Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 297, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 111, Brett Shumate, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 298, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 49, David Fotouhi, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 299, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 49, David Fotouhi, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 300, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 112, Stephen Vaden, of Tennessee, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 301, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 112, Stephen Vaden, of Tennessee, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 302, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 117, Andrew Hughes, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 303, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 117, Andrew Hughes, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and friend in Kansas for his partnership in recognizing the Army as the coleaders of the Army Caucus here in the U.S. Senate.

Thank you, Senator, very much.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from Kansas, to recognize a remarkable moment in our Nation's history. On June 14, 1775, delegates from each of the American Colonies met in Philadelphia to convene the Second Continental Congress.

On that momentous day, Congress voted to establish the Continental Army and tasked it to ``provide for the common defense of these colonies.''

The following day, the Congress unanimously elected George Washington to be the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. It was an auspicious start for what would become the greatest fighting force the world has ever known.

Today--or in a few days, certainly--we celebrate the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army.

The Army has a straightforward, but enormously critical, mission: to fight and win the Nation's wars. Today, we take a moment to reflect on that mission and to honor all of the soldiers who have served faithfully in the Army ranks. Whether as volunteers or in response to a draft, millions and millions of men and women have answered the call to serve. They each swore an oath to the Constitution, a unique feature of service to our Nation. By swearing an oath to the Constitution and its ideals, rather than a leader or a party, American soldiers stand apart as patriots, not partisans. And our Nation stands proudly throughout the world.

American soldiers have served on their own soil to break the bonds of tyranny and to keep our Nation united. They have served on foreign soils to defend our allies, uphold humanity, and protect the American people. And they have stepped forward to help in humanitarian crises and natural disasters at home and around the world when needed most.

It is also fitting to acknowledge the contribution of the Department of Army civilians, who take the same oath and who bring their skills and dedication to bear in support of the Army's mission.

And, of course, we also pause to thank all of the families who, over the course of 2\1/2\ centuries have stood by their loved ones in their service--families who supported their soldiers in the earliest days with little or no communication to today, where family witness in real time the challenges their loved ones face. Families have and always will be the true strength of our Army.

The Army's story also is not just one of battles won, but of values upheld, values of leadership, respect, selfless service, integrity, and personal courage--and a value that resonates deeply with me: duty, honor, country.

Finally, we pay tribute to those who gave the last full measure of devotion in service to our Nation. Their sacrifice is woven into the very fabric of our history, and their legacy lives on in every soldier who raises their right hand and takes the oath.

For me personally, the opportunity to serve as an officer in the U.S. Army and to lead American soldiers was the greatest privilege of my life.

I would end by recalling the enduring motto of the Continental Army:

This we'll defend.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote for the nomination of Mr. Michael Duffey to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

This position is unique in the Department of Defense. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment has a wide range of duties, including delivering on a timely basis cost-effective capabilities for the Armed Forces; supervising all elements of the defense acquisition enterprise and the defense industrial base; overseeing the modernization of our nuclear forces; and serving as a principal adviser to the Secretary on acquisition, sustainment, and core logistics. It requires a leader of the highest quality of judgment, expertise, and character.

There is no question that President Trump has a right to choose who he wants in critical roles, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should be someone

who is capable, without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations of those he will lead. They should have the experience and temperament to manage one of the most complex offices in the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, my view is that Mr. Duffey lacks experience leading any organization remotely as large and complex as the Department of Defense acquisition enterprise.

For better or worse, the industry and the workforce that supports the Pentagon is enormous, complicated, and is a huge factor in our Nation's economy. Mismanaging it could harm taxpayers' investments, the American economy, and workers' lives. Do we want to risk hundreds of billions of dollars in acquisition programs to such a nominee?

I have serious doubts about Mr. Duffey's ability to run this critical function of our government.

Furthermore, in 2019, Mr. Duffey played a key role in the scandal that led to President Trump's first impeachment: withholding military aid from Ukraine to extort information on Mr. Trump's political opponents. While serving as a top official in the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Duffey directed the Pentagon to withhold $250 million from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative while Mr. Trump simultaneously demanded that President Zelenskyy hand over any information he had about Mr. Biden's family. Mr. Duffey's role in this outrageous event was brought to light during the impeachment proceedings. In my view, abusing the privilege of public office to exact political revenge is disqualifying.

If confirmed, there are legitimate questions about Mr. Duffey's willingness to disregard the statutory directions of Congress.

And, finally, Mr. Duffey coauthored a chapter for the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 that suggested Federal procurement policy should be used to attack so-called woke policies in corporate America. It is not hard to imagine how Mr. Duffey could use his position as the head of the largest acquisition organization in the world to weaponize Federal funding against private corporations that he and President Trump disagree with politically.

We have seen this played out in the context of universities. We have seen this played out in the context of going after funding that NIH provides to many universities, but, particularly, this all-out assault on people that the President perceives as being unfit or unsupportive of him, that directly translates to Mr. Duffey to not just esteemed universities throughout the country but our national defense-- corporations that, in fact, have embraced the idea of bringing us all together, getting the best possible person, moving them up. That would be an incredible disaster and failure for the Nation.

And Mr. Duffey failed to alleviate any of these concerns during his Senate Armed Services Committee testimony.

As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has always been national security, and partisanship has no place in that mission. And I will always pick up the phone for whomever holds leadership positions in the Department of Defense, and I will seek opportunities to work with them to strengthen and support our military.

Whomever they may be, I hope that they comport themselves with the wisdom, composure, and character--underlining ``character''--that this awesome responsibility demands. Our men and women in uniform and, indeed, the American people deserve nothing less.

And the question I have is this: Is Mr. Duffey the best we have to offer?

I do not believe so, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, critical programs for Americans from all walks of life are under threat right now: Medicare and Medicaid. The Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are working to pass partisan legislation that would make massive cuts to Medicaid. Indeed, the House of Representatives passed their bill last night, voting for the largest cut ever to healthcare for working- class Americans by a single vote. That is why I am introducing the Protect Medicare and Medicaid Act of 2025 with my colleagues Senators Heinrich and Markey.

Under the budget reconciliation process, Republicans can ram through massive cuts to Medicaid or Medicare by a simple majority in the U.S. Senate. It shouldn't be possible to use this fast-track process to strip away the healthcare coverage of millions of Americans. Regrettably, that is what Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are doing.

Senators who served before me had the wisdom to say that this process is too partisan to touch a program like Social Security, which serves as a lifeline for retirees and has worked to reduce poverty among the elderly, and therefore exempted Social Security from the budget reconciliation process.

The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It would exempt Medicare and Medicaid from budget reconciliation, alongside Social Security. These programs are too important to fall victim to partisan attacks. Medicare and Medicaid combined provide health insurance to well over 100 million Americans, providing nursing home care to seniors and those with disabilities, health insurance for children and pregnant women, and countless others. Without these programs, millions of Americans would lose insurance, go bankrupt, or both. One party should not be able to unilaterally dismantle these programs. This bill would prevent that from happening. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to protect the healthcare coverage of tens of millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ending Taxpayer Support for Big Egg Producers Act. This legislation would help ensure that Federal funding intended to fight the avian flu outbreak is used responsibly to eradicate the disease and lower the cost of eggs, and does not go to large or highly profitable companies.

