Floor Statements

Mr. President, Americans are worried that the money in their pockets will not cover the increasing costs of gas and groceries and housing or healthcare. Meanwhile, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is worried that the money in Americans' pockets doesn't currently have his face or his signature on it.

You know, in 2020, Congress passed a law to produce new coins to celebrate America's 250th anniversary. In that law, we wrote that the coins should be emblematic of our 250th anniversary--the U.S. semiquincentennial celebration of 250 years of the vision of a democratic Republic--of a government by and for the people; of our values as a free people, with the rights of free speech and free assembly and free expression. Well, certainly, this we know--that the symbol of putting a sitting President or leader on a coin is not a symbol of a democratic Republic; it is a symbol of an authoritarian strongman.

If we turn the clock back to the year 44 BC, Julius Caesar was Emperor and he decided to have a coin with his face on it. He was the first to do so. It was a radical departure from Roman tradition, and it alarmed the Senate. It was viewed widely as a blatant display of personal power--of personal authoritarian power. And if you missed the point, on the backside of this coin, it had the words ``dictator perpetuo''--``dictator in perpetuity'' or ``dictator forever.'' That is what it represents to put your face on a coin.

Then, at the time our Nation was founded--and, again, we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of that vision--King George III put his face on a coin, on the silver sixpence, and it was viewed, as it was with Julius Caesar and the Emperors who followed him, as an expression of authoritarian personal power.

Does our Constitution provide for an authoritarian structure of government, where power flows down from the King to the people? I think not. It flows up from the people through elections.

That is why putting your face on a coin just is absolutely wrong and why it violates the very premise of the law that created the permission to have this 250th anniversary coin. The design that Trump has come up with--that of a fake gold coin with his face on it--violates the law that we passed. It is widely out of sync with the values of our Nation. It is widely out of sync with our history and our best traditions. So these coins should never be made, and, if made, they should never be distributed.

It is part of a long list of this authoritarian, would-be strongman, dictator President, who is trying to stamp his name onto every public place available.

He is renaming the Kennedy Center for himself; renaming the U.S. Institute of Peace for himself; hanging ``Dear Leader''-sized, North Korean-style banners on the sides of the buildings here in Washington, DC; putting his face onto passports; putting his face onto the national park passes; naming a class of warships after himself; insisting that it be his signature, not the Treasury Secretary's signature on the currency; planning to build a massive triumphal arch to himself--and let's not forget: tearing down the ``People's House''--the East Wing of the White House--to build his gold-plated, billion-dollar ballroom boondoggle.

I say to my colleagues, whether they sit to the left of the aisle or to the right of the aisle, didn't we take the same oath to the same Constitution? Didn't we pledge ourselves to sustaining a democratic Republic, not a strongman state?

So I urge you: Join together--Ds and Rs together--to defend our Constitution; to defend the vision of a government by and for the people.

If we want to turn to the opinion of George Washington 250 years ago, what was his opinion? He was strongly opposed to having his portrait put on coins. Why? Because he considered it a King-like act, completely out of sync with the vision of the Nation we were founding.

Washington's example has endured. It has endured for 250 years until now. Well, my colleagues may say that there was one exception--one exception in 1926--when there was a coin of George Washington, and behind him, there was the outline of a face of President Calvin Coolidge, but it wasn't Calvin Coolidge on the coin. It wasn't his portrait; he wasn't alone; and you would have to be really knowledgeable to know that that outline hanging in the background happened to be of Calvin Coolidge.

Well, this is quite different. This is a full-on, Caesar-style, King George III-style, self-ego amplification that just doesn't fit with the United States of America. So Congress should immediately pass the Change Corruption Act, which I have introduced with Senator Cortez Masto, so as to ban all coins from featuring the image or signature of the sitting U.S. President or living former Presidents--aimed at the principle involved, not aimed simply at President Trump.

You know, families need foundations to thrive, foundations like healthcare, housing, education, and good-paying jobs. What they don't need is to have President Trump's face on fake gold Trump bucks. Instead of putting his face on our money, like a King, let's ask our President to focus on putting money back in the pockets of working Americans. Let's honor 250 years of government by and for the people. Let's prohibit this Caesar-esque-, King George III-, Louis XIV-style of displaying authoritarianism. Let's pass the Change Corruption Act.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the Change Corruption Act, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I so enjoy working with my colleague from Wyoming. But I did notice that her speech had nothing to do with my point that sitting Presidents don't belong on coins because it is an authoritarian symbol.

And I also noticed that her description of the bill passed last year involved changing the name of it. Trump called it the Big Beautiful Bill. And it became widely ridiculed because it cut nutrition, and it cut healthcare to fund tax breaks for the very richest Americans.

It had nothing to do with working Americans. In fact, when you take the impact of the healthcare cuts and the nutrition cuts, the little, smallest crumbs on the table that were sprinkled to the less affluent Americans don't make up for the cuts to healthcare and nutrition. So they come out the losers. It was a ``families lose and megamillionaires win'' bill, and I am happy to debate that all day long.

I realize they renamed it because it was such a horrific attack on ordinary people and, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

So I do support my colleague's vision of fighting for families. But to fight for families, we don't need legislation that is ``families lose and billionaires win.'' We need legislation that is ``families thrive and the affluent, they pay their fair share.'' Their marginal tax as a percent of their income is a tiny fraction of what the working American pays.

You know, in any sane system, the richest Americans would pay a higher

percent of their income in taxes, not a lower percent.

But these are disagreements that I am sure we will continue to debate. And I know my colleague is not planning to run for reelection and won't be here next year. I am going to miss that a great deal. But we still have time and several other things that we are working on together, and maybe that is a topic we will switch to in our next conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Senator appreciates your pronunciation of my home State, which people across America have a hard time often figuring out.

Mr. President, I am here tonight joining my colleague from Wisconsin on a very serious topic: that our Nation is at war; that our servicemembers are dying; that for every one who dies, so many are injured--a war that is absolutely hurting us in every possible way.

Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure.''

On February 28, President Trump and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu launched this unconstitutional war against Iran.

President Trump was asked how long would this last. He said: 4 or 5 weeks. He talked about how our overwhelming military power would produce Iranian leaders who would plead--who would plead--for an unconditional surrender.

Mr. President, 16 weeks later, the war was still going on, but then there was agreement to a 14-point outline of a cease-fire agreement. But because it was just an outline, because the countries hadn't worked out their different understandings of the points, just as President Trump completely blotched the war, he completely blotched the negotiation; so it was back to war.

President Trump announced new strikes on Iran, and we are now in the 21st week of that 4- to 5-week war. Time and time again, leaders think they can launch a war and make a series of assumptions that prove to be wrong, and here we are again.

We were wrong with the assumption you could occupy Afghanistan and build something resembling a modern democratic nation.

We were wrong in spending our resources to attack Iraq, which was a counterbalance to Iran and undid this balance in a way that created Iranian influence through an arc that extended clear across to Lebanon.

You know, our Constitution clearly assigns the question of war to Congress. So to my Republican colleagues: Why aren't you insisting that Congress make this decision rather than the President?

Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The Constitution] has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislative [branch].

That is us. That is us. It is not the President. And the reasoning was that an Executive can too easily make assumptions that something will be quick and easy, but you are committing the lives of our citizens--you are committing the treasure of the Nation--and that should require careful consideration. One person alone, our Founders said, should not be able to take a Republic to war. That is what Kings do. That is what authoritarian strongmen do. But we are not--need I remind you--a strongman authoritarian state--at least we are not by our Constitution. We are a democratic Republic, so let's start acting like it and let's start honoring the structure of our Constitution.

That structure assigns the power of the purse to Congress. So every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President cancels a program that has been authorized and funded. Every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President creates a slush fund to do projects that are not authorized and not funded--that is our responsibility. Unfortunately, this Chamber has failed, for the most part, to defend its role and to defend the Constitution.

We did have a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act that directed the President to remove United States forces from hostilities with Iran, but the majority has acted like we didn't actually pass it, and the President has acted like it wasn't passed. And the majority has failed to protest to the President that he is not respecting the fact that it was passed.

If you can't stand behind the acts of this Chamber, if you can't stand behind the Constitution, then how far off track are we as a nation?

We just got through with a conversation about the fact that this Congress asked for a coin to be minted that reflected the values of our Nation upon our 250 years since our Declaration of Independence, but instead Trump did what dictators do, just as Caesar broke Roman tradition to put his face on a coin and to declare dictator forever, ``dictator in perpetuity,'' just as King George III put his face on a coin to reflect that power came from him down to the people rather than flowing up from the people--that is a mega difference between an authoritarian state and a democratic republic.

The consequences of Trump's war of choice and the consequences of the Republican leadership's failure to exert their constitutional responsibility to end President Trump's war of choice is that 18 servicemembers are dead and hundreds and hundreds of Americans are badly injured.

Thousands of Iranian civilians are dead--including a whole lot of children, many of whom died from a strike by America, by President Trump's team, on a girl's elementary school.

The war strengthened Iran's hardliners--that is what happens when you assassinate the religious leaders and the political leaders--people rally to their country.

It weakened Iran's reformers who wanted to see a different path for their nation.

It enriched Russia. In fact, President Trump proceeded to say that we would no longer enforce the restriction on the Russian sale of oil so they could sell at the world price. Billions and billions of dollars flowed into Russia because of this war--billions and billions of dollars that could be used in the war against Ukraine. That is a war started by a dictatorship against a democratic republic that we should be standing with.

We should be standing with the people of Ukraine, not enriching Russia to buy more weapons to attack them.

The taxpayers, they are certainly losers--$40 billion of national treasure was the estimate given to us yesterday from the Secretary of Defense. And by all estimates, that doesn't include repairing all of the facilities damaged throughout the Middle East that the United States is involved in.

Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now it is closed. That certainly doesn't benefit us or the world.

It has driven up the cost of gas; it has driven up the inflation rate. So Americans, in addition to $40 billion of their collective treasure, are paying out of their pocket so much more at the pump. The price in Oregon has been over $5 a gallon.

Farmers, they have lost too. They were already hit hard by the tariffs, but now they are hit by the high diesel prices to operate their machinery and by the high cost of fertilizer, all of which could be envisioned if there had been a debate here over whether we should go to war with Iran.

We would have heard from the experts who would say: You understand the Strait of Hormuz is a very narrow channel, and Iran has cruise missiles that can proceed to hit ships in the strait, so they have cards to play. We would have debated that if we had had that debate and carried out our constitutional responsibility.

We would have observed that that would have a horrific impact on American families. We would have observed that it would have a terrible impact on American farmers. But we didn't observe that because we didn't hold the debate.

But, say you: Did we not hold oversight hearings at least? Not a single one--another failure of our constitutional responsibility. This group of Senators, through the committees, not a single oversight hearing of the war.

President Trump promised to lower prices and end wars, but he has raised prices, and he has started a war.

Trump posted on Truth Social:

From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of

Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz . . . the

United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER

PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital

City of Tehran.

From the beginning, President Trump thought the power to bomb was his ace up his sleeve. Is President Trump a strategic analyst of wars? No. He just had this instinct--his gut--saying: We have more bombs than they do, so they will fold.

But he was wrong. And through this campaign, he just keeps repeating the same thing: If they don't do what we want, we will bomb them even more.

We will bomb them even more--the echo time and time and time again.

In the beginning, Trump said this war was one we entered because Binyamin Netanyahu was going to bomb Iran anyway, and there would be retaliation so we might as well join the war with him. That was the justification for the United States going to war?

Eventually, he got around to saying: This is about the nuclear materials and making sure that they don't make a nuclear bomb. Our Director of National Intelligence had been very clear that Iran had never made a decision to build a bomb.

And the basic measures to prevent them from having a bomb--getting rid of their highly enriched uranium and moving it out of their country under international supervision; having the IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--monitor everything they do; dismantle their plutonium nuclear reactor--all those measures were already done by an international agreement supported by five major powers--Britain and France and China and Russia and the United States--all together, insisting that these measures were necessary to make sure Iran never got a bomb.

So they did all those things. They dismantled their nuclear reactor-- their plutonium nuclear reactors called a rock reactor--and they proceeded to ship their highly enriched uranium out, and they let in all of the inspectors, and they followed all the rules of the centrifuges.

And who tore up that agreement and created a pathway for Iran to potentially covertly pursue a bomb? That man is President Trump.

So President Trump destroys the international agreement that prevents pursuit of a nuclear weapon and then proceeds to start a war to achieve the same result. And then he discovers the war doesn't work, so he has a 14-point plan.

Well, that plan kind of was jaw-dropping, particularly to my Republican colleagues. It called for America to organize an international Marshall Plan for Iran with some $300-plus million of help. It called for immediate access for Iran to some $24 billion of funds--after they had spent a decade complaining about Iran getting access to $1.5 billion, under the previous agreement, of its own money. What is $1.5 billion compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump was providing to Iran in the 14-point agreement?

Now we are hearing reports that homes have been hit, schools have been hit, hospitals have been hit. We are taking out bridges. The President is bragging about doing that. There was a report that two desalination plants have been hit in Iran. We don't have confirmation of it. I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday if indeed we had targeted or hit desalination plants. He said he didn't know but that he would get back to us. So I am looking forward to getting that information.

And why is that important? Because targeting a desalination plant is widely considered to be a war crime. So I hope those reports are wrong.

Why is it a war crime? Because destroying access to drinkable water-- and one of these plants was reported to serve some 10,000 people in 20 villages--is considered unacceptable under international law. That is why it is a war crime--because it is not a strategic military objective, unless forcing people to have no access to water is a war strategy, which it is not.

I hope that report is wrong. I hope it is not the case that we targeted desalination plants. Iran is reported to have targeted a desalination plant as well.

So the war is potentially devolving here as we are hitting more and more

things that affect civilian life as well as having killed thousands of civilians directly. The laws of war prohibit attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival, including water and food.

So where are we? Trump now claims the main mission of this war is to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Iran's highly enriched uranium--that it only has because he tore up the agreement that prevented them from having that--is buried deep underground, so there is no easy way to extract it. If there is no easy way to extract it, how is this war supposed to solve that?

So the administration now believes negotiations are essential to be able to withdraw because there is no military answer. Maybe if we had had a debate here in Congress, we would have discussed the fact that there was no military strategy that would result in the extraction of that highly enriched uranium, that it would have to be done by agreement. So we are in the fifth month of Trump trying to bomb his way to an answer, the fifth month of that strategy failing.

Negotiators and facilitators of negotiators have proceeded to suggest a 10-day cease-fire to enable return to try to work out some of the details from that previous 14-point outline to solve this war. I support that effort because the path we are on is hurting America in every possible way and hurting a whole lot of civilians overseas.

So let's embrace and exercise our constitutional responsibility and pass Senator Van Hollen's War Powers Resolution to end this reckless war of choice. If the President ignores it after we have passed it, then let's collectively insist on defending the role of the Senate and the House under our Constitution to be the place where the decisions are made about going to war. It is time that we honor our responsibility.

I know there are a lot of Members who don't want to have to have that debate because they are afraid they will get it wrong--they will make a vote for war and it will be a disaster or they will vote against war and their constituents will disagree. But shirking the responsibility is unacceptable. So strap your big-boy pants on and do the work we were elected under our Constitution to do.

Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome Senator Armstrong from Oklahoma in his delivering his maiden speech. It is an important part of this institution, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who weren't able to hear him in person will have a chance to listen to it and to get to know him during his stay here.

Welcome to the Senate.

Mr. President, Donald Trump's Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure.'' He started a war of choice. It turned out, Iran had a lot more leverage than he ever anticipated.

The President thought that superior weapons, a huge number of bombs would give, well, the opportunity for America to conduct a war in which Iran would unconditionally surrender. The President expected that in short order.

But not all unfolds accordingly because Iran had an ace up its sleeve: It had the ability to stop traffic on the Strait of Hormuz. And if the President had listened to any expert, they would have said: You are totally underestimating the leverage and power Iran has over the world economy.

But he didn't listen. So like a dog that got skunked, he has slunk away humiliated--``Operation Trump Humiliation''--and the American people and the world are paying the price.

I am relieved that the bombs have stopped falling, but Trump's disastrous deal has left everyone so much worse off.

The American military: a huge number of munitions expended, 13 servicemembers killed, hundreds wounded.

The U.S. Treasury: depleted by some $50 billion to $80 billion.

American families are paying a much higher price for gas and now facing year-over-year inflation of 4.2 percent because of Trump's war.

American farmers are paying so much more for fertilizer, paying so much more for diesel; bad for the farmers for sure, but that is going to mean higher grocery costs for the American family.

And in international affairs, Russia has been enriched, the Iranian hard-liners have been strengthened; the reformers in Iran have been undermined; our alliances have been deeply, carelessly damaged. Now, of course, Iranian civilians have paid the price with thousands dead and far more injured.

And Iran's highly enriched uranium? Still in exactly the same place it was before his war started.

Now, Trump has signed a 14-point framework, and it has some troubling elements. Donald Trump calls himself ``Dealmaker-in-Chief,'' so let's look at the deal that he has struck.

What does Iran get? Access to $24 billion in unfrozen funds, waivers that allow Iran to sell its oil at the world price, a commitment by the United States to organize a $300 billion plan like a Marshall Plan to rebuild Iran, and a stipulation that after 60 days, Iran can work with Oman and work out fees for vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.

Let's compare that to the JCPOA that President Obama negotiated. And for more than a decade, I have listened to colleagues across the aisle say President Obama did a side deal that returned $500 million to Iran in frozen funds and interest on that $500 million; that we had had it so long, it had stacked up to $700 million.

All right. We are talking about less than $2 billion. Here is Trump: $24 billion in unfrozen funds, $300 billion in redevelopment, waivers for your oil, and the ability to charge fees in the Strait of Hormuz-- not even vaguely comparable.

And those elements, those are not an exchange for a final nuclear deal. They are an advance of one, undermining America's leverage to get a nuclear deal done. And Trump calls himself a dealmaker, giving away all the leverage up front.

And what else does Iran get? No restrictions on cruise missiles or drones; no restrictions on ballistic missiles; no restrictions on funding proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen. Wow. Those are all important elements.

But the deal does deliver two things: America lifts its blockade of the Iranian ports, and Iran lifts its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. But those were the conditions before the war started. So the one positive thing it delivers was already in place before there was a war. So no improvement because of the war.

President Trump has recklessly squandered American lives and treasure. He has recklessly weakened America's standing in the world. He has recklessly raised costs for American families here at home.

This is absolutely the embodiment of why the Founders gave the question of war, not to the President, but to Congress. It is why we have to stand up for the constitutional vision that we swore an oath to when we became U.S. Senators.

Is there any Senator here who didn't swear that oath to the Constitution? Is there any Senator here who hasn't read the Constitution and read that the question of war was assigned to Congress, not the President?

Here is how Madison described it. He said: The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that it is the Executive most interested and most prone to war. The Constitution has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislative branch.

Does anyone need a clearer explanation than that, under our Constitution, a President cannot take us to war and that there was very careful reasoning that went into making that decision: because Executives are too prone to go to war, and no one person should be able to put the lives and treasure of America at risk.

That isn't to say Congress always gets it right. This Chamber and the House Chamber, they had a debate over the authorization to go to war in Afghanistan. These two Chambers, they had a debate over going to war in Iraq. I believe they got it wrong on both occasions. But there was an opportunity to seek information, to compare ideas, to wrestle with the prospect--an appropriate debate on such a monumental question.

Now, this Chamber and the House Chamber have started to exercise their

responsibility to the Constitution. Because if we turn the clock back, in the wake of Vietnam, when there was no authorization, Congress passed the War Powers Act, and the War Powers Act attempted to create a framework so that we would know how to exercise the debate for the question of war. And it said the President--unless our interests are attacked--cannot go to war unless there is authorization from both Chambers. Pretty clear. It also said the President, if we were attacked, could go to war for no more than 60 days without getting authorization from this Chamber.

Now, in this case, America had not been threatened in the fashion envisioned in the War Powers Act, but the President went to war anyway. So in that case we shouldn't have been under the 60 days. But many of my colleagues in the majority thought that applied, and so we voted time and time and time again. And time and time again my colleagues failed to honor the Constitution and say to the President: Stop and get an authorization because that is what the Constitution says.

But then the House held a vote, and the House voted to actually pass a War Powers Resolution. And it automatically came over here, and it automatically came up on the floor. And we passed it this week 50 to 48. We adopted it. And that concurrent resolution--this one right here--this says: Mr. President, stop military hostilities unless you get authorization from Congress.

Here is the exact wording:

Congress directs the President to remove United States

Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of

Iran.

And at the close of it, it notes that action can only occur if it is ``explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force against Iran.''

So, Mr. President--and I am speaking Mr. President of the United States of America--Congress has spoken, exercising its power under the Constitution. You cannot restart hostilities against Iran unless you get an authorization.

You know, in 2015, many mocked the JCPOA. They said war is the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. But now here we are at this moment, and it turns out that we had the war and that diplomacy is the only way to actually stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

And that JCPOA, it restricted Iran's nuclear stockpile to 300 kilograms--that is 300 kilograms of uranium--and prohibited uranium enrichment above 3.67 percent. That is a very low level, way lower than bomb level. It shipped their more highly enriched uranium out of Iran to be under the care and supervision of another country. It dismantled and removed the bulk of their centrifuges. It created vigorous-- vigorous--verification by international inspectors.

There were a lot of details that were worked out to ensure that there was no path to a nuclear bomb. And, in fact, it required them to dismantle their plutonium reactor in Iran called the Arak reactor. It took 2 years to negotiate.

And our Republican colleagues cheered when Donald Trump tore up that extensive, detailed agreement blocking the path to a nuclear weapon. They cheered when President Trump tore it up.

Well, I don't hear any cheering now, when it turns out this war of choice has hurt everyone, in every possible way. More than 100 days of war, and Iran still has their enriched uranium. And because Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA, they now have 1,000 pounds of more highly enriched uranium, enriched to 60 percent, enough for 10 nuclear weapons, because Donald Trump tore up the agreement that blocked that from happening.

In return for ending the war, Iran has agreed to just 60 days of negotiating in which they will talk about maybe returning to some of the framework of the JCPOA. Pretty humiliating for Donald Trump.

But humiliation is not the question. I hope the President and his team will be successful in the negotiation to restore the many elements that blocked the path to a nuclear weapon. That is in the interest of all of us. I have little hope, however, that they will reach that agreement in 2 months, in 60 days.

So here is my crystal ball, Jeff's crystal ball: No detailed agreement on Iran nuclear material will be signed by mid-August when the 60 days expire. I hope I am wrong.

It is also the case that we have a law that says any nuclear deal must be submitted to Congress. So let's make sure that law is followed.

We have seen the costs in blood and treasure when a President goes it alone. We have been reminded of the wisdom of our Founders, who said the President is not allowed, constitutionally, to go it alone. We can't afford to have that happen again. And yesterday, finally, Congress passed a bill--a resolution to rein in Trump's war. Do you know that that is the first time that we have actually done that since the 1973 War Powers Act was signed--the first time that both Chambers approved a concurrent resolution directing the President to end a military conflict? It is a powerful condemnation of President Trump's war of choice.

I will tell you, I am concerned not just about how the negotiations will go, because I know how complicated they will be from how complicated they were when President Obama undertook those negotiations. Again, I hope they are successful, but I will tell you, I am worried that they won't be. And I am worried that an angry and a humiliated Donald Trump, who has slunk away from the war like a stuck dog, is going to try to distract from all of this--distract by trying to rig the November election.

In fact, today, he was here to talk to Senators of his party about how to rig the November election, that he wants his SAVE Act passed that stops American citizens from voting that he doesn't want to vote. He doesn't want college students to vote. He doesn't want Tribal members to vote. He doesn't want women to vote. He doesn't want people living in cities to vote. And he has crafted a bill to make it very hard for those people to vote because he wants to rig the election.

And I am also worried that he will create another international incident, perhaps with an attack or further action regarding Cuba, because when Trump makes one mess, he starts a new mess in order to distract from the previous mess.

Donald Trump's Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure,'' devastating for the United States of America, and all Americans should be furious at this abuse of the Constitution and all the harm that has come from it.

Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks now about the Congressional Review Act vote we will be taking later tonight.

And here is the thing. This is so straightforward, in terms of, here in the United States of America, pursuit of an education to serve the people of this country should never be a privilege reserved only for the wealthiest Americans.

Indeed, don't we want every child to have the opportunity to thrive, to get a graduate degree, to get a professional degree, to be able to serve in the many capacities where we are desperately short of individuals? Of course we do.

And this is something very near and dear to my heart because I am a blue-collar kid, and my father said, when I was in grade school: Go to the doors of the schoolhouse. You go through those doors, and you study hard, and you can do just about anything in America, because we are so fortunate to live in America.

That is a beautiful idea--that every child has the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and if that requires a college education, to be able to pay for a college education without a millstone of debt around their neck or just the actual impossibilities of having access to enough funds to pay tuition.

So I pursued that vision. And my interest did take me to college. And I did borrow money, and I did get scholarship, and I did wash dishes, year after year, in order to help get through.

But that journey is becoming so much harder now, when college is so much more expensive. When I got out of high school, if you worked a minimum-wage job, the summer of 1974, at $3 an hour, you could save enough money, living at home, to pay the tuition for a public university in my home State of Oregon.

Or you might still have to work in order to, well, have a room to live in and have food to eat. But you could pay the tuition.

And now it is completely out of sync. You cannot save enough on minimum wage, which is still only, you know, in many States, only $7.50, or half that if you have a job that has tips, in many States. There is no way you can pay your tuition.

And so shouldn't we all be working to make it easier for children to actually get the expertise that we need in our services, in our economy? But, indeed, we are going in the other direction.

I have often spoken about how I feel the Big Beautiful Bill, as Trump called it, hurt Americans along the way, kicking millions of Americans off of health insurance and gutting nutrition and slashing funding for higher education. Why?

But now we have something else, which is a rule from the Trump administration that will make it very hard for ordinary children coming from modest means--families of modest means or very restricted income-- to be able to go on to college and to go to graduate school.

In fact, that bill--that Big Beautiful Bill, as Trump called it-- eliminated the Grad PLUS loans, which allowed students to borrow the full amount of their program, and replaced those loans with two categories. A graduate degree student is limited to borrowing $20,500 a year and up to $100,000 in total.

So that restriction--a graduate degree student--whom does that apply to? Well, it applies to nurses, to social workers, to physician associates, to teachers, to engineers, to physical therapists, and to many other categories.

And so those professions are told: You can only borrow $20,500 a year.

So what does that mean? It means that since tuition is often much higher than $20,500--and then throw in the dormitory and throw in the food--well, you are talking $40,000 a year.

There is a survey from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, which reports the average cost of a nursing program is $38,500 a year--the average cost--so often over $40,000.

So what is the effect of putting this limit of $20,500? Well, this is a gift to the predatory lenders. Now, one friend of my son's, well, she had 6 percent loans that were the government loans, and then she had to get private loans. What was the interest rate on that? It was 11 percent.

We are basically saying: Hey, if you are wealthy and your parents can pay your tuition and your dormitory and your food, hey, you are golden. The avenue of opportunity is for you.

But if you are from a family that doesn't have the ability to pay that cash and you have to borrow, we are going to force you to borrow loans that are 9, 10, 11, 12 percent because we don't want that avenue of opportunity for you. We only want it for the rich kids.

This is a rule for rich America, and this is a penalty against normal people. That is wrong. I thought this democracy was supposed to be of, by, and for the people, not special, gold-plated avenues for the kids of the richest families.

And I know that this Chamber is full of multimillionaires--maybe a few billionaires--who don't know the darnedest thing about how families struggle across this Nation and how much they want their kids to have opportunity too.

So this is very simple. Let's reject this rule that puts up a huge barrier for the children of families of modest means and medium incomes or low incomes. Let's knock down that barrier. Let's not force them into predatory lending.

Now, there are some who say: But wait. We think that the schools will lower their tuition as a result of us making loans unavailable.

That is a false premise. Never worked anywhere because the schools have to pay the professors. They have to pay for the infrastructure. They have to pay interest on the buildings they have already built. And so they have to charge accordingly.

When we saw before--and we have been down this road--when there was a limit on public loans and people had to go to private loans--like the friend of my son--you end up with those 10, 11, 12 percent interest loans. They are predatory against our children of the next generation.

So who here wants to speak up for the rich to be the only ones with opportunity in this country? Let's strike down this rule and say to the President's team: When this bill was passed, no one in this Chamber meant to say that opportunity is only for the wealthy kids.

This is our opportunity. It is a Congressional Review Act. It means we can say no to a rule that puts up a hurdle to ordinary children.

So it isn't as if everything is rosy for the children of the next generation--hey, housing prices, up through the roof. Home ownership median age has risen from 33 to age 40 over just a 5-year period because the next generation can't afford to buy a home. Rents are pressing people against the wall. Tariffs have added so much cost to the families.

Why are we going to pile this predatory loan program on top of everything else? It is absolutely wrong. So let's just join together and say: Let's put this rule in the rubbish bin. Let's put it through the shredder because it only hurts the next generation that we should be striving to help thrive.

Will my colleague yield to a question?

I believe I understood you to say that you are citing a university that has lowered its tuition.

Did I understand that correctly?

Which university was that?

Is that a private or public school?

So here is the thing. There are 4,000 universities in the country. Do you have any idea how many have followed that example and lowered their tuition?

My colleague has got it completely wrong. There are less expensive ways to get a nursing degree. Indeed, my wife is a nurse, and she got her 2-year nursing degree at a community college. We were very, very fortunate to get even some scholarships to help her do that at a time when our income was extremely little.

But here is the thing: There aren't very many slots like that. With the 4-year programs that are throughout Oregon at private universities, you can't come close to paying your annual expenses at $20,500. We need a lot more nursing slots because there are a lot of folks who are coming out of high school with straight A's. They can do the statistics, and they can do all the prerequisites, but there just aren't enough slots. So we are wrestling with the fact that we are importing a lot of nurses from overseas rather than providing opportunities for our kids.

What this means is, yes, you are right. There are some ways to get a nursing degree--a 2-year degree in particular--that are less, but most folks have to do another 2 years because now hospitals won't take a 2- year nurse. They often have to go to a private program, and those programs average $38,500 a year.

The math is simple. For the families like the family I come from, wherein you have to borrow, borrowing at 6 percent is a hell of a lot better than borrowing at 11 percent. With the rich, their families have home equity loans. If they are going to borrow, they borrow at 6. So we are saying: Here is this big obstacle for ordinary people who don't have parents who are affluent.

It is just the math.

The idea that all of those programs are going to be able to lower their $38,500, on average--many are much more--to $20,500 is just false. There may be one or two universities that have lowered it, and by the way, they did it in anticipation--and maybe for different reasons--because this hasn't gone into effect yet. It is going into effect a few days from now. That is why we are talking about this now. It is going to affect folks who are going to school next year. So this is very disturbing to me that we are creating this obstacle for families who need help.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 432, S.J. Res. 196.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns on their shadow days on the following dates: Anjali Weerasinghe on July 15, 2026, and Kainat Deo on August 5, 2026.

Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of importance to our commercial fisheries and to our weather and to scientific studies. Specifically, that is the issue of sustaining the Ocean Observatories Initiative. It is a system of 900 sensors that we have in five different arrays around the oceans surrounding the United States that provide immense information--these anchored sensors--on the salinity, which is the salt content of the water, on the temperature, on the current direction, and on the phytoplankton at the bottom of the food chain. All of that information gives us enormously improved understanding of our ocean conditions. In fact, that information has been used in over 500 academic studies.

Now, what value is this?

Well, understanding our commercial fisheries is essential for maintaining the success of our commercial fisheries, and a huge amount of our weather is affected by the temperature of the ocean in different locations. That is why you hear weathermen talking about El Nino and La Nina--because they are large, massive bodies of water that are either colder than usual or warmer than usual and are changing all the patterns of weather.

It is also important for understanding climate change because the ocean stores some--I think it is--90 percent of the temperature increases that come from carbon dioxide and monoxide.

To get to the point, the National Science Foundation has started pulling out these arrays--it started yesterday--with an array called the Coastal Endurance Array off the coast of Oregon. But to everyone who represents any oceanfront in the United States, these are incredibly valuable investments. We have spent $386 million in developing these arrays. They are supposed to provide information for 30 years, and pulling them out makes no sense.

So this bill that we have teamed up on--Alaska and Oregon, myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski--is simple.

It says: National Science Foundation, stop dismantling this enormously valuable array until we can have a full study of the pros and cons and stakeholder input because we cannot make a mistake and undermine the success of our commercial fisheries, our recreational fisheries, and our understanding of the weather and climate.

With that, I would like to turn this over to my colleague from Alaska.

Mr. President, I would like to very much thank my colleague from Alaska. We were both shocked to hear about this plan to remove these sensors.

The sea off Alaska and certainly off the coast of the Northwestern United States--Oregon, Washington--are incredible assets that we need to understand. And I think about how, off Oregon, you have the California current and the Pacific upwelling that give some of the most productive fisheries to be found anywhere on the planet--from the salmon to the rockfish, to the groundfish, to the whiting, to the shrimp, to the crabs. And I know there are very similar, very rich conditions in the seas off Alaska.

So it is a pleasure to collaborate with my colleague and for us to gain the support of our fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to say it is very important to protect this system of sensors, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, for the good work it is going to help provide for weather, for commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, and understanding climate. So thank you.

Mr. President, I submit this statement on behalf of Senator Durbin, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Peters, Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and myself.

Federal law prohibits bills enacted through the budget reconciliation process from effectuating primarily substantive changes to law that are not related to fiscal policy. The budget reconciliation process is reserved for changes to the Federal budget and specifically precludes the inclusion of ``extraneous'' matters, including any provision whose budgetary effect is ``merely incidental'' to its nonbudgetary policy components. These limitations on the reconciliation process are commonly referred to as the ``Byrd rule'' after Senator Robert Byrd, who championed their enactment. So long as these limitations, among several others, are adhered to, a budget reconciliation bill can pass the Senate with only simple majority votes; but any language that does not comply with the Byrd rule is subject to a point of order that requires 60 votes to waive. In practice, the minority scrutinizes every provision of a reconciliation bill and challenges those it believes violate the Byrd rule in litigation before the Senate Parliamentarian, which occurs before the Senate considers the bill on the floor. In response to successful challenges, the majority often strikes or revises text ahead of floor consideration.

This statement highlights sections of S. 2, the Secure America Act, the fiscal year 2026 reconciliation bill passed by the Senate on June 5, 2026, to further demonstrate that provisions passed through the reconciliation process must be read in accordance with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457; 122 Stat. 5044), hereinafter the TVPRA, the Flores Settlement Agreement, and other applicable laws.

On May 4, 2026, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--or HSGAC--Chair Paul released the

proposed Senate HSGAC title of what became S. 2, the Secure America Act. This proposed text included language concerning screenings of unaccompanied children in Section 3(a)(6) that was identical to Section 90004(a)(6) of Public Law 119-21, the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation bill commonly known as the ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act.'' The May 4, 2026, HSGAC title also included language to provide funding for the purposes under title IX of Public Law 119-21, therefore carrying forward section 90003 regarding detention capacity and section 90004(a)(6) of that law.

The Trump administration is currently relying on provisions of Public Law 119-21, which are identical to section 3(a)(6) and referenced by section 4 in the proposed May 4, 2026, HSGAC title, to contravene legislative provisions for the identification and screening of unaccompanied children and to override a settlement agreement governing the care and custody of children detained in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--or CBP-- custody. For instance, the Department of Justice cited section 90003 of Public Law 119-21 in district and appellate briefs where they assert the authority to detain families indefinitely in family residential centers. In its implementation of section 90004(a)(6) of Public Law 119-21, CBP has changed its screening of unaccompanied children. Under this new processing mechanism, CBP claims it is now permitted to ask unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries to withdraw applications for admission to the United States. Such substantive policy overrides would not comply with the Byrd rule.

Given the administration's position on the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation bill, the minority challenged section 3(a)(6) and section 4 of the May 4, 2026, HSGAC text as violating the Byrd rule because the administration would again incorrectly claim that this language constitutes congressional authorization of their new policies related to unaccompanied children and family detention. The Parliamentarian sustained the Democrats' challenges to section 3(a)(6) and section 4, as indicated by a May 14, 2026, press release published by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget. Senate Republicans then released a subsequent version of the HSGAC title, specifically the text reported out of HSGAC on May 19, 2026, and the Budget Committee on May 20, 2026, which removed the offending language regarding unaccompanied children in section 3 and the reference to Public Law 119-21 in section 4. These changes reinforce that neither congressional intent nor statutory authorization should be read into, or inferred from, either Public Law 119-21 or the Secure America Act, to change the implementation of immigration law or override settlement agreements, including the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement.

On May 4, 2026, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Grassley released the proposed Senate Judiciary Committee title of what became S. 2, the Secure America Act. This proposed text allocated funds to the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security through fiscal year 2029. It included language in section 3 to provide $2.5 billion for the purposes provided in the title as well as in part II of subtitle A of title X of Public Law 119-21.

Since its passage, the Trump administration has relied upon section 100051(8) of Public Law 119-21 to set aside legal protections enshrined in the TVPRA for unaccompanied children. The TVPRA limits voluntary withdrawal to children from contiguous countries, and it states that, absent ``exceptional circumstances,'' children from noncontiguous countries must be transferred to Office of Refugee Resettlement custody within 72 hours of entering CBP custody and placed in full removal proceedings. In a recent letter to Senator Wyden, however, CBP Commissioner Scott wrote: ``The language in Section 100051(8) of [Public Law 119-21] makes it permissible to allow certain [unaccompanied children] who are screened and determined to be eligible--including those from noncontiguous countries--the opportunity to withdraw their application for admission and voluntarily return to their country of origin, if they choose to do so.'' In another telling example, the administration relied on section 100051(8) in attempting to overturn a 40-year-old permanent injunction requiring that unaccompanied children receive written notice of the right to a hearing in immigration court and access to a telephone to call a responsible adult or lawyer. As with the HSGAC title, however, such substantive policy changes would not comply with the Byrd rule.

Given the Parliamentarian's determinations with respect to the HSGAC title, and in light of the positions taken by the administration that provisions of Public Law 119-21 override the TVPRA, the minority then challenged the proposed text of section 3 in the Judiciary title. That text was also amended in the subsequent version released by Senate Republicans ahead of floor consideration. In order to meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, proposed section 3--which became section 203 of S. 2, the Secure America Act--was narrowed to remove references to provisions related to the treatment of unaccompanied children. The final language allocated $2.5 billion to the purposes provided in the Judiciary title or for paragraphs (3) or (7) of section 100051 of Public Law 119-21 only. Further still, to avoid future misapplications of funds issued through the budget reconciliation process, in section 202(9) of S. 2, the Secure America Act, provisions funding certain immigration enforcement actions emphasize that such funds must be utilized ``in accordance with existing laws.''

These changes reinforce that provisions in either Public Law 119-21 or the Secure America Act are not intended to change the implementation of immigration law or to override settlement agreements, including the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement.

Mr. President, Americans are pressed to the wall. I have been holding townhalls throughout Oregon. I have held 36 this year--1 in every single county. Most of my Oregon counties are what you would call very red counties. But regardless of whether I am in a blue county or a red county, folks are pretty upset. They are not happy that gas is over 5 bucks a gallon and diesel is over 6 bucks a gallon. They are not pleased that grocery prices are going way up. They are disturbed that rent and housing costs are higher and higher. And we are seeing the impact, with March home foreclosures reaching the highest rate in 6 years. They are aggravated about inflation hitting the highest rate in 3 years at 3.8 percent, and they are downright angry over healthcare costs. They are wondering why the hell the Senate went along and spearheaded an effort to wipe out the tax credits that made healthcare affordable for middle-class families. At the same time, they are hearing about how that Big Beautiful Bill from last year gave massive tax breaks to the richest Americans.

So gas up and diesel up and fertilizer up and groceries up and housing up, and the business of this Chamber under the leadership across the aisle is to give tax breaks to billionaires? What the hell is going on here? That is just crazy. That is not government by and for the people; that is government by and for the powerful.

What does this current reconciliation bill do for those families? Not a damn thing. Not one penny. Not one penny. Not one dime in the couch cushion. Nothing. What does it do? Groceries, gas, housing, healthcare--a big zero--zero like in zilch; zilch like in nothing. Like you all don't matter across America; we only care about the billionaires.

Then it hands another $70 billion to ICE and CBP. ICE and CBP are sitting on $100 billion of unobligated funds. That is like the dragon sitting on the huge mound of diamonds and rubies and gold, guarding it. And we are going to give them more? They are sitting on a 4-year supply of funds right now. And we can't do anything for middle-class families, but we are going to give ICE and CBP more money to sit on. How does that possibly serve America?

Are we doing reforms--reforms that address the secret police practices that they have been executing, terrorizing our communities across the country? Not a single reform is in this bill. Stunning.

If that wasn't bad enough, my Republican colleagues are all in on corruption, all in on taxpayers footing the bill for Trump's gold- plated, billion-dollar ballroom boondoggle, a massive Louis XIV-style building so large it turns the White House into this little, tiny auxiliary dwelling unit next to Trump's massive, self-serving, ego- creating-and-fostering monument to himself.

And the ballroom isn't all. Shouldn't we be doing an anti-corruption bill on the floor right now? We are celebrating America's 250th anniversary--250 years in which Presidents served the people, not themselves--and yet we are having this year be the one where we are seeing corruption on a scale America has never witnessed before.

Remember the big corruption scandals we heard about growing up? Teapot Dome. Remember that Teapot Dome was the name of an area in Wyoming where an Interior Secretary gave noncompete oil and gas leases in exchange for bribes of about $400,000. Well, $400,000--what is that compared to the President giving himself--

I thank the Presiding Officer for the reminder, but I think every Senator here has an interest in taking on the corruption infecting America, and I would welcome the partnership of all 100 Senators in this.

What about other corruption scandals we grew up with? How about Jack Abramoff, the man who was characterized as the man who bought Washington--lavish golf trips and lavish gifts and free dinners and exclusive

tickets in exchange for favors and votes here in Congress.

Well, golf trips? How does that compare to $2 billion--a President giving himself control of $2 billion in a cash-for-cronies scheme? Many people believe the President was going to use that money to help foster disruption of the November election. That is how concerned Americans are about the integrity of the upcoming November election.

But think how small Jack Abramoff's corruption is compared to giving yourself $2 billion.

How about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepting dozens of gifts from folks with issues before the Court, accepting vacations and private jet flights and stays at luxury resorts and a rolling bus that he got a subsidized loan for--a loan that was forgiven in the largest part.

Mr. President, excuse me? What is that?

Mr. President, can I ask for 1 more minute to complete my comments?

It boils down to this, folks: We should be helping the people of America, not adding $170 billion more when ICE and CBP are sitting on the money. We should be reforming ICE and CBP. We should be helping Americans with the issues of the cost of gas and groceries and healthcare. We should be taking on this vast corruption, defending the integrity of the United States. That would be a great way--each of these--to celebrate our 250th anniversary, but that is not what we are doing today.

So let's dump this bill where it belongs: in the trash heap.

Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from North Carolina and other Members on the other side of the aisle who wish to end the massive corruption of the so-called anti-weaponization fund, better known as cash for--well, folks who are--``cash for cronies'' would be a good name for it.

But, listen, taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under the control of the Attorney General is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.

We have already seen how the administration has an enemies list, how inclined this Attorney General is to use his resources and his offices to go after those enemies, and this is money that lets him do it on a massive scale.

So no cash for cronies and no slush fund to have the President and his Attorney General go after their political enemies.

Please oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5512 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, colleagues, Americans love our iconic monuments, from the Lincoln Monument to the White House. And major changes to these beloved places are done in accordance with a congressional authorization. They are not done without one.

And, yet, we now have a situation where there is a plan to construct a billion-dollar ballroom, gold-plated, without any action by Congress to authorize it.

So some may love that ballroom, and some--including myself--well, we think it is a terrible idea to overshadow the White House with a monument appropriate to Louis XIV. But that is not the point right now. The point is there is no congressional authorization.

So this amendment is very simple. It says that congressional authorization is needed to proceed. All of us here have a responsibility to follow the power-of-the-purse responsibility in the Constitution. Let's all support the idea that it must proceed--if it is to proceed--with a congressional authorization.

Mr. President, because it is so important that we exercise our constitutional power of the purse, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974--

--and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive the point of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work in both removing the corrupt provisions of this bill

that ignored working families and fighting against tens of billions of dollars being funneled to the President's rogue agencies. Staff includes: Ben Ward, Mike Jones, Jill Harrelson, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Misha Rafiq, Brian Lyons, Anna Barnes, Connor Jennings, Ethan Rosenkranz, Andrew Cobian, Anirudh Srirangam, Fiona Forrester, Lauran Pauley, and Hilary Gelfond-Gross.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my summer interns for their shadow days on the following dates: Gabriela Suescum on June 16, Lily Middleton on June 17, Carmen Vintro on June 23, Tali Greenfield on June 24, Anjali Weerasinghe on July 14, Kainat Deo on July 15, Miguel Tejeda on July 21, Dario Guadarrama on July 22, Lucan Pyle on July 28, and Zuha Murad on July 29.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alisya Solankhi and Harrison McBride on the Budget Committee minority staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 2.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on a simple question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its constitutional responsibility to decide the question of war?

As Madison summarized:

The Constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The

Constitution] has accordingly with studied care, vested the

question of war in the [legislative branch].

With studied care.

The Founders said that no one person, not even the President, should be able to take this Nation to war.

They would observe that throughout history, Executives were inclined to commit troops and treasure to battles that made no sense in a government by and for the people in a democratic republic. So they stipulated there had to be a debate and a vote here in the legislative branch, an act of Congress, a declaration of war, or an authorization by legislation for war. Yet we have had neither. We have had neither.

In the 1973 War Powers Act, there is a third option. It is a condition in which the United States has been attacked or is under imminent threat of an attack.

Some colleagues have said that imminent threat was real, and therefore the President has 60 days to conduct a war before he is in violation of the Constitution.

Now, I disagree. Many of us and many experts believe nothing close to an imminent threat existed that justified that third option--the President having 60 days to respond without action by Congress. But many colleagues across the aisle have said: We will give the benefit of the doubt to the President's contention that there was an imminent threat, but we will reconsider our position when the 60 days has expired.

Well, my friends, the 60 days expired on May 1. We are way past that deadline.

Now the President has a new excuse. He says: Well, we are no longer conducting acts of war. We are in a cease-fire.

But what matters are the facts on the ground. Are we, in fact--have we, in fact, suspended all the acts of war? No, we have not. We are still engaged on a daily basis. The United States is still blockading Iranian ports. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian warships. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian vessels. That is an act of war. Iran is still blockading the Strait of Hormuz. That is an act of war. They are still firing on U.S. Naval vessels. That is an act of war. They are still attacking U.S.-flagged tankers. That is an act of war.

Both sides are engaged in a daily war as defined by international law. Is it at a somewhat lower level than the bombing campaign? Yes, I will grant you that. But it is a war by every definition. It has not ended. Our troops have not been withdrawn.

So here we are. Are we going to honor that oath to the Constitution? Each and every one of you took that oath. The Constitution is very clear: War can be conducted by the United States only with congressional authorization. We are now past that 60 days, so that excuse, that reason, is gone.

How seriously do you take the Constitution? If you don't take it seriously, maybe you shouldn't be serving in this Chamber.

It is clear how important that debate is in this Chamber when you look at the catastrophe that has unfolded with this war of choice. Catastrophe. Undermined the reformers. Massively strengthened the hard line--massively. Enriched Russia extensively. We lifted the sanctions on Russia. They are able to sell their oil at a world price--a world price that is double what it was before. We have lost men and women in uniform. We have hundreds that are injured. We are spending $1 to $2 billion a day.

Here at home, there are massive increased costs for the American family. People keep saying it is $4 for gas now--$1.50 higher than it was. Well, in Oregon, it is over $5. Diesel is over $6. The cost to a family in the course of a year at this point is about $2,700 additional cash out of hand, posttax dollars--gone.

When energy goes up, everything goes up. Our agricultural community is looking at the increased cost for fertilizer on top of the chaos of the tariffs affecting their inputs and their outputs. The inflation index is way up--3.8 percent last month, which is the highest year- over-year in 3 years, and more is coming.

We have undermined our alliances. We said to the Europeans: We don't need you.

President Trump said: We do not need you. Then he said: Please, please come and help.

They said: This war you have embarked on is unwise. You did not ask us for help. You did not consult with us beforehand. This is your choice. It is a big mistake. And, no, we are not going to partner in this massive catastrophe.

The enriched uranium is still buried deep underground. There is a path on the uranium question. The path will look something like this: Iran will agree not to enrich for 5 years or so. That would be face- saving for the United States of America. But then they will be free to enrich to a low level, protecting and defending their sovereignty, with international inspections. The enriched uranium--60 percent--they will be in agreement that will be moved to Russia or somewhere else.

Those three features--all part of the JCPOA, the agreement that was reached through diplomacy rather than war, the agreement that President Trump tore up in his first administration and created an expanded pathway to more enriched uranium in Iran because he tore up the agreement.

So costs at home, deaths of servicemembers, cost to the Treasury, undermining alliances, enriching Russia, failing to retrieve uranium-- mistake after mistake after mistake. That is why the Founders said that a President by himself should not be able to go to war and wrote a Constitution that we each have pledged ourselves to. We are a democratic republic, not an authoritarian power--authoritarian power, the President or the Chief Executive, the dictator, whatever you want to call him.

But we have a responsibility, and today, we will test whether or not we honor that oath to the Constitution. Will we?

Option 1, have we done a declaration of war? We have not.

Option 2, have we passed an authorization for the use of military force? We have not.

Option 3, the President has 60 days when there is an imminent threat. So colleagues who have asserted that is a legitimate option, I disagree, but those who have asserted it, 60 days is up.

So will you or will you not honor your constitutional responsibility? That is the question that will be in the vote today.

Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 163.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S.J. Res. 156.

Mr. President, payday loans are notorious short-term loans, often with interest rates of 100, 300, or 500 percent. They put families into a vortex of debt they often cannot escape. Any way you slice it, at those interest rates, it is loansharking.

Many States, including Oregon, have outlawed these loans and put reasonable sideboards on it--a good thing to do. But now the industry has changed its language. Instead of calling it a payday loan, they call it an earned wage access product. Instead of calling it a loan, they call it an advance. Instead of calling it a fee, they call it a tip.

The CFPB provided some national protection, including what States did separately--basically, Truth in Lending Act fair disclosure.

I offer this joint resolution of disapproval to suggest we restore that basic Truth in Lending Act disclosure and other protections the CFPB had provided--just sideboards to help reduce the most harmful aspects of these predatory products.

So, quite simply, if you are against unregulated loansharking and want to end it, vote aye. If you are for loansharking, vote no.

Vote on Motion to Proceed