The bottom line is: Trump is going to take over the Fed.''

Dr. Miran's appointment is a critical piece of Trump's hostile takeover, along with the attempted ouster of Governor Cook and the continued attacks on Chair Powell.

When the Fed becomes controlled by Trump's yes-men, it won't speak with enough authority to achieve its mandate. Inflation will get out of control, higher prices will persist, and rates on credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages will go up. Americans will be asked to pay more to finance our Nation's enormous and growing public debt. This outcome is unacceptable while millions of Americans are struggling to cover increased costs on everyday expenses.

I would like to close by quoting former Republican Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, a native of Rhode Island who ably served as the ranking member of the Banking Committee. In 2021, he spoke against one of President Biden's nominees to the Federal Reserve and said:

``The American people deserve a serious nominee who . . .

will serve without a political agenda. . . . It is

exceptionally important to keep politics out of monetary

policy.''

Applying Senator Toomey's principles, Dr. Miran has not demonstrated his ability to ``serve without a political agenda.'' He has not demonstrated that he is a ``serious nominee,'' and he has not demonstrated that he ``will serve without a political agenda.'' Instead, he has demonstrated his loyalty to President Trump and essentially thumbed his nose at the Senate. He has already compromised his independence through his plan to hold on to his White House position.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee not only for the benefit of the Federal Reserve but for the integrity of the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Washington, DC. Since 1991, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has served as the 270th spiritual leader of Orthodox Christianity, the world's second largest Christian denomination with 300 million Orthodox Christians living across the globe, including many in Rhode Island. He is an accomplished scholar, a devoted environmentalist, advocate for peace, and a leader who commands great respect around the world.

Over the past three decades, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has used his position to establish himself as a leading voice on many important issues and is recognized as a powerful force for good within the Orthodox Christian faith and beyond. As part of his efforts to advance cooperation and understanding between Christians, Muslims, and Jews, he has cosponsored international peace conferences and advocated for peace-building efforts in order to promote mutual respect and religious tolerance on a global scale. Sometimes known as the ``Green Patriarch,'' he has also championed environmental protection efforts, including by organizing international, interfaith summits to address climate change and call attention to pressing environmental concerns.

Once again, I join with Rhode Island's vibrant and important Greek community to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to our Nation's Capital. As the longest serving Ecumenical Patriarch he has cemented himself as an influential leader who is highly respected within Orthodox Christian communities and beyond.

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