Floor Statements

Madam President, I think most of us in this Chamber realize that we are literally living through one of the most consequential technology moments in our lifetime, and that is why I am here with several of my colleagues--Senator Schatz from Hawaii and Senator Kim from New Jersey--to say that we can't, frankly, have regular business at this moment.

You know, before I got into politics, I was in the technology field. I was lucky enough to be on the ground floor of the wireless industry and then became a venture capitalist and was involved in iterations around the internet and cloud computing. I can say without reservation that as big as wireless was, as big as the internet is, as big as cloud computing is, they will pale in comparison to the innovation that will come about through artificial intelligence.

In many ways, the reason I chose to ask the people of Virginia to hire me one last time was because, having spent an enormous amount of time on this subject, I am enormously concerned that we get AI right, that it is safe and it is fair, that America leads in AI innovation.

Over the last year and a half or so, 2 years, I have spoken on this subject repeatedly. I have laid out my ideas on how we ought to have a comprehensive approach--legislation on data centers that would actually, if they don't meet minimum Federal standards, would impose their inability to get a bonus tax depreciation.

I have plans in terms of how we ought to be dealing with child safety. If you think social media messed up your kids, wait until your teenage daughter or son thinks they have an affinity or a relationship with a chatbot. How ironic that China has already prohibited that.

We are seeing increasingly the use of AI agents. Well, who bears the liability? I have some ideas there.

National security. When Mythos came out from Anthropic, our head of NSA and Cyber Command said that this tool will change warfare as much as drones.

Finally, I continue to be enormously concerned that while AI may create jobs long term, in the short run, in the next 2 to 5 years, I think we will have an enormous disruption in our workforce. I will make a wager with anyone that I hope I will lose that we could see up to 30 percent of recent college grad unemployment as companies try to integrate the productivity gains from AI, and they are simply not going to hire as many folks going forward.

So I remain an AI optimist. I am not an AI doomer. But we are at a moment in time, looking over the last few weeks, where I think the whole world has recognized that we have to do something.

When AI companies, one after another, come out and say ``We have to elevate safety and put that first and foremost,'' when OpenAI just yesterday said they are slowing the model on Astra, when Anthropic has said they are trying to build in more safety protocols--I think that is good, but are we really going to trust the industry to self-police on something that, if it goes beyond what is happening--and we have already seen not tens but literally thousands of examples where these models go beyond what humans want them to do, the most famous being the OpenAI Hugging example, where 3,000 bots jumped the sandbox fence, attacked another company, and then came back and attacked OpenAI. Literally, during that period, they communicated with each other, hid their intent from human beings, would sacrifice some of the bots for the greater cause, and we are doing nothing? That was July. In August, they had 10,000 bots collaborate.

So we three--and there are a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle who I think are enormously concerned who said that we will all have time to debate all of our--I don't want to use the term my friend from Hawaii will use, but pet rocks--I hope he will use it again--and say that we all have great ideas here, but we should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now.

As we leave, if the Congress goes out and, God forbid, we have an incident--AI is already suspect by most Americans--we could actually see the stop of innovation if an AI tool took over a hospital or a water system. I am not an AI doomer, but the ability to have these AI agents take over and shut down part of the financial system is real. We should heed the call from the experts.

I think you will also see shortly--the finance world has said we need mandatory controls. I think you will see other large businesses say so as well. We need to make sure whatever safety board we put in place doesn't ensconce the already largest frontier labs.

Our request is really simple. It has been as pared down as possible. Before these models are released, they should be pretested to make sure, secondly, that the sandboxes where they do the testing have appropriate cyber protocols, that even before you start testing, there is at least a basic safety policy. And these companies welcome this. And God forbid we have an incident, we have to have an incident reporting mechanism. No more, no less.

We would house this at NIST. The safety board would have to include, obviously, where the expertise is--the frontier models. I actually think it would be good to have an international validator--somebody like the British--on it as well. They have an AI safety institute. We could actually guarantee to the rest of the world that our models are safe.

So let's not get involved--this is not a partisan issue. I think the chairman of the Commerce Committee is coming down. We have worked with him. We look forward to working with him further. But let's go ahead and put a statement in place that we in the U.S. Senate recognize the enormous upside of much AI, but there is also a downside.

With that, Madam President, I would like to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii.

Madam President, in a moment, I am going to ask for a UC.

I appreciate that the chairman of the Commerce Committee is here as it is in his jurisdiction, and he has been working on this issue. Congratulations on his legislative success last night.

To address, kind of, a little bit of what Senator Kim just mentioned, we don't know. What we do know is that the ChatGPT model that has already been released and is out in service has literally had thousands of times where it has gone beyond what the model was supposed to have done.

I completely don't think we can solve this State by State. Yesterday, Florida sued ChatGPT in kind of a very red State with a very Republican attorney general's taking, you know, an almost the-sky-is-falling approach.

We are trying to say--you know, I am pro-AI here, but if we lose this moment--I have never seen an innovation that could be so positive but be viewed so negatively by the public at this point, particularly by young people. So we are just saying: Let's put a safety board in place. We have to recognize things where we don't empower the existing incumbents, but I think we can do that. We are saying: Release testing. Make sure the sandboxes are safe on cyber protocols. Make sure there is a safety protocol that goes back even before testing, and make sure, after--God forbid--an incident, that there is an incident report.

Again, I would echo what my colleagues have said. You know, I have not talked to a single Member on either side of the aisle who doesn't think we need to move. I don't think the option of simply relying on the good will of these companies will be enough.

If we are not able to move forward today, I commit to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because I think there is, frankly, no issue more important. If we don't get safety rights and all of the things about workforce or agent liability or national security, which has to be dealt with, we may miss. That would be the worst. If Americans turn against this innovation and say: We are going to stop it across the board, nothing would be better for China, and we don't want that to happen.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I look forward to working with him.

In terms of the composition of the safety board, that is where the rubber hits the road. You have to acknowledge that the frontier model has got most of the expertise. I think we all share a deep commitment, and as the chair and vice chair of the Intelligence Committee for the last decade, I have been calling out the CCP and their approach to technology that is just not in AI but across the board.