I have expressed concerns to both Democratic and Republican administrations that major egg producers may be taking advantage of the avian flu outbreak to engage in price gouging. The five largest U.S. egg producers control roughly half of the country's egg market, limiting choices for American consumers. I am glad that the Department of Justice has opened a probe into this potential anticompetitive behavior.

The fact is, egg prices remain high as companies continue to reel in profits.

One company, Cal-Maine Foods, recently announced in an SEC filing that it is spending up to $500 million to buy back shares for the benefit of the founder's family. Cal-Maine also recently reported quarterly profits of $509 million, more than three times what it made in the same period a year ago.

Despite its tremendous profits, last year Cal Maine received $44 million in USDA indemnity payments to compensate for bird deaths due to the avian flu outbreak. It should be uncontroversial that a company that has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on-hand and expected earnings for stock buybacks also has the resources to bear losses and implement biosecurity measures without taxpayer assistance.

There are also some very large private companies that have benefited from government assistance under this program. While these companies do not have access to liquidity from the public markets, their size and national scale provide them with greater access to funding from banks and other lenders on terms that are more favorable than those available to smaller private companies that operate regionally or locally. Further, any company that is private-equity backed surely has similar access to funding through the sponsor of the investment fund that owns the company.

This legislation would ensure that taxpayer funds to support egg producers will be made available to publicly traded or private equity- backed companies only if they will not pay dividends or buy back stock. To receive taxpayer assistance, these companies also must certify that they cannot access alternative sources of financing. There are strong penalties, including criminal liability, for falsifying these certifications.

As egg prices remain high, and the Trump administration limits Federal resources at the Department of Agriculture, we must ensure that these limited resources are used effectively to combat the avian flu and help producers who need it most, rather than highly profitable companies.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, critical programs for Americans from all walks of life are under threat right now: Medicare and Medicaid. The Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are working to pass partisan legislation that would make massive cuts to Medicaid. Indeed, the House of Representatives passed their bill last night, voting for the largest cut ever to healthcare for working- class Americans by a single vote. That is why I am introducing the Protect Medicare and Medicaid Act of 2025 with my colleagues Senators Heinrich and Markey.

Under the budget reconciliation process, Republicans can ram through massive cuts to Medicaid or Medicare by a simple majority in the U.S. Senate. It shouldn't be possible to use this fast-track process to strip away the healthcare coverage of millions of Americans. Regrettably, that is what Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are doing.

Senators who served before me had the wisdom to say that this process is too partisan to touch a program like Social Security, which serves as a lifeline for retirees and has worked to reduce poverty among the elderly, and therefore exempted Social Security from the budget reconciliation process.

The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It would exempt Medicare and Medicaid from budget reconciliation, alongside Social Security. These programs are too important to fall victim to partisan attacks. Medicare and Medicaid combined provide health insurance to well over 100 million Americans, providing nursing home care to seniors and those with disabilities, health insurance for children and pregnant women, and countless others. Without these programs, millions of Americans would lose insurance, go bankrupt, or both. One party should not be able to unilaterally dismantle these programs. This bill would prevent that from happening. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to protect the healthcare coverage of tens of millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ending Taxpayer Support for Big Egg Producers Act. This legislation would help ensure that Federal funding intended to fight the avian flu outbreak is used responsibly to eradicate the disease and lower the cost of eggs, and does not go to large or highly profitable companies.

I have expressed concerns to both Democratic and Republican administrations that major egg producers may be taking advantage of the avian flu outbreak to engage in price gouging. The five largest U.S. egg producers control roughly half of the country's egg market, limiting choices for American consumers. I am glad that the Department of Justice has opened a probe into this potential anticompetitive behavior.

The fact is, egg prices remain high as companies continue to reel in profits.

One company, Cal-Maine Foods, recently announced in an SEC filing that it is spending up to $500 million to buy back shares for the benefit of the founder's family. Cal-Maine also recently reported quarterly profits of $509 million, more than three times what it made in the same period a year ago.

Despite its tremendous profits, last year Cal Maine received $44 million in USDA indemnity payments to compensate for bird deaths due to the avian flu outbreak. It should be uncontroversial that a company that has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on-hand and expected earnings for stock buybacks also has the resources to bear losses and implement biosecurity measures without taxpayer assistance.

There are also some very large private companies that have benefited from government assistance under this program. While these companies do not have access to liquidity from the public markets, their size and national scale provide them with greater access to funding from banks and other lenders on terms that are more favorable than those available to smaller private companies that operate regionally or locally. Further, any company that is private-equity backed surely has similar access to funding through the sponsor of the investment fund that owns the company.

This legislation would ensure that taxpayer funds to support egg producers will be made available to publicly traded or private equity- backed companies only if they will not pay dividends or buy back stock. To receive taxpayer assistance, these companies also must certify that they cannot access alternative sources of financing. There are strong penalties, including criminal liability, for falsifying these certifications.

As egg prices remain high, and the Trump administration limits Federal resources at the Department of Agriculture, we must ensure that these limited resources are used effectively to combat the avian flu and help producers who need it most, rather than highly profitable companies.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Richard Armitage, one of the finest statesmen of his, or any, generation of American national security leaders.

Few American leaders have served their Nation more thoroughly--from combat overseas as a young officer, to the heights of diplomacy on the world stage. Richard Armitage will hold an important place in our country's history.

Richard dedicated his life to service. He attended the Naval Academy and, following graduation, volunteered to serve three combat tours in Vietnam. He was known to his comrades to be fearless and unwavering, even risking his life embedding with Vietnamese riverine warfighters and, over the objections of others, personally led a flotilla of 30,000 Vietnamese refugees to safe harbor during the fall of Saigon.

Richard would go on to serve in a number of critical roles in the Senate, Pentagon, and State Department across a number of administrations, including as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and as Deputy Secretary of State. He served as one of America's lead diplomats during the Gulf War, in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, and in the early years of the Global War on Terror.

Throughout his distinguished career, Richard was an inspirational force to the men and women he commanded and the leaders he advised. Indeed, like his reputation as a linebacker at the Naval Academy, his tenacity was legendary among the national security and foreign policy leaders he worked with.

I was privileged to work often with Richard, both in and out of his time in government. His leadership in so many demanding jobs leaves me with great admiration and gratitude.

Richard's love for his country was surpassed only by his love of family--his wonderful wife Laura, their eight children, and their beautiful grandchildren. I offer the Armitage family my deepest condolences and thank them for sharing Richard with us for so many years.

Richard Armitage was a powerful, inspiring person. He dedicated his life's work to serving others, and his was a life well-lived. He will be missed by all who had the privilege to know him and serve with him.

I am proud to honor the legacy of Richard Armitage, and I know the Members of the Senate will join me in recognizing the incredible contributions he made for our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Rhode Island's Senate President Dominick Ruggerio of North Providence, RI, who passed away on April 21, 2025, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. As the longest serving member of the Rhode Island State Senate, Donny was affectionately known as the ``Dean'' of the senate.

I first met Donny as a young man when we both attended La Salle Academy in Providence, RI. We played high school football together, and indeed he was a remarkable gentleman then, both on and off the field. One of the things we discovered is that--Donny was about 6 feet 2 inches. He was a wide receiver. He would be running down the field, looking at the goal line with nothing in front of him, catch the ball, and then he would trip over me. I was a defensive halfback. So we got to know each other pretty well.