But I still--and I defer to my colleagues--feel like, my gosh, we are going to look pretty darned silly if something happens, and the American people turn dramatically against this technology because we didn't put safety first. Literally, the commercial ChatGPT model out there has created thousands--and this is not my word; it is the ChatGPT management's--of incidences where it has gone beyond what it was supposed to do. Literally, almost all of the members of the Anthropic company have said this something we need to address.

We have to do this with urgency. I look forward to working with the chairman. We have got to make it mandatory. We have got to make it safe.

And, clearly, how that Board is constructed--and it has to be able to move very, very quickly. I am not sure that the traditional judicial process could move that way, but I thank the chairman.

I don't know if my colleagues wanted to have a closing note as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have spent the last couple of years trying to learn as much as I can about artificial intelligence and its upside, and still long AI in terms of innovational brain. I think there are some real challenges.

I have to acknowledge, I did witness this afternoon something that was a little bit surreal. The President had brought together some of the leading leaders in the AI industry. And in a closed, quiet room, I guess they reached some level of moral agreement--whatever that means-- that they are going to try to make sure things are safe.

As a matter a fact, they even went so far as to say all of the President's critique about concerns about AI being a hoax or about data centers not a problem are suddenly being solved because the President has renamed AI, ``SI''--superintelligence.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry to think that the greatest innovation in my lifetime--I was in the tech business before I came to politics--it will be bigger than my old industry, wireless, bigger than the internet, bigger than cloud computing is--and with all upsides, there are downsides--they are suddenly going to be solved by the name change. But that is kind of the status of our political debate.

Earlier today, I came down with two of my Democratic colleagues and said: As we get all these warnings from industry, from businesses that use AI tools, from national security, wouldn't it be a good idea to put some basic safety precautions in place?

We stripped away all of the others and said let's just have a safety board hearing. I know the Presiding Officer has interest in this topic. I think I have yet to talk to a Member that doesn't think some level of safety with this enormous innovation is appropriate.

Well, that is not going take place before we finish before the elections. So I am back again this afternoon to talk about another piece of the AI debate that certainly needs congressional action, and that is the whole question about how we build out and ensure consumers don't get stuck with the build-out of data centers.

Now, this is something I know a little bit about. Virginia is the capital of data centers in our country, and there is enormous concern from neighbors and communities. Many of the worst examples of data centers were built 15, 20 years ago, but the industry has moved forward. I give credit there.

But the angst about data centers--what I think is also reflective of the angst, generally, about AI--is not going away, no matter what the President wants to say. I would urge him to travel anywhere across Virginia, for that matter, anywhere across Kansas or Texas or anywhere else these data centers are being proposed because communities actually want to have a say in what happens in their backyard, what happens with their utility rates, what happens with their water usage, what happens with local communities signing nondisclosure agreements so the community doesn't even know what they are getting until after the deal is cut.

So I guess tomorrow, the Senate will turn their focus on the so- called Ratepayer Protection Act, which is supposed to answer all of these concerns about cost, about computing.

The challenge is--and it could be a starting point. But here is what the bill does. It says: States can consider adopting a Federal standard that would hold data centers responsible for rising electricity bills, and then they get 2 years to consider that.

Candidly, they could do that today. We have already taken some action in Virginia.

And what happens if nobody takes up that offer? Anything happen to these data centers? Anything happen to those communities? Well, nothing.

So I think we need real legislation on this. We need legislation that actually has some boundaries. This should not be optional. We have seen communities hit by skyrocketing electrical costs. We have seen communities where a lot of their water usage has gone up dramatically, and they are concerned about the water table.

We have seen these data centers sometimes literally intrude right into neighborhoods. And I have heard the pushback from communities all across our Commonwealth. As a matter a fact, even the community that has got the most, that has received the most economic benefits, they recently--Loudoun County--they recently put a pause.

I don't think we can pause. I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. But I would urge the Senate not to take this flimflam, do-nothing bill but actually take a look at my Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act, which I didn't dream up in the last couple of days but put forward much earlier this summer on an issue that I have been working on for a couple of years.

What we can't rely on is simply the good will of these hyperscalers and these companies. Some are well-intentioned; some are not. So we need to make sure we have got accurate information about power usage, water usage, setbacks, backup power, get rid of nondisclosure agreements.

My legislation will require--not invite--but require that information to come forward and put a penalty in place at a relatively small amount if they don't submit that.

But the real bite and the only thing that is really going to change this behavior--and, frankly, earn back some of the communities' trust-- is if there is a tool. And, frankly, I have had ongoing discussions with most of the hyperscalers who are building out these data centers who, frankly, think my piece of legislation makes some sense.

So the second half of my legislation would say: If you don't meet Gold LEED or Platinum LEED standards, which are already established--if you don't show how you are bringing your own clean power or power, if you don't have criteria on water usage--and that has gotten better because more of these data centers now have circulatory systems, if you don't have setbacks from neighborhoods, if you use nondisclosure agreements, what it would say is: Well, if you are going to do all that and not meet those standards, then you shouldn't get bonus depreciation.

I am not going to raise anybody's taxes, but we have given these hyperscalers, we have given these data center builders enormous tax benefits and bonus depreciation where they can write off the cost of these very expensive centers all in the first year.

I don't want to take that away. I am not raising anybody's taxes, but I am saying you shouldn't get all the benefits upfront if you don't provide to the community some guarantees about water, power, setbacks, community involvement.

If the community then wants to go over--a hyperscaler wants to come in and say: We will help provide--I think in Louisiana--some additional benefits to your schools, have at it. But you have got to set a Federal baseline so that communities don't feel they are getting suckered, and the ability to make sure we don't give away these tax benefits without that minimum guarantee, I think, has a lot of benefit.

Just today, we learned that Microsoft saved about $10 billion in taxes on using accelerated depreciation, a bonus depreciation; Meta saved about $16 billion, $15.9 billion from using bonus depreciation.

I have reached out to these companies. They understand that the game has changed. They have to be more engaged. I think many of the hyperscalers would meet these new standards, but unless we put some consequences, I think we are going to completely miss the boat.

It is kind of like saying, even though the AI companies themselves are saying: Gosh, we are really worried about safety, none of the responsible ones realize they can simply say: Just trust us.

The idea that these largest companies in the world--and I know the CEOs and many of them are good people. But the idea, after we all have experienced some of the ups and downs of social media, we are going to turn the same power over to the same group of CEOs and say: We are going to trust you to figure this all out on your own without any public input.

I keep thinking back, would I ever climb on an airplane that hadn't had a safety inspection? That is what we are thinking about on overall AI safety and these models being released.

But at least tomorrow, if the Senate takes up this Ratepayer Reduction Act, I hope and I would--I am not sure what I am going to do on the vote tomorrow. But I would say the Ratepayer Production Act is a figleaf.

I know people will say, my colleagues might say: Well, why don't you take half a loaf? You know, I am pretty involved in every bipartisan action. You know, take half a loaf means you can keep working on it. But the underlying bill isn't half a loaf; it is the promise of maybe one slice of that bread 2 years down from now.

The anger in my State and in every State across the country on this issue is not going to wait 2 years to have some kind of optional-- optional, no penalty, but optional review where frankly the pitchforks are out already.

So I hope that I can encourage my colleagues to join me in passing the Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act, one that I have already socialized within industry, one that would put some mandatory requirements but also put some real teeth in this very important issue.

I know my colleagues coming want to raise other issues. I will yield the floor, but these issues are not going to disappear. And simply punting or saying to industry: Trust us--and I come from the tech industry--is not going to satisfy the concerns of the American people.

The sooner we get to work on serious business, the sooner we can make sure that we benefit from all of this AI innovation that I do think lies in wait--because if we have a mistake or we have a challenge and something happens, all of this innovation could go away because the American people are already enormously suspect about AI. They are already enormously concerned at a 90-10 ratio about data centers. It is time for us to act and not simply punt.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think we would all probably agree that we are living through in realtime the biggest technological transformation in generations.

I was lucky enough to be involved in the beginnings of the wireless industry. As an investor, I invested in companies in the internet. As significant as both of those are, they pale in comparison to what we are facing now with this transformation, and there is a lot of good that will come out of artificial intelligence. We all know that AI is already changing the way Americans work, the way businesses compete, the way scientists conduct our research, and, frankly, as to what our government should do to protect our country. Let me be clear at the outset, America has got to continue to lead this transformation.

I am down, today, with two of my colleagues--the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from New Jersey--to say that we can't dawdle at this moment. Each of us has got a whole series of AI legislative items. I have got ideas about data centers, about kids' safety, about liability for AI agents, national security. Senator Rounds and I, for example, today, talked about a workforce transformation.

But we have been at a moment in time, over the last few weeks, where the AI companies themselves have acknowledged that they are creating tools and entities that they may not even be able to control. We have seen one company, OpenAI, launch a series of 3,000 AI agents that jumped over the security barriers, attacked a different company, Hugging Face, came back and tried to attack their own company--these AI agents together. The

remarkable thing is, these 3,000 agents talked to each other, communicated, tried to hide from humans, and literally left little bits of code on their paths so that subsequent groups of AI agents might come and discover those.

I have met, over the last couple of weeks, with business leaders from finance and from across corporate America who all say: What are you guys doing?

This is the issue of our time. Yes, I have got frustrations on data centers, but this is the issue of our time. This is going to be the biggest transformation of our lifetimes, and we don't have even de minimis safety protocols. We are completely relying on the good will of these large AI frontier tech companies to kind of do the right thing. That is irresponsible. You know, I am proud of the role I play in the national security domain. I have been chair or vice chair of the Intel Committee for the last decade.

Another company--not OpenAI. That was the Hugging Face incident. Anthropic created a new model called Mythos, and our head of cyber security--CYBERCOM--and the National Security Agency, General Rudd, said, basically, that Mythos is going to change warfare almost as much as drones. Luckily, we got a first look at that but only because the one company was willing to give that forward.

So we ought to have a time to have a fulsome debate about data centers, kids' safety, liability, and other issues, but right now--and we were going to do this today, but we are going to come back on Monday because the Senate has left. We are, kind of, the three of us--and we are talking to other colleagues on both sides of the aisle--saying: Let's strip back all of our personal ideas, and let's just put a marker down that potentially we could act on because we hear from some of the technology leaders that we might lose, you know, the ability to control some of these tools not in years or months, but some folks say--and I am not fully believing them--in weeks. I don't believe--I am not a ``doomer'' on AI--I don't think the robots are going to take over the world--but I do think, if we had an event where an AI tool went out and took over a hospital or took over a water system or shut down a power system--and Americans are already concerned about the rate of this technology change--they could shut down this innovation, and that would be the worst for our country. We need to lead this in terms of some of our competitors like China.

So what we are going to be proposing is, I think, as simple as possible. Before any AI model coming out of these frontier labs is released to the public, it ought to be tested to make sure it is safe. A lot of these big companies also do some self-testing, but they do it in what is called a sandbox, where they are supposed to protect it. Well, we have seen that some of these sandboxes are pretty sloppy. We ought to create basic cyber security standards for that sandbox. When you start at the very beginning of how an AI model is developed, we ought to make sure that company has some basic safety protocol in place. Then, God forbid, if there is an incident, there ought to be an incident reporting so we know what is happening because the difference is, in past innovation, you could have a mistake, but it might--the amount of damage that could happen would be fairly limited. Potentially, this could be so much greater, and we literally are having the companies themselves say: Help us.

Now, Lord knows we have got to make sure this is not an effort to simply ensconce the four or five biggest companies. We have got to make sure smaller tech--VC--has a place on this safety panel, but we need national security.

We need our top scientists. We propose NIST. We are open on how to do it better, but it needs to be a public-private relationship that has a safety board. We wouldn't climb on an airplane or you wouldn't get in a car or you wouldn't get a new financial product without some regulatory oversight. With something that is as big as this, we should not miss the moment. God forbid, you know, we go away for our campaign season, and in the interim, something happens, and we have no safety in place. I spent a career in technology before I got involved in politics, but I never felt a moment like this. So I hope that we will act.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor to my friend from Hawaii.

Madam President, I will wrap it up here. I have been in Virginia talking about this for a while. We have a lot of data centers, which is of some concern. But, boy oh boy, there was a seismic change starting as the companies themselves started to say: Holy heck. And just think about that. Mythos came out in March. National security and others said: This is going to change warfare. The OpenAI Hugging Face incident happened in July. That was 3,000 agents working together. In August, OpenAI got 10,000 agents to work together. It was on a different problem; they solved a math problem. But the idea is that there is kind of an exponential increase in sophistication, as these agents work together to cover their tracks, that, as Senator Schatz said, potentially could move beyond human control.

If we just say ``Well, that is still hypothetical,'' let me give you two last comments.

Just today, we found that actually a model had already been released from OpenAI that attacked the Australian healthcare system. If it attacked our system, I think we would be pretty upset.

Even more compelling--some of us have written a letter to both the folks on the intel side and on the defense side--there was a ship from China sailing towards the Middle East, and we got very close to bombing that ship because the AI tool and the intel said there might be weapons on that. Thank goodness that at some point, somebody did a little more checking, and we didn't do that, but we were close to a geopolitical event that could have been catastrophic.

These tools are already built into our systems, and clearly, you know, the way our military executed on Maduro--you may not agree with the greatness of it, but it was brilliant. But we don't have safety protocols.

So we are not asking for the world. Let's do the testing early. Let's make sure that you have a safety standard in all of these companies. Let's make sure we do the sandbox right, report on the incident.

We could discuss, you know, who is on that panel. It needs to be mandatory. It needs to have government. It needs to have national security. And Lord knows we need to have researchers, scientists. All of these individuals are asking for this. Who are we to turn that down?

I am going to go back to where we started. This will be the most significant technology innovation in our lifetimes. It will make wireless and the internet and the cloud small in comparison. There could be enormous positives coming out of this. There are also going to be disruptions. But if we don't do this in a safe manner, then shame on us.

Again, I come back. You wouldn't climb on an airplane that hadn't been checked. We are just saying let's do those basic safety checks.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wanted to add one last thing. I want to acknowledge the great work that Senator Klobuchar and Leader Thune are doing on this and Senator Cantwell and Senator Cruz. There are a number of other Republican Members.

This has a sense of urgency. We need to come together. We could put everybody's name on it. But history will not judge us well if, God forbid, we have an incident and we put no protections in place, for our country and for this innovation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask this body on a unanimous consent basis to pass an important piece of legislation that has already passed in an overwhelming fashion out of the Republican-controlled House.

And this legislation is to make sure that we protect our Federal workers and realize that our Federal workers do remarkable things. They inspect our food, support our troops, respond to national disasters, frankly, protect our safety. They deserve basic workforce protections that prevents retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination.

Unfortunately, this current Trump administration has taken to heart the notion that OMB Director Vought said he wanted to traumatize the Federal workforce. Well, he has, and I cut this back because I have got a couple of my colleagues joining me. President Trump signed two Executive orders, one that ripped away collective bargaining rights from more than a million public servants and the other that unilaterally canceled hundreds of thousands of existing union contracts under, frankly, what I think are false national security pretense, to make it easier, frankly, to fire experienced nonpartisan civil servants and, candidly, to replace them with political loyalists. That is why we started the civil service back many, many years ago.

I am joined by three of the four of us from the greater Capital area, so with that, I would like to yield my time to the Senator from Maryland Senator Alsobrooks.

Mr. President, I yield to Virginia Senator Kaine.

Mr. President, the way the President has formed these Executive orders under national security reasons--and I understand narrowly tailored national security exemptions might make sense, but the Trump administration is not doing this in good faith. Matter of fact, the President has inappropriately classified literally two-thirds of the Federal workforce as having national security missions without any explanation whatsoever.

So the Executive orders reclassify the entire Departments and Agencies, for example, the whole Department of Treasury, the whole Food and Drug Administration, the FCC, stripping these employees of their rights.

So I urge my colleagues to join us in passing the Protect America's Workforce Act. As I mentioned to my colleague, this has already passed by a large margin bipartisan in the Republican-controlled House. So let's stand up for these vital, dedicated workers, protect longstanding labor protections and the integrity of the civil service.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2550, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, moving off of this vigorous debate between my two friends on a topic that I think actually is of equal importance.

For most of the last decade, conversations about artificial intelligence were largely conversations about the future, but today they are conversations about the present.

AI is already changing how we work, how we learn, how we defend ourselves, how businesses compete, and, candidly, how Americans live their daily lives.

AI is writing software, discovering drugs, managing supply chains, helping defend our networks. It is already reshaping the economy, the workplace, and our national security.

The question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will transform our society. The question is whether Congress will help shape that transformation or spend the next decade scrambling to catch up after the fact.

Now, I have spent a lot of time on this issue over the last several years. Before entering public service, I spent my career in technology. I remain convinced that AI has enormous potential to improve lives, accelerate scientific discovery, strengthen our economy, and help America compete.

And I share the concern of many Americans that the impacts of this technology on our country and on our culture could also, if we don't get it right, be catastrophic.

Let's start with being honest with each other. We are not going to put this genie back in the bottle, and the amount of disruption this technology will bring over the next 5 years is beyond jaw-dropping.

I believe Congress made a similar mistake once before. We largely stood on the sidelines as social media reshaped our politics, our economy, our kids. We waited until the problems became so obvious before we began asking whether there should have been some rules of the road put in place first.

We cannot afford to make that same mistake again. That is why today I am introducing a legislative agenda--a series of bills--built around four simple principles:

First, we need to build the infrastructure for America's AI future responsibly. The AI revolution depends on enormous amounts of physical infrastructure--particularly massive data centers being built in the Presiding Officer's State, many being built already in Virginia. These facilities place extraordinary demands on electricity, water, and local communities.

Communities should not be asked to shoulder the cost of the AI revolution without knowing what they are signing up for. They deserve to know exactly what is being built in their backyard and a full understanding of what these facilities will mean for their electric grid, their water supply, their air quality, and local infrastructure.

My Data Center Tax Accountability and Disclosure Act fixes the problem. It gives people the facts before they need to make decisions about their communities.

My bill will ensure transparency about data center electricity and water consumption, backup power generation, and setbacks in residential communities, so as these data centers get built, they are not built right on top of residential neighborhoods--candidly, all information communities should have when planning and building decisions are being made.

And part of the way we will make this new standard be met, if Congress is going to provide special tax breaks that allow companies to write off the cost of building these facilities far faster than they otherwise could, these subsidies should come with conditions.

Companies receiving that taxpayer support--whether we want to call it bonus depreciation or accelerated depreciation--should meet strong standards for efficiency, sustainability, and accountability because American leadership in AI cannot come at the expense of the communities that make that leadership possible.

Second, we need to promote competition, safety, and consumer trust. If AI is going to become the interface through which Americans shop, bank, communicate, receive medical advice, and navigate the internet, then people need confidence that these systems are working for them and not exploiting them. That means a couple of things:

First, we need to preserve competition, especially when it comes to AI agents. We have seen what happens when a handful of dominant technology companies are allowed to become gatekeepers. Markets become less competitive, consumers have fewer choices, and innovation suffers.

As AI agents increasingly act on our behalf online, Americans, not big tech companies, should be able to decide which services they use and, candidly, where their data goes.

I plan to introduce new legislation to establish clear rights and responsibilities for these emerging AI agents so they can compete fairly while meeting strong standards for privacy, cyber security, and security protection.

Second, we need meaningful safeguards against abuse.

AI has extraordinary power and potential to improve lives, but it also makes it a lot easier to generate convincing fraud, exploit children, violate people's privacy, and create harmful content at unprecedented scale.

There is absolutely no legitimate use for an AI system capable of generating child sexual abuse material or nonconsensual intimate images--no use at all.

Companies developing these systems have a responsibility to build effective safeguards into their products--not after the harm occurs but before these systems are released. My legislation would establish a process to verify that AI models cannot generate child sexual abuse material or nonconsensual intimate images. And how to do that? By preventing the Federal Government from buying systems that fail those basic safeguards and giving survivors a meaningful path for justice when the protections fail.

We have seen some of this already start to emerge in terms of chatbot. If you think social media wreaks havoc with your teenagers, think about a chatbot that might consciously or unconsciously encourage your child to do self-harm.

As AI-generated content becomes increasingly sophisticated, we also have to protect our financial markets and our democratic institutions from fraud, deception, and manipulation, which is why, in the upcoming weeks, I will reintroduce my bipartisan legislation to require financial regulators to address the uses of AI-generated content that could disrupt financial markets. And it is coming.

If the United States wants to lead the world in AI, we can't simply build the best models; we need to build the most trusted ones. History shows that transformative technologies succeed not only because they are powerful but because people have confidence in using them. Congress has a responsibility to help create this confidence by ensuring that there are clear rules of the road before problems arise.

Third, we need to prepare America's workforce for the economy AI will generate.

This may ultimately become the defining economic challenge of our time. It is also why Senator Rounds and I introduced bipartisan legislation creating an Economy of the Future Commission to help our country develop a long-term strategy for artificial intelligence and other transformative technologies.

These changes won't happen overnight, and they won't be confined to one industry. We need a national strategy equal to the scale of the challenge because while there is every reason to believe that artificial intelligence will actually create new industries and new jobs over the long run, history tells us that technological revolutions rarely unfold smoothly.

This transition can be enormously disruptive. Workers whose skills are no longer in demand don't experience the benefits of productivity gains quickly; they experience uncertainty, they experience layoffs, and they experience the challenge of building a new career while supporting a family.

Some of the workers most exposed to this disruption may actually not be the ones traditionally exposed, as we thought about the internet in terms of low-skill jobs in rural communities. Today, unemployment amongst recent college graduates has risen to levels that should concern us all. As a matter of fact, I will bet that we will hit 30 percent recent college graduate unemployment in the next 2 years. I hope I am wrong, but if I am not wrong, we are in a heap of trouble.

Many of the occupations most vulnerable to generative AI are the very white-collar, entry-level jobs that have long served as the first rung on a career ladder--jobs in business, finance, marketing, software development, customer support, and other knowledge positions. If those entry-level opportunities begin disappearing faster than the new ones are created, we risk leaving an entire generation of young Americans struggling to gain a foothold in the workforce.

We cannot simply assume that the market will sort it out on its own in a short-enough time. That is why today I am proposing a National Workforce Transition Fund to help workers navigate this period of technological change. This fund would support worker retraining, portable training accounts, employer redeployment programs, tuition assistance for high-demand careers--frankly, if we could get half the folks in college that are majoring in business to switch to healthcare fields, that would be a step in the right direction--and also add innovative approaches to help workers adapt to this AI economy.

I am also introducing legislation to strengthen American's pipeline of homegrown STEM talent by helping universities create accelerated pathways into doctoral programs in critical technologies like AI, cyber security, semiconductors, and quantum.

Earlier this year, I introduced the Investing in the American Workers Act because we need to rethink the incentives in our Tax Code. Today, our Tax Code makes it a heck of a lot easier for companies to invest in machines than in people. That doesn't make sense in an AI economy. If businesses benefit from the productivity gains AI creates, they should also have a strong incentive to invest in the workers who make those gains possible. Our goal here is not to stop technological progress; the goal is to make sure every American person has an opportunity to gain from this.

Let me come to my final point. I realize we are approaching the vote, but I was supposed to start 30 minutes ago.

Finally, I want to talk about artificial intelligence through the lens of national security.

From my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee as chair and vice chair, I believe AI is one of the most consequential strategic technologies our country will confront in the coming decade. AI is rapidly becoming foundational to intelligence collection, cyber security, military planning, scientific research, and again, America's long-term competition with China. It will help analysts process information at a scale that no human workforce ever could. It will strengthen our ability to deter cyber intrusions, identify emerging threats, and support our military.

If properly developed and secured, AI can become one of America's greatest strategic advantages, but we would be naive to believe our adversaries aren't racing toward the same goal. China has made artificial intelligence a national priority. So has Russia, Iran, North Korea, and more specifically, international criminal organizations.

The same frontier AI models that accelerate scientific discovery can also identify cyber vulnerabilities, automate sophisticated cyber operations, and lower the barriers--

Thank you, Mr. President. I have only got a couple more minutes. I will wrap up as quickly as possible.

Maybe my colleagues might want to even listen to some of this because I think we actually have some good ideas here that cross both sides of the aisle.

The same frontier AI models that accelerate discovery can also figure out where the vulnerabilities are in our systems. That is why we cannot approach frontier AI models the same way we approach ordinary software updates. The most advanced AI systems deserve a higher standard of security before they are widely deployed.

I am proud to say that many of my friends inside the administration are recognizing this after the release of Mythos.

My Secure AI Development Act would establish mandatory, secure testing for our most advanced AI networks and models; improve the way the government and industry actually work together because neither team, public or private, can do this alone; strengthen information sharing between AI developers and the Federal Government; and establish a voluntary AI safety incident reporting system modeled after the aviation system. That is one of the reasons why people climb on airplanes so regularly in this country--because they know that works. It would also strengthen protections against foreign adversaries trying to steal some of the best of these frontier models.

One of the greatest lessons I have learned on the Intelligence Committee is that our national security failures often come when we recognize the threat but fail to act.

We cannot continue to punt on this issue. I have never seen a technology advance as quickly as AI. Traditionally, the promoters of that technology say it is coming, it is coming, and then it takes another 10 years. In the case of AI, the leading figures are saying it is coming, and it is coming even faster than they expected. We don't have months or years to get this right.

We need to combine the best of our innovation but also with some guardrails. As I started at the beginning, I think most of us would agree we would have a heck of a lot healthier generation of young people if we put some guardrails on social media. Social media is tiny compared to the power, both good and bad, around AI.

So I have laid out here a series of ideas and legislation. I look forward to working with folks on both sides of the aisle. There is no Republican or Democrat version of AI. But if we don't take these issues up now, if we are still having this conversation at the end of the year or next spring, I believe it will be too late.

I urge my colleagues to take a look at my ideas. If you have better ones, I welcome them. Let's move forward on this critical issue.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the time to come back another time to finish the other 6 minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my friend from Delaware. I am going to take that admonition, as we approach the Fourth of July, and reflect back on, obviously, what makes this country great.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask for unanimous consent on my bill to reassert congressional will when it comes to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

My bill, the Do Not Interfere in Our Intelligence Act of 2026, or the DNII Act of 2026, would strengthen the existing line of succession if the position of the Director of National Intelligence is vacant and ensure that the leadership of the intelligence community remains in the hands of experienced Senate-confirmed national security officials.

As my colleagues have heard me say repeatedly, the President's appointment of Bill Pulte to be the Acting DNI is dangerous. It is dangerous for the rule of law. It is dangerous for our national security.

The ODNI was created in the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks of 9/11. Its purpose was to make sure that the now-18 intelligence Agencies actually coordinated with each other, so we didn't have the kind of intelligence missteps that led to the most devastating terrorist attack on our country in the history. And, thus far, thank God, we have not had another 9/11.

And because of its important mission, when Congress created the ODNI, an effort championed by my good friend Susan Collins, it codified into law--we didn't leave any ambiguity--it codified into law that the Director of National Intelligence must have extensive national security experience. It doesn't matter whether that comes from military service, being an intelligence officer, being a Member of Congress on a national security committee, or heading an Agency that deals with national security. You just have to have the experience and the judgment to lead 18 intelligence Agencies and understand their mission.

Unfortunately, Trump's choice Bill Pulte has literately no national security experience. In fact, it seems like the only experience he has--and the only reason President Trump installed him as the DNI--is leaking and weaponizing sensitive information for political purposes. He is and currently remains the head of our mortgage regulatory Agencies. So that kind of person can absolutely not have access to all our Nation's most sensitive secrets.

If you think we were, like, just making it up, look at the pressure points so far. The guy has gone in for a few days. There are reports of firings. I don't even know how he knows who the people who are being fired or reassigned are.

We have heard, as well, that he wants to take home the Presidential daily brief. Anybody--the most junior aide in national security--knows you don't take classified information to your private residence. But in a very kind of way that reflects some of the folks around the President, the one thing he was most interested in: When is he going to get a government plane, paid for by taxpayer dollars, so he can zip between DC and his house in Chicago and his place near President Trump in Florida? Remember, those are your taxpayer dollars at work.

And on these concerns about Mr. Pulte, don't take my word for it. So many Republican colleagues of mine have also publicly expressed their concerns, many of them explicitly expressing surprise at his nomination and calling him unqualified.

But that is not the only place where President Trump has decided to ignore Congress and the law creating the Director of National Intelligence. The law also explicitly states that, in the event there is an absence of a Senate-confirmed Director, ``the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence''--that is the No. 2--``shall act for, and exercise the powers of, the Director of National Intelligence''--not ``may'' or ``if the President wants.'' The word is ``shall.''

And the interesting thing is, there is currently a Senate-confirmed Principal Deputy whom President Trump himself nominated. This gentleman, Mr. Lukas--I may not agree with all the things that Mr. Lukas has suggested, but there is no question, given his decades of patriotic service as a national intelligence officer and on President Trump's own National Security Council staff, that he has the experience and qualifications to serve as the Acting DNI.

So then, once again, I must ask: Why, when there is a qualified individual--one President Trump himself nominated--would President Trump ignore the law and install Bill Pulte?

The only answer is the one that President Trump has actually admitted to. He said the quiet part out loud, which is that he trusts Bill Pulte to recklessly divulge America's secrets--even if it harms our national security--all in the service of the Big Lie and his obsession that he can't get over the fact that he lost the election in 2020.

So my bill is quite simple. So I ask unanimous consent--let's make it explicitly clear that, if the Office of the Director of National Intelligence becomes vacant, you put in place the Principal Deputy or someone else who has got intelligence experience that has been confirmed by the Senate.

We have to do this before Mr. Pulte irreversibly harms our national security.

Mr. President, now, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4876, introduced yesterday; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, just a few closing comments.

The chairman and I are working very well together. I know he has probably taken some heat, so I don't want to say too many good things about him on the floor for working so well together.

I would simply point out the part he left out about Mr. Clayton, when we were trying to move fast and the White House was moving fast and everything--all the paperwork--was done. We had a scheduled hearing for Mr. Clayton. I was even getting some of our most ferocious opponents to 702 to probably waive some of their objections.

And at the last minute, with no notice to our committee or even to Mr. Clayton, the President pulled his nomination. I have never heard of a President complaining about moving too quickly on one of his nominees.

On the size of the DNI, the chairman and I, we are working together. I even am open to the notion that the office could be obliterated or removed or potentially repurposed somewhere else. Again, that makes sense. But it ought to be done in an orderly fashion. It ought to be done by somebody with national security experience. It ought to be done not in a way where he comes in on the first day--how did he even know whom to fire?

So, again, we will agree to disagree on that, but--boy oh boy--let's do it the right way.

And, again, I do hope--I look forward to asking Mr. Clayton questions. But I know him, and I think he is--I know he respects the Constitution, which is my first question to anybody. And I would point out--and I am absolutely in favor of renewing 702 quickly--the good news, though, is that the communication providers are still working with us; we have not gone dark.

But I agree with the chairman that we need to move as quickly as possible. But everybody has been pretty clear on this: We have to get a real DNI in that office before we get that reauthorization.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the career of an outstanding civil servant Dr. Christopher J. Scolese, who will retire this summer after nearly five decades of government service, most recently as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office. Dr. Scolese has shaped U.S. leadership in space across civil and national security domains, leaving an indelible mark on the Nation's aerospace and national security capabilities, as well as the people and culture of the Nation's space community.

Dr. Scolese began his government career in 1978 as a U.S. naval officer in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. His work focused on developing sophisticated instrumentation and multiprocessor systems for naval and Department of Energy applications while serving at Naval Sea Systems Command. Dr. Scolese was personally selected by Admiral Hyman Rickover for assignment to Naval Reactors, where he contributed to advancing nuclear propulsion technology until completing his Active- Duty service in 1983.

Following a period of service working in government and industry, Dr. Scolese joined NASA, where he was assigned to the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. He held multiple senior leadership roles at NASA, including chief engineer, Associate Administrator, Acting Administrator, and director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. His impact on the Nation's civil space program has been profound and enduring, from guiding NASA through the retirement of the Space Shuttle and early planning for what became the Artemis Program, to overseeing milestone achievements at Goddard, including the Earth Observing System and the buildout of the James Webb Space Telescope.

As the first Senate-confirmed Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, Dr. Scolese led the NRO from 2019 through 2026 in its mission of developing, acquiring, launching, and operating U.S. space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Serving under three Presidential administrations, he has championed the most comprehensive technological transformation in the NRO's 65-year history.

Under Dr. Scolese's leadership, the NRO significantly advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology. The agency expanded

its overhead capabilities to improve the capacity and precision of its collections and make it harder for America's adversaries to hide. In just a few years, the NRO put more than 200 satellites on orbit--most as part of a proliferated architecture that enables users, including warfighters, analysts, policymakers, and international allies to get reliable information when they need it.

Under Dr. Scolese's leadership, the NRO has strengthened partnerships with other government Agencies, industry, academia, and international allies. The Agency has also expanded its relationships with new and existing commercial partners.

Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Scolese's legacy extends beyond technological achievement to the thousands of professionals he has mentored, developed, empowered, and inspired across NASA, the NRO, and the broader space community. He recognized that America's competitive advantage in space depends on its people, leading him to expand recruitment pipelines, strengthen professional development programs, and create opportunities for emerging talent. His commitment to workforce excellence is reflected in the NRO's expanded Cadre program and highly competitive internship initiative, ensuring that the next generation inherits not just advanced capabilities, but the expertise and dedication required to maintain and further expand them.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Scolese for his valuable contributions to the space community over his decades of service to the Nation. I also thank Chris' family for their critical role in supporting him throughout this time. Dr. Scolese leaves a legacy of leadership across national security and civil space, one that has profoundly shaped the future of space exploration and intelligence capabilities for generations to come. On behalf of myself and all my colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I congratulate Dr. Scolese on the occasion of his retirement and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5556 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, earlier this week, President Trump chose, not as mortgage lender but as the Nation's top intelligence official, an individual who, even in the mortgage job, has shown a willingness to pursue political retribution.

Now, giving him the keys to the 18 intelligence Agencies that the Director of National Intelligence oversees would be a disaster.

Let's be clear, the statute creating the DNI's position is clear: This individual ``shall have extensive national security expertise.''

Mr. Pulte has no national security expertise--none. We are not even sure if he has got a basic security clearance.

And the President is saying: As a matter of fact, this guy can do his job at the FHFA and do his job as Director of National Intelligence.

Now, I am going to ask my friends to help me on this. I do want to compliment my friend from Arkansas because we have been working very successfully together on section 702.

My amendment is simple: An individual who heads another Department or Agency should not also be Acting DNI.

This role is too important to be filled by a part-time, unqualified individual. And if only half of the Republicans who have expressed private concerns on this will vote, we will get way over 60.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive all points of order for the purpose of the pending measure and ask only half my Republican friends who are concerned about this to vote with me.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to commend my friend the Senator from Nevada for her powerful comments and the fact that she knows that I and many other Senators will stand totally united with her in fighting back against any rise in anti-Semitism--further rise, because we have seen amazingly outrageous things happen. Thank you for your story.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to complete a unanimous consent request.

Tomorrow, it will be 1 year since we lost Congressman Gerry Connolly. I first met Gerry Connolly when he was a rising supervisor on the Fairfax County Board in the late eighties. Jerry took great pains to never forget his Irishness, the famous St. Patrick's Day party.

He was a fighter. He was kind and funny; but boy, you did not want to get on the wrong side of Gerry Connolly because sometimes that fighting spirit would show itself in his relentless--relentless--efforts. Getting in an argument with Gerry was not something anybody ever looked forward to.

So it was a great loss that we lost him. Literally tomorrow will be a year. But beyond the personal loss to his family and to folks like me and my friend from Virginia as well Tim Kaine, both considered him a longtime friend. And frankly to communities in Northern Virginia and beyond, Federal employees lost a leader who never, ever stopped fighting for them, never stopped fighting for their rights, never stopped fighting for their due process, and never stopped making the case to

Americans the value Federal workers bring to our everyday lives.

And in his final days, Gerry continued to center Federal employees in his work. Two days before he died, he introduced H.R. 3490, which will direct the Government Accountability Office to report on esophageal cancer in Federal employees.

The bill directs GAO to help us understand the landscape of esophageal cancer among Federal employees and retirees, particularly access to early screening and early treatment.

For some folks, they have a precancerous condition that if treated early, can help prevent esophageal cancer completely. This bill is simple. It would ask GAO to study if Federal employees who are at high risk are getting screened as early as possible to help them make sure they get the care they need as early as possible.

The bill was passed unanimously, 42 to nothing in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and then passed by a voice vote on the floor.

In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we pass this bill here on the Senate floor, but before I make that request, I want to defer and yield my time to the Senator--fellow Senator from Virginia Senator Kaine.

Mr. President, as if in legislation session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3490 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was absent on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, for rollcall vote No. 88. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 114, directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Mr. President, I was absent from the Senate on Wednesday, April 22, due to bereavement following the passing of a close family member.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 89, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer amendment No. 4799; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that does not lower out-of-pocket health care costs while Americans struggle to make ends meet, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 90, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan amendment No. 4798; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to grocery costs, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 91, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff amendment No. 4897; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation fails to address the practice of insurance companies stepping between patients and their doctors to delay or deny access to care, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 92, Graham amendment No. 5281; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult illegal aliens convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 93, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono amendment No. 4884; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that would not increase Federal funding for or participation in school meal programs, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 94, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper amendment No. 4956; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring that consumers are protected from price increases associated with tariffs and the Iran war, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 95, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks amendment No. 5294; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to increasing funding for child care for families, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 96, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy amendment No. 5414; To provide reconciliation instructions for the Committee on Rules and Administration and establish deficit-neutral reserve funds relating to establishing identification requirements for registration to vote in elections for Federal office, establishing photo identification requirements for voting in elections for Federal office, and election day and the

counting of ballots in Federal elections, I would have voted nay.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 97, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley amendment No. 4794; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to extending the prohibition on Medicaid payments to abortion providers, I would have voted nay.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 98, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey amendment No. 5001; To create a point of order against legislation that would not decrease home electricity bills, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 99, Paul amendment No. 5378; To reduce new budget authority for functions 150, 250, 500, and 600 in order to offset $70,000,000,000 of new spending by cutting $45,000,000,000 of foreign aid, eliminating $5,000,000,000 in refugee spending, cutting $16,000,000,000 from the Department of Education, and cutting $4,000,000,000 of National Science Foundation funding, I would have voted nay.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 100, Merkley amendment No. 5235; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the impacts of hedge fund ownership of single-family homes and rent prices, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 101, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders amendment No. 5159; To reduce the price of prescription drugs in the United States by more than 50 percent by adopting Most Favored Nation drug pricing so that the American people pay no more for prescription drugs than Europeans or Canadians, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 102, Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla amendment No. 4855; To create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that would provide funding to Federal agencies that have unobligated funds from previous reconciliation bills, I would have yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 103, Wyden amendment No. 5336; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study related to economic consequences of private or confidential drug pricing agreements struck by any Federal department, agency, or office with any pharmaceutical manufacturer, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 104, Schiff amendment No. 5333; To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to requiring the obligation of amounts appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out the public assistance and hazard mitigation programs, I would have voted yea.

Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 105, S. Con. Res. 33, As Amended; A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I come before you today to mark the third anniversary and, unfortunately, the start of the fourth year of conflict of the war in Sudan.

Sudan is home to the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the whole world. This conflict and the resulting humanitarian crisis are largely being ignored by people across the world, including in our country, who are best positioned to make a difference.

The war in Sudan started because a few years back, one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century was actually overthrown by civil society and young people in Sudan looking for a better country. It was an effort to move toward a democracy, but that move was suddenly halted by two generals, each of a separate warring party and, unfortunately, fueled by external actors.

The violence in Sudan has caused upwards of 15 million people to flee their homes--a quarter of the population--and has left literally half of the country's 50 million people on the brink of starvation and acute hunger. Yet, still now 3 years in--and I understand how they feel--the Sudanese people feel basically forgotten by the world.

Now, I have come to the floor previously to speak out on this issue, and I rise again today because this conflict cannot continue to be ignored. America must lead, not back away, in times like these when suffering and terror are at their peak.

At the heart of this crisis is the ongoing violence between the Sudanese Armed Forces--remnants of the previous government--called the SAF, and the Rapid Support Forces--another militia group--both fighting against each other for control of the country. It is estimated that the fighting and resulting food crisis may have killed more than 100,000 Sudanese and left millions more on the verge of starvation.

The remarkable thing is that there are no good guys here. Both the SAF and the RSF have inflicted horrible atrocities on the people of Sudan. The U.S. Government has accused members of both SAF and the RSF of war crimes, while in January of last year, the State Department issued a determination that genocide had literally been committed by the RSF and its allied militias in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The World Food Programme, which we are huge supporters of, has declared a famine in parts of southern and western Sudan, and there is a high risk of this famine condition spreading across the balance of the country.

Sudan's economy has collapsed. Unemployment now is close to 50 percent of the whole population. A generation of children risk being denied education because of how dangerous it is to even go to school.

Conditions, unfortunately, may actually get worse. We have seen the war in Iran dramatically disrupt fuel and fertilizer shipments-- particularly devastating as Sudan enters what should be its planting season in coming months. Globally, the United Nations has warned that the impacts stemming from these fuel, fertilizer, and supply chain disruptions would place more than, again, 45 million people in Sudan at risk of acute hunger.

Let's be clear. This is a catastrophe. In fact, more people die every day in Sudan than Gaza and Ukraine combined.

It is not a new issue. I pushed the Biden administration repeatedly. But the U.S. response in addressing the scale of suffering that we see remains, unfortunately, woefully inadequate.

First and foremost, the Sudanese people need humanitarian aid. They need aid workers, humanitarian organizations. And the local Sudanese volunteers, many who put their lives at risk on a daily basis, need the access to respond.

Unfortunately, the current administration dismantled USAID and the broader U.S. foreign assistance infrastructure, so there is no clear and coordinated diplomatic strategy for addressing this conflict, for rallying the international community, for coordinating with local responders and organizations on the ground.

Now, because of the war with Iran, foreign policy choices risk dramatically worsened conditions. When we dismantled USAID and the funding of the administration, we literally had a situation where American food and medicine that we had paid for were sitting on ships in the port of Sudan, and the workers that were literally paid a dollar or two a day to take that food and distribute it, because we shut down USAID, were left without any distribution network. So in some cases, this

extraordinarily valuable food and medicine literally rotted on the ships.

Due to the absence of strong U.S. leadership in addressing this conflict and the fact that the international bodies have not been coordinated, there has been an opening here for outside influence. Foreign entities and governments are backing their surrogates on each side in a way that is, again, chilling.

In my State, in Virginia, we have a large Sudanese diaspora. Since the conflict began, I have sat with and heard from many