He was one of the nicest gentlemen you could ever meet. He was especially kind and reached out to the younger players on the team, you know, encouraging us and also acting as sort of a custodian in making sure we got a chance and we weren't mistreated. Throughout his entire life, Donny carried that spirit to raise others up and provide opportunities for all.

Then I later had the privilege of serving with him in the Rhode Island State Senate from 1985 to 1990. Once again, he paved the way for me with his advice and assistance. Indeed, his quiet commitment to the people of Rhode Island had always been an inspiration to me and, frankly, to anyone who ever met him.

Donny was a strong advocate for organized labor and joined the Laborers' International Union of North America as a field representative and organizer, eventually becoming administrator of the New England Laborers' Labor-Management Cooperation Trust.

Donny started his public service long before we linked up again in the State senate. He began working for the late Lieutenant Governor Thomas DiLuglio and then the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. His career continued in public service in the 1980s, when he was elected as representative of House District 5 in Providence, RI. Four years later, he succeeded his father-in-law, Majority Leader Rocco Quattrocchi, to Rhode Island Senate District No. 4, beginning his 40-year tenure in the Rhode Island State Senate.

In that role in the senate, Donny served as vice chairman of the senate labor committee, senate majority whip, deputy majority leader, and majority leader. In 2017, he was honored by his colleagues with his election to the Office of Senate President. The hallmark of Donny's leadership style was to have an open-door policy which encouraged colleagues and constituents and elected officials to become engaged. He devoted his life to improving our community, to strengthening public health and public safety, and to creating new opportunities for all Rhode Islanders to thrive. He made significant strides toward improving the lives of working Rhode Islanders, and he is credited with spearheading efforts to preserve pensions and raise the minimum wage.

In the face of recent, incredible, and ultimately insurmountable health challenges, Donny valiantly sought reelection last November in his beloved community and was returned by his senate colleagues to his post of senate president after he won reelection. He led the senate with tenacity and unwavering dedication.

Throughout his decades of public service to his constituents in North Providence and Providence and to the entire State of Rhode Island, he was strongly committed to fulfilling his responsibilities, obligations, and tasks with a sense of accountability, decency, and honor. He led his life with purpose and served the people of Rhode Island extremely well.

Donny leaves behind a devoted family, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the Ruggerio family: his children Charles Ruggerio and his wife Jillian and Amanda Fallon and her husband William; his grandchildren Ava Ruggerio, Mia Ruggerio, Natalie Fallon, and Jameson Fallon; his sister Lisa Aceto and brother-in-law James Aceto; and his nieces and nephews.

I will miss Donny's friendship, his unwavering advocacy for our State and the people who make it a special place. Rhode Island is much better today because of senate President Ruggerio's leadership and dedication. He inspired us all and will continue to do so.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, on a different topic, I note that the Senate this week has started debate on the GENIUS Act. This bill establishes a regulatory framework for so-called stablecoins, which are representations of dollars recorded on a blockchain.

The GENIUS Act could be the most significant banking bill that Congress has considered since the Wall Street reform legislation that passed after the 2008 financial crisis. There are a number of, I believe, fundamental problems with the GENIUS Act in terms of national security, consumer protection, and systemic risk.

I am so pleased that the majority leader has said that we will have an open amendment process, and I look forward to filing a series of amendments to address the problems in the bill. I hope that, together, we can come up with a much better version.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Andrew Schiff, an extraordinary community leader, who after 17 years of service, will retire from his role as chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank.

In helping meet the basic needs of Rhode Island's most vulnerable people, Andrew has led the Rhode Island Community Food bank through some challenging times. He took the helm at the food bank back in May 2007, mere months before the Great Recession began, and continued to lead the organization through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. During Andrew's tenure, demand for food assistance has increased--but so has the food bank's capacity to help. Indeed, Andrew helped double the amount of food distributed to those in need each month by the food bank and its 147 member agencies.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when hunger in Rhode Island jumped by 41 percent in a matter of months, Andrew and the food bank were there to help, serving over 70,000 Rhode Islanders each month by the end of 2020. More than that, Andrew helped keep Rhode Island's local growers and harvesters afloat buy developing new partnerships to deliver locally produced food to those in need.

Demand for food assistance in Rhode Island and across the Nation remains high as pandemic-era assistance programs have ended. But under Andrew's leadership, the Food Bank has stepped up to the plate and now serves a record number of Rhode Islanders--over 84,000 people each month. That is a tremendous statistic but isn't the whole of Andrew's work.

Recognizing that those in need also deserve the dignity of choice in their food, Andrew has also focused on expanding the food bank's offerings of healthy and culturally relevant foods to ensure that Rhode Islanders receiving food bank assistance have access to foods they are familiar with and that suit their tastes. Andrew has also advocated on the State and Federal levels to expand other food access programs, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, (WIC); and access to universal school meals, to ensure that no Rhode Islander goes hungry.

Before joining the food bank, Andrew was assistant director at Project Bread--the Walk for Hunger, an anti-hunger organization in Boston, director of professional services at Jewish Family and Children's Service in Boston, and director of mental health at the Neponset Health Center in Massachusetts. He attended Haverford College as an undergraduate and received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Emory University.

As a result of his years of effort to alleviate hunger, countless Rhode Islanders have ended the day with full stomachs, and the State as a whole is better off. I join many others in thanking Andrew for his work and distinguished service to our State. I wish him and his family all the best as he embarks on this next chapter.

Mr. President, I rise to address President Trump's dangerous and inappropriate use of the U.S. military to carry out his immigration enforcement campaign.

Before I discuss the Trump administration's spending nearly half a billion dollars and sending tens of thousands of troops, ships, combat vehicles, and aircraft away from their real missions, I want to make clear that border security is a priority. I do not support open borders, and I believe that those who enter the United States and break our laws should be subject to deportation in accordance with the law and due process. I voted time and time again for billions of dollars of increased support for border agents, detection technology, and physical barriers where it made sense.

Mr. President, it is no secret that our borders have been under pressure for more than a decade because of a broken immigration system that congressional Republicans have consistently refused to help fix. We have considered bipartisan immigration reform bills in 2006, in 2007, in 2013, and in 2024, all of which were shut down by Republicans. The mess that we have today rests largely on their decision to put political advantage above real progress.

Now President Trump is ignoring Congress, ignoring the law, ignoring the courts, and ignoring the Constitution in order to implement an immigration policy that fails to respect due process, adversely impacts our innovation economy, and, to the point of my remarks, degrades our military.

In the name of his anti-immigrant efforts, President Trump is using the U.S. military to conduct operations on American soil that it has neither the training nor the authority to carry out. Our troops, who are already stretched thin for time and resources, are now burning time, assets, morale, and readiness for these overblown operations.

The President has declared an emergency at the border to justify using the military for civilian law enforcement--this despite border encounters currently at the lowest level since August of 2020. Over the past 12 months since President Biden's Executive actions last June, there has been a continued, significant decrease in unlawful border crossings, including a more than 60-percent decrease in encounters from May 2024 to December 2024.

In short, all along the southern border, we have seen a dramatic drop in illegal crossings and migrant encounters well before President Trump took office. A national emergency? It does not seem so.

We already have an entire Federal Agency to protect our borders and address illegal immigration: the Department of Homeland Security. DHS includes Customs and Border Protection, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and other law enforcement groups. I have voted consistently to give these Agencies additional resources to carry out their missions. But immigration enforcement is not and must not become a function of the Department of Defense.

Our military has long provided technical and logistical support to DHS at the border but always and exclusively in a supporting role, drawing a clear line between military law enforcement authorities. Indeed, since the Reconstruction era, U.S. Presidents have been prohibited from using the military in civilian law enforcement by a law known as the Posse Comitatus Act. This law has kept the Commander in Chief from wielding the military as a domestic political weapon, and it continues to provide an important check on the President's ability to use the military domestically against American citizens.

I understand American citizens asking if it matters which Department enforces immigration as long as the job gets done. Well, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned by the President's current approach even if one agrees with him politically.

Most alarmingly, President Trump is taking real steps to militarize immigration enforcement. Once he uses the military for this reason, it will be easier for him to use it for other purposes. And given the tenor of his public statements, it is a reasonable fear that he may someday order the use of the Armed Forces in American cities and against American citizens.

Indeed, the Brennan Center--a law and public policy institution-- recently analyzed President Trump's military actions at the border and concluded:

Using the military for border enforcement is a slippery

slope. If soldiers are allowed to take on domestic policing

roles at the border, it may become easier to justify uses of

the military in the U.S. interior in the future. Our nation's

founders warned against the dangers of an army turned inward,

which can all too easily be turned into an instrument of

tyranny.

Beyond these concerns, there are real, immediate consequences for our troops, which we are seeing right now.

One of the military's top priorities is readiness. America faces real, growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries, and the Department of Defense needs to be laser-focused on preparing troops to defend our interests abroad. It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness.

We should acknowledge the jobs that our troops are actually doing there. In the past, up to 2,000 National Guard and Reserve troops would rotate to the border each year to assist DHS and Customs and Border Patrol with basic monitoring, logistics, and warehousing activities-- non-law enforcement activities. These missions were designed to be ``behind the scenes'' to free up Border Patrol agents from administrative duties and return them back to the field to conduct their core mission of immigration enforcement.

Today, however, President Trump has surged more than 12,000 Active- Duty troops to the border to carry out a variety of expanded missions that do not look anything like ``behind the scenes.'' For example, one Marine battalion has been stringing miles and

miles of barbed wire across the California mountains. Multiple Army infantry companies are patrolling the Rio Grande riverbank on foot with loaded rifles. Navy aircrews are flying P-8 Poseidons--the most advanced submarine-hunting planes in the world, and they are flying them over the desert. Two Navy destroyers are loitering off our east and west coasts, looking for migrant boats in the water. At least one Army transportation unit is changing the oil and tires on Border Patrol trucks all day and every day.

In addition, the administration has wasted massive amounts of defense dollars by flying migrants out of the country using military aircraft. Often, they have had to return them to the U.S. mainland just a few days later. According to U.S. Transportation Command, it costs at least $20,000 per flight hour to use a C-130 and $28,500 per hour to use a C- 17. In comparison, contracted ICE flights that regularly transport migrants inside of the United States cost only $8,500 per flight hour.

President Trump's decision to use military aircraft instead of ICE aircraft to shuttle migrants across the globe to as far away as India is a gross misuse of taxpayers' dollars and servicemembers' time.

Just yesterday, we learned that the White House wanted to fly migrants on military aircraft to Libya, which is one of the most dangerous, hostile locations on Earth. Human rights groups have called the conditions in Libya's network of migrant detention centers ``horrific'' and ``deplorable.'' The plan has been canceled for now, but it is unconscionable for the Trump administration to consider sending migrants to Libya and endangering our troops in the process.

Further, the Department of Defense has informed Congress that the current surge in border missions, including troop deployment and military flights, could cost as much as $2 billion by the end of this fiscal year.

Secretary Hegseth has claimed that the border mission is so overwhelming that we will have to withdraw massive numbers of troops from Europe in order to meet the demand. Incredibly, he has also claimed that the border mission will have ``no impact'' on our military readiness.

However, we know that these border missions are harming military readiness. Last month, when the NORTHCOM commander testified before the Armed Services Committee, I asked how his forces on the border mission are maintaining their required military readiness and required training. He testified that his troops are spending 5 days a week supporting Customs and Border Patrol and other Agencies and only 1 day a week training. In other words, 20 percent--at most--of our servicemembers' time is being spent training on their critical military tasks.

In my personal engagements with commanders at all levels, they have made clear that readying their formations requires extensive time and training as well as stability for families. Border missions will not build these warfighting requirements. Border missions will distract from training, drain resources, and undermine readiness.

The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, has assessed previous support missions to DHS and found them to be detrimental to unit readiness. Specifically, in its 2021 report, GAO found that ``separating units in order to assign a portion of them to the southwest border mission was a consistent trend in degrading readiness ratings.''

In February, President Trump issued an unprecedented order to the Defense Department to begin transporting and detaining migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For decades, the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay has housed a facility called the Migrant Operations Center that is used to temporarily house migrants who are saved at sea while traveling in unsafe vessels from Cuba, Haiti, or other nearby nations. The facility is typically unoccupied and is kept in a low-level operational readiness until needed--that is, until February.

The intended use of the center was never to house migrants flown from the United States to Guantanamo Bay. Nevertheless, President Trump ordered the military to expand the Migrant Operations Center to accommodate up to 30,000 migrants who would be brought there from the United States.

Within weeks, approximately 1,000 Active-Duty troops were sent to Guantanamo to build tents for this massive number of migrants. However, once built, the tents were found not to meet ICE standards, and to date, they have never been used and are now being dismantled. The hundreds of troops sent down for the mission have had very little to do in the meantime.

Since February, around 500 individuals identified by the administration as illegal migrants have been flown to Guantanamo Bay, and most have been detained for no more than 2 weeks. Rather than being taken to the Migrant Operations Center, about half of these migrants have been held on the other side of the island at the detention facility that was built and used for law of war detainees, such as 9/11 terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

There are currently 15 law of war detainees remaining on Guantanamo Bay. The facilities housing these detainees have deteriorated significantly in the 20 years since they were built. The military personnel who guard these individuals also endure the same tough conditions in these dilapidated facilities. Needless to say, these servicemembers have been stretched thin.

Last fall, it was a significant morale boost for them when the remaining law of war detainees were moved to a ``newer'' facility. Naturally, it was a blow, then, to their morale when, just 1 month later, they were ordered back to the older, more decrepit facility to make way for migrants at the newer facility.

While it is crystal clear the military is in charge of the law of war detention center at Guantanamo Bay, it is not clear who is legally responsible for the migrants being held there. Longstanding law dictates that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain ``custody and control'' of migrants, but in the detention center, the military maintains control.

This leads to questions about who is in charge and who is accountable. When I have asked those questions, the answers have often been contradictory, and that is disturbing.

To investigate these issues, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay in March with several colleagues, including Senators Shaheen, Peters, King, and Padilla. We conducted a firsthand examination of the missions underway there and met with military servicemembers, ICE officers, and DHS officials to fully understand the costs and military readiness impacts of these missions. The trip raised many new questions and concerns.

I have grave doubts about the legality of removing migrants from the United States to Cuba, a foreign nation, and detaining them there. There are at least a dozen open cases and court orders impacting the Guantanamo mission. The detention center has only been used for law of war detainees, and it is reckless to equate migrants with international war criminals. I was also outraged by the scale of wastefulness we found there.

It is obvious Guantanamo Bay is an illogical location to detain migrants. The staggering financial cost to fly these migrants out of the United States and detain them at Guantanamo Bay--a mission costing tens of millions of dollars a month--is an insult to American taxpayers. President Trump could implement his immigration policies for a fraction of the cost by using existing ICE facilities in the United States, but he is obsessed with the image of using Guantanamo no matter the cost.

I am also frustrated that my Senate colleagues and I had to fly to Cuba to get answers to the questions that Secretary Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Noem have been ducking for months. By avoiding questions, they are putting servicemembers and officers on the ground in the position of trying to make sense of contradictory and political orders without any guidance or support from the Pentagon or DHS headquarters.

Since coming into office, the Trump administration has expanded the role of the military in immigration enforcement in other troubling ways. The movement of migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay is unprecedented, and the buildup of 12,000 Active-Duty troops at the southern border, including the Army's 10th Mountain Division

and 100 armored Stryker combat vehicles, has a huge impact on our military posture. This is a larger force than we deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. This administration has purposely placed many of our military forces into the immigration debate in this country, and I fear it will also place them in legal and ethical risk.

For example, on March 30--shown in the photograph here--a military flight traveled from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador with foreign nationals on board, including seven Venezuelans. To my understanding, not a single DHS official or civilian was on the flight, meaning that military personnel maintained both custody and control of the migrants, contrary to longstanding DOD policy and practice.

Here, as I said, is an image of that plane unloading in El Salvador. As you can see, the crew does not appear to include any DHS officials or civilian law enforcement personnel--only uniformed troops, who are physically handing migrants to the Salvadoran police.

This flight would clearly have been in violation of various immigration laws and policies, recent judicial orders, and the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military carried out a core law enforcement function of deportation without any DHS official present. After the fact, the administration tried to explain itself by saying it used ``counterterrorism'' authorities rather than law enforcement authorities. I am not aware of any counterterrorism authorities that would authorize such a flight.

Accordingly, last month, I sent a letter to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, asking that office to conduct an inquiry into the incident and any laws or Defense Department policies that may have been violated. I expect the IG to exercise his independence in carrying out this inquiry, and I am disturbed that the administration continues to put servicemembers in legal and physical jeopardy through these reckless orders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I am also concerned about the Trump administration's dubious creation of ``National Defense Areas'' along the southern border in the last several weeks. These National Defense Areas, first designated in New Mexico and later expanded into Texas, were created when the Department of the Interior transferred land, including the Roosevelt Reservation--a 60-foot-wide strip along the border--to the Department of Defense. So now, large swaths of the border are considered military installations.

The administration has created these zones so that, when a migrant crosses the border in those areas, prosecutors can charge them with both entering the United States illegally and trespassing on a military installation. In effect, the National Defense Zones evade the longstanding protections of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing military forces to act as de facto border police, detaining migrants until they can be transferred to Customs and Border Protection. In the administration's telling, this approach permits military involvement in immigration control without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.

This is both unprecedented and, indeed, a legal fiction. Again, as the Brennan Center report found:

No matter how the Trump administration frames these

activities . . . they are civilian law enforcement functions.

He cannot turn them into military operations by misusing the

language of war. These civilian law enforcement activities

are not ``incidental''--they are the reason for creating the

installation.

The administration is also considering using military bases to detain thousands of migrants inside the United States. Unlike in past emergencies, when military bases near the border were used to hold migrants during large surges, this administration is seeking to use installations deep within the country, including in New Jersey, Indiana, Delaware, California, and Virginia. One could be forgiven for extrapolating that these bases are being selected to hold round-ups of migrants in major cities.

The President is not taking these military actions out of necessity; he is testing the boundaries of our legal system and, in my view, violating them. If left unchecked and unchallenged, he will go much, much further in employing the Armed Forces in to enforce domestic immigration laws, traditionally a civilian law enforcement function.

For years, Mr. Trump has publicly expressed his desire to use U.S. military personnel for domestic law enforcement. During the last campaign, he repeatedly claimed that, if elected, he would order the National Guard and Active-Duty military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented migrants. He even said that he would deploy the military to conduct local law enforcement in cities and that troops could shoot shoplifters leaving the scene of a crime.

The President's defenders often say that he is joking or exaggerating when he makes such claims, but we know these are not idle threats. In his first 100 days in office, he has declared multiple national emergencies and has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to

deport migrants without due process. Indeed, he has even unapologetically deported U.S. citizens in violation of the Constitution. We have all seen the chilling videos of masked and hooded ICE agents arresting civilians on the street--scenes we are accustomed to seeing on the nightly news, not here but in countries run by dictators.

The administration is expanding its operation one step at a time, and President Trump's deployment of forces to the border, the military deportation flights, and the establishment of National Defense Areas can be interpreted as setting the stage to invoke the Insurrection Act and order the military to carry out domestic law enforcement inside the country.

In fact, we have seen the situation before. In June of 2020, then- President Trump, infuriated by protesters in front of the White House and across the country, ordered his staff to prepare to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow him to deploy Active-Duty military forces to patrol the streets of DC and other cities. Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley talked him out of it, but the President clearly views this as a serious option.

Beyond the immorality of Trump's desire to deploy military domestically, to do so would simply be illegal. As I mentioned, the doctrine of posse comitatus is sacred in our Nation to separate the military from direct law enforcement responsibilities.

The use of National Guard or Active-Duty troops should be reserved only to those rare circumstances where civilian law enforcement has collapsed and State leaders have specifically asked for Presidential assistance. Their deployment should never be at the sole discretion of a President, as President Trump has demonstrated that such power begs abuse.

Ultimately, U.S. military members are trained to engage the enemies of the United States abroad with deadly force, not to arrest migrants on the southern border or to deport them from U.S. cities. The military has a sacred role in our country, but the public's trust is easily lost, and a pillar of our society is cracked when the Commander in Chief uses the military recklessly.

Our constitutional system is fundamentally designed to separate military and civilian roles, reserving police powers for law enforcement agencies and endowing the military with the superior weaponry and firepower necessary to fight and win the Nation's wars. When we allow the military to be used in the routine exercise of the police power, the Nation teeters on the brink of autocracy and military rule. One need not be a student of history to see how easily this backsliding can occur. It is all around us in the world today.

Trump's clear intent to use the military in potentially illegal and certainly inappropriate ways for his own political benefit is antithetical to the spirit of our American democracy. Such power is the hallmark of authoritarians around the world.

President Trump and Secretary Hegseth must use common sense, follow the law, and immediately cease the military border deployments and deportation flights.

And, my colleagues, particularly my colleagues in the majority, should demand the same and hold the administration accountable for its actions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my concern about the chaos that is roiling the Department of Defense. Sunday will mark the 100th day of Pete Hegseth serving as Secretary of Defense.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegseth said:

President Trump wants a Pentagon laser focused on

warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and

readiness. That is it. That is my job.

Well, Secretary Hegseth is failing the mission President Trump gave him. His actions over the past 100 days have done nothing but distract the Pentagon and undermine warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness.

In the first 100 days, Secretary Hegseth has terminated or weakened programs and processes that are the bedrock upon which our military recruits personnel and trains servicemembers to go into battle.

For example, in February the Secretary announced his plan to slash the civilian workforce by 5 to 8 percent, terminate probationary workers, and institute a hiring freeze.

These severe measures have only meant more work for the remaining employees and more costly work for military officers and contractors to cover the gaps, or simply not to carry out the missions.

The Secretary has also launched a number of efforts to eliminate diversity and inclusion programs, which have led to more limited recruiting efforts, attempts to separate honorably serving transgender servicemembers, dissolving social clubs at the military academies, banning and removing books from the Naval Academy, and inspiring walkouts by students at DOD schools abroad over book bans and curriculum changes.

Frankly, I joined the Army in 1967 and served on Active Duty for 12 years, and the idea that dependent children of military personnel in DOD schools would protest the Secretary of Defense to me was inconceivable, but it has happened, showing, I think, great anxiety in the ranks of our military personnel all across the globe.

The Secretary is also failing his duty to lead the Department by example. That is one of the key touchstones of any military leader: ``Do what I do'' and ``Follow me.''

For example, on March 24, Mr. Hegseth demonstrated a severe lack of judgment when he texted classified military intelligence on the unclassified and unsecured Signal app to at least two group chats, including one with his wife, brother, and personal lawyer, which raises the question: Why would they have access to, or should have access to, highly classified information? That information, if intercepted by an adversary, would endanger the lives of our servicemembers deployed downrange.

The Secretary also installed a ``dirty line,'' which is an unsecured internet connection into his Pentagon office so he could more easily send texts and personal emails. Such actions violate the laws and protocols that every other military servicemember is required to follow.

When military leaders bring in enlisted personnel and junior officers and tell them about the boundaries of proper cyber use, they make it very clear: It is completely inappropriate--indeed,

dangerous--to plug a dirty line into an official computer.

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General is conducting an investigation of these activities. This mishandling, in the view of most people I know, particularly professional officers, is classified information. And we all look forward to the Inspector General's independent and unbiased finding.

And just hours ago, we learned of press reports that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be fired this week because of his own actions around the Signal incident. If true, I welcome the message of accountability that it sends.

Mr. Waltz made a significant mistake in adding a reporter to a sensitive Signal chat, and his failure could have had serious national security consequences. But I respect that he took responsibility for his mistake and paid the cost, apparently.

In contrast, Secretary Hegseth has refused to take responsibility for his own misconduct, which, in my view, was far more egregious than that of Mr. Waltz.

Indeed, the fallout from this incident has further eroded the already dismal credibility that the Secretary brought to the Pentagon. The Secretary's inner circle of handpicked advisers have nearly all resigned or been fired. His chief of staff was dismissed amid allegations of incompetence and unsettling personal behavior. Three of his senior policy advisers were fired for allegedly leaking sensitive information, which they all staunchly deny.

And his top spokesman resigned after losing confidence in the Secretary and writing ``[T]he building is in disarray under Hegseth's leadership'' and, furthermore ``The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon--and it's becoming a real problem for the administration.''

And these were the words of Secretary Hegseth's self-selected top spokesperson.

This chain of events is extraordinary and underscores the concerns I raised at Secretary Hegseth's nomination hearing. He does not possess the temperament and management skills needed to lead the Pentagon, and he is proving that over and over.

There have been multiple news reports that Secretary Hegseth spends much of his day focusing on perceived leaks and that he has become paranoid, lashing out at aides and senior military leaders, convinced that they are undermining him.

He has threatened his top military advisers, including then-acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Grady and Joint Chiefs Director General Sims with polygraph tests in order to prove that these distinguished military leaders are not liars.

Knowing the quality and the dedication of these gentlemen to the military, and particularly to their obligation for honesty and fidelity, I find it unusual that they would be receiving the lie detector test.

The Secretary's office should be leading the Pentagon, allowing the rest of the Department to be laser-focused on the missions, but, again, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made that very difficult due to the internal disarray they have created by firing key military leaders.

These firings include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commander of Cyber Command, the U.S. Military Representative to NATO, the Vice Chair of the Air Force, the Secretary of Defense Senior Military Aide, and the top uniformed lawyers, or Judge Advocates General of each of the military services.

You know, one of the thoughts I had is if you want to go ahead and do things that are beyond the law, the first thing you do is get rid of the lawyers, and that is the first thing he did.

And these are not minor positions. They are vital to the Department's mission, and when left unfilled, the military loses focus and missions are compromised. These officers were fired without a plan to replace them, which is crippling our military's effectiveness during a perilous time.

More importantly, these officers were fired without explanation, which leads to the worst possible outcome for a military force: fear throughout the ranks that one should not speak up, should not refuse an illegal order, and should not call out abuse or question decisions.

General and flag officers are charged with providing their unbiased ``best military advice'' to the civilian leaders of the Department of Defense. Servicemembers, all the way down to young NCOs and enlisted personnel, are expected to give candid feedback to their leaders and peers, and commanders expect troops to give them the facts straight and true and their best advice because lives are on the line.

In fact, any good officer understands that his success and the success and, indeed, the lives of his troops are based so much on the advice, the insights of noncommissioned officers in his command.

And if that spirit, that aspect of military life in which people can talk the truth to each other is frustrated or essentially annulled, we are in a grave position.

Now, similarly, Congress expects candor from senior officers to provide their best judgment without fear of retribution, for both the security of our country and that of the 2 million service men and women who put themselves in harm's way.

But firing officers as a political litmus test poisons this military ethos. It sends an immediate signal to troops that providing their unbiased best military advice might have career-ending consequences.

Now, I will take a brief moment to discuss the officers who have been dismissed. GEN CQ Brown served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was fired without explanation, not even halfway into his 4- year term--the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be dismissed during his term of office, and this stretches back many decades.

The Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was designed by Congress to be such that it bridged elections, that it was not tied into elections, that it was far from elections. But one of the first steps that Trump and Hegseth set was to break this custom, this tradition, really, this value.

When he was informed, he was visiting our troops on the southern border, and he was abruptly dismissed.

General Brown served our Nation honorably for more than four decades. He was a fighter pilot with multiple combat missions, and he led the Joint Chiefs of Staff with dedication and skill. By the way, the Senate approved his nomination by a vote of 83-11, not exactly a vote for a controversial personality. To date, the Trump administration has given no justification for his dismissal.

Seven full weeks passed without a confirmed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Gen. Dan Caine has now been confirmed and is working hard to get up to speed. Given what happened to his predecessor, General Caine must realize that in addition to his duties as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he must also deal with the political intrigue consuming the Pentagon.

I hope that General Caine will always provide the best military advice to the President and the Secretary of Defense, even if that advice is not what they would want to hear.

Secretary Hegseth also dismissed ADM Lisa Franchetti who served as the 33rd Chief of Naval Operations. She was the first woman to lead the Navy and the first to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Franchetti served in leadership roles at every level throughout the Navy, both on shore and at sea and with postings around the globe. She was a trailblazer, team builder, an inspiration to many.

The Senate approved her nomination by a vote of 95-1, a strong endorsement from this body, based on her record of service. Again, the Trump administration has given no justification for her dismissal.

To date, the administration has not nominated a new Chief of Naval Operations. It has been 2 months since Admiral Franchetti was dismissed, and the Navy remains without a Senate-confirmed Chief of Naval Operations at a time when the service is involved in the most intensive combat operation since World War II, taking place today in the Red Sea. I was able to greet a destroyer returning from the Red Sea and was informed that it had seen more action than any destroyer since World War II.

Gen. Timothy Haugh served as the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command

and the director of the National Security Agency. As the commander of Cyber Command, General Haugh led the most formidable cyber warfighting force in the world, responsible for detecting, deterring, and overseeing cyber operations against America's adversaries, particularly China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and various terrorist organizations.

General Haugh had a distinguished 34-year career within Air Force cyber and intelligence organizations, including multiple command assignments. Indeed, I was impressed with not only his technical skill, but his professionalism, his commitment to serving the Nation, protecting the Constitution, and doing it with a skill which is remarkable.

I am extremely concerned that press reports indicate that Laura Loomer, a fringe conspiracy theorist convinced President Trump to dismiss General Haugh and fire a slew of expert staff at the National Security Council for no discernible reason.

Now, when a conspiracy theorist can get into the President's office and convince him to fire an officer of General Haugh's demonstrated capacity and others on the National Security Council, there is not only something wrong with that individual, there is something wrong with the President who is listening to them without consulting others.

By the way, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Haugh to his post in December 2023, and once again, the Trump administration has given no explanation for his dismissal.

The Trump administration has not selected a new CYBERCOM commander, and it is unclear if there is any sense of urgency to fill this position. Secretary Hegseth has given a priceless gift to China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, by purging from our leadership one of our most vital national security commanders.

VADM Shoshana Chatfield served as the U.S Military Representative to NATO, the first woman to hold this post. She held a vital leadership role within the alliance, particularly as it related to coordinating international support to Ukraine. Admiral Chatfield was among the finest military officers our Nation had to offer, with a 38-year career as a Navy helicopter pilot, foreign policy expert, and preeminent military educator, including as President of the Naval War College.

The Senate unanimously confirmed Vice Admiral Chatfield to her post in December 2023. Again, the Trump administration has given no justification for her dismissal and has not nominated any replacement to this critical posting at NATO.

Gen. James Slife was the U.S. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, the second highest ranking officer in the Air Force. He spent most of his 36-year career as a special operations helicopter pilot, a daunting and dangerous pursuit. He deployed many times around the world and flew countless combat missions in perilous conditions.

General Slife risked his life repeatedly for our Nation and led his fellow special operators and airmen with distinction. Again, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Slife to his post in December of 2023. The Trump administration has given no explanation for his dismissal, nor have they nominated any officer to help lead the Air Force.

Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short was the first female senior military assistant to the Secretary of Defense. She advised the Secretary and served as a representative for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, coordinating policy and operations across the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and with the U.S. interagency. A command pilot with more than 1,800 flight hours, including more than 430 combat hours in an A-10, she flew in Operations Southern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom and commanded airmen at the squadron, wing, major command, and combatant command levels.

The Senate unanimously confirmed her to her post. The Trump administration has given no explanation for her dismissal.

Finally, I am deeply concerned by Secretary Hegseth's dismissal of the Judge Advocates General of the military services. These officers, known as TJAGs, are the most senior uniformed officers in the military. These officers each served more than 30 years in uniform as military lawyers. They were strictly apolitical and held fundamental roles ensuring that balanced, legal counsel was part of every military policy discussion. These officers provided legal oversight that spanned military justice, operational law, administrative compliance, government ethics, and U.S. adherence to the law of armed conflict.

These unprecedented firings, along with the firings of the inspectors general, should alarm everyone about the commitment of the President and the Secretary of Defense to follow the rule of law for the military and also within the United States and across the world.

The Defense Department is one of the most complex institutions in the world, with a budget of nearly $900 billion and a workforce of nearly 3 million military and civilian personnel. It is an organization that requires strong leadership, stability, predictability, and trust. These qualities are critical because we ask the Department's men and women to risk their lives every day in the service of this country.

Those men and women who gave their lives and all of those who are still serving at this moment deserve the best. They deserve a leader who is truly laser-focused on readiness, lethality, and the mission, not someone who treats his position as Secretary as a performative exercise complete with a Twitter feed dominated with workout videos. Our servicemembers deserve better. They deserve someone who is focused on them, not focused on himself.

If Secretary Hegseth does not improve his job performance, the conditions at the Pentagon will continue to deteriorate, and something worse is bound to happen.

I hope Secretary Hegseth takes note.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Sanders in introducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act. Our legislation would finally fully close a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. At a time when the disparity in pay between CEOs and average workers is 290 to 1, there is no justification for forcing U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for lavish executive compensation packages. But that is what is happening.

Under section 162(m) of the Tax Code, publicly traded corporations cannot deduct more than $1 million in compensation paid to their top executives. Section 162(m), however, does not apply to all employees, and corporations are exploiting this loophole to claim tax deductions for compensation packages for uncovered employees that far exceed $1 million. Indeed, publicly traded corporations are offering these lucrative compensation deals to ever increasing numbers of executives-- not just a few at the very top of the organization--even when revenue growth for these companies slows.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the need to close loopholes in section 162(m). In fact, both President Trump and President Biden signed laws based on earlier versions of my legislation to curtail the abuse of this deduction. This includes ensuring that performance-based compensation is actually counted as compensation under section 162(m) and increasing the number of highly paid executives who are subject to section 162(m). Partially tightening the law in these ways has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. But until the loophole is fully closed, taxpayers will continue to be forced to subsidize extravagant compensation.

The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would address the remaining gaps by applying section 162(m) restrictions to all employees of publicly traded corporations, subjecting all compensation to a deductibility cap of $1 million per employee. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that closing this loophole would save taxpayers nearly $80 billion over 10 years. In other words, taxpayers are currently paying around $8 billion each year to subsidize exorbitant executive pay packages.

To be clear, our bill does not prevent publicly traded corporations from being able to pay their executives as much as they want. These corporations simply won't be able to deduct the portion of the compensation package that exceeds $1 million. This is a matter of fairness. It ensures that corporations and shareholders--not taxpayers--are shouldering the cost of the multimillion dollar compensation packages.

I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MIT Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Simon Johnson, Take On Wall Street, Americans for Tax Fairness, and the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pressing for its passage.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Sanders in introducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act. Our legislation would finally fully close a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. At a time when the disparity in pay between CEOs and average workers is 290 to 1, there is no justification for forcing U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for lavish executive compensation packages. But that is what is happening.

Under section 162(m) of the Tax Code, publicly traded corporations cannot deduct more than $1 million in compensation paid to their top executives. Section 162(m), however, does not apply to all employees, and corporations are exploiting this loophole to claim tax deductions for compensation packages for uncovered employees that far exceed $1 million. Indeed, publicly traded corporations are offering these lucrative compensation deals to ever increasing numbers of executives-- not just a few at the very top of the organization--even when revenue growth for these companies slows.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the need to close loopholes in section 162(m). In fact, both President Trump and President Biden signed laws based on earlier versions of my legislation to curtail the abuse of this deduction. This includes ensuring that performance-based compensation is actually counted as compensation under section 162(m) and increasing the number of highly paid executives who are subject to section 162(m). Partially tightening the law in these ways has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. But until the loophole is fully closed, taxpayers will continue to be forced to subsidize extravagant compensation.

The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would address the remaining gaps by applying section 162(m) restrictions to all employees of publicly traded corporations, subjecting all compensation to a deductibility cap of $1 million per employee. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that closing this loophole would save taxpayers nearly $80 billion over 10 years. In other words, taxpayers are currently paying around $8 billion each year to subsidize exorbitant executive pay packages.

To be clear, our bill does not prevent publicly traded corporations from being able to pay their executives as much as they want. These corporations simply won't be able to deduct the portion of the compensation package that exceeds $1 million. This is a matter of fairness. It ensures that corporations and shareholders--not taxpayers--are shouldering the cost of the multimillion dollar compensation packages.

I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MIT Professor and Nobel Prize Winner Simon Johnson, Take On Wall Street, Americans for Tax Fairness, and the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pressing for its passage.

Mr. President, I rise today alongside my colleagues to speak out against the attack on a fundamental right of every American citizen: the right to vote.

I want to thank Senator Padilla for leading this important effort. The progress, the prosperity, and success of our Nation, both as an economic power and as an inspiration for freedom-loving people everywhere, has been aided by our efforts to tear down the obstacles that prevent citizens from voting.

Today, the President and, seemingly, too many of my Republican colleagues want to throw that progress away. At the President's urgings, they appear to believe that it is OK to turn their backs on the work, the advocacy, and the sacrifice of women like Susan B. Anthony who worked so zealously for the right of women to vote, and men like Martin Luther King, Jr., and thousands of Americans who dedicated themselves to opening the voting booths to all Americans.

Indeed, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are now advancing policies that could disqualify tens of millions of Americans from voting in elections. If adopted, these policies will make it harder for low-income individuals, the elderly, women, and even U.S. servicemembers deployed overseas to cast a ballot. Now, that is very ironic.

These men and women in uniform are in dangerous locations to protect our fundamental rights, perhaps the most fundamental right is to vote, and yet this legislation would impair their ability to exercise that right.

Election integrity is essential to our democracy. That is why Democrats vigorously support Federal funding and Federal anti-cyber interference in our elections.

But what isn't essential is breaking a system that successfully prevents fraud and replacing it with one that makes it less likely that American citizens can exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Yet that appears to be the Republican plan. Indeed, through a brazen, illegal, and unconstitutional Executive order, the Trump administration is attempting to mandate that every State change how it operates its elections. Its starkest proposal is to throw out State rules about voter identification requirements and require what is effectively a national ID--while ignoring current law that already makes it a serious crime for a noncitizen to vote.

They have introduced the so-called SAVE Act, which recently passed the House of Representatives. It attempts to codify the President's dubious Executive order.

Now, I can see people saying: Well, what is the big deal about making someone show ID? Well, like many catchy sales pitches, this policy is really a bunch of ``gotchas'' that will stand between millions of voters and the ballot box.

According to the Brennan Center, more than 9 percent of voting-age American citizens, 21 million people, don't have proof of citizenship-- typically a birth certificate or a passport--readily available to show as they try to vote.

And 4 million Americans don't have these documents available at all-- perhaps they were lost, destroyed, or stolen--and these Americans could be prevented from voting.

Women who change their names after getting married, and that is 69 million Americans, will not be able to use a birth certificate alone to establish their citizenship, and they might not be able to vote.

Americans could use a passport to satisfy the Trump policy, but according to the State Department, only half of Americans have a passport. And it will set you back $165 to get one just so you can exercise your constitutionally protected right to vote.

By the way, I wonder if that could be considered a poll tax, which was outlawed through our Constitution, and we have to respect our Constitution. We all take an oath to do that.

The Trump policy allows citizens to use a REAL ID ``that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States,'' but that is a false promise.

As 15 secretaries of state recently wrote: REAL IDs do not indicate citizenship status. Even if the Federal laws for REAL ID were amended, the nearly 140 million REAL IDs that have been issued over the last decade could not be used as proof of citizenship. And these are the experts on elections, the secretaries of state of our 50 States.

Now, some people may still think it is easy to get these documents or register to vote in person, but if you don't have the money to spare to get the proper documents, if you are elderly or disabled or can't easily get to your townhall, what are you to do? Faced with these barriers, they may just give up and not vote at all, which I believe is the ultimate objective of this legislation.

Voter suppression is the way, I believe, that President Trump and others believe they can succeed at the polls. What the Constitution and the spirit of America suggests and what countless generations of American servicemen have fought for is access to the polls for all and enthusiastic voting by American citizens.

And what about the servicemembers who are just deployed overseas and didn't have time to register? How does that young American report in person--because that is what this says, in person--to establish his or her citizenship?

According to military and veterans service organizations, registration methods used for decades by millions of American civilians and uniformed servicemembers abroad ``would likely become impossible under the SAVE Act.''

We will send them to war, but we won't let them vote. Trump's policy would also impose unfunded mandates on States. According to the Rhode Island secretary of state who is one of the most, I think, effective secretaries of state in the country, the State government would need to change its voter registration systems and forms. It may need to purchase new voting machines and equipment, and it would need to pursue a significant public outreach campaign to educate voters about changes in the law.

But the SAVE Act provides zero dollars to cover these costs. States and localities will need to cover this unfunded mandate.

Well, why is the Trump administration imposing these costs and interfering with Americans' fundamental rights as citizens to vote? They claim it is to combat noncitizen voting, but this legislation isn't necessary to do that.

The United States Constitution, the Rhode Island constitution, and Rhode Island State law explicitly state that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote. Under Federal law, it is a felony for non-U.S. citizens to vote. These laws are enforced, and they are a significant deterrent.

An exhaustive study by the Brennan Center found that at least 30 cases of noncitizen voting were referred for investigation or prosecution during the 2016 election. Trump's Department of Justice in his first term indicted 19 people. The law was enforced, but the objectives of this law are trivial compared to the millions of Americans who must have the right to vote.

Now, those 19 should not have voted, but it is 19 votes out of 129 million cast. And as my colleague from Colorado pointed out, a better mathematician than I, that is a fractional portion of the American public.

And make no mistake, they would suffer the consequences if they did vote illegally, these noncitizens. But we do not need a complete overhaul of our election systems and to strip millions of American citizens of voting rights in order to combat a problem that nonpartisan election experts tell us is already addressed by current law.

The real reasons for this policy are to support Trump's Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen, even though he lost by roughly 7 million votes, to sow mistrust in our government, to deter people from voting. This is all in service of President Trump's insatiable desire for power and his insatiable ego.

Efforts by his enablers to discourage absentee voting have already disenfranchised servicemembers. In North Carolina, Republicans have sought to cancel 65,000 votes in a judicial election--an estimated 2,000 to 8,000 of which were military and overseas voters.

We are on the brink of exporting this injustice nationwide on a much greater scale. Senator Padilla is right to sound the alarm about this, and I am proud to join him. We want to help our fellow citizens participate in our elections because only their participation will ensure that the government is truly accountable to the people it represents. And as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that handles election funding, I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring funding for election security grants to the States to the total of $75 million. If you are serious about election fraud, then give the secretaries of state the resources to ensure that ineligible voters do not cast their vote.

Defunding them is an invitation for abuse. This isn't, nor should it be, a partisan endeavor. Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be afraid to face the voters, all voters, and compete on the basis of our ideas and aspirations.

Trump's Executive order and the SAVE Act show that he has a different agenda, consolidating power for himself, not the people, through dissuading and deterring American citizens from casting their vote, one of the most fundamental values that generations of American service men and women have given their lives to protect, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will understand that.

I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Washington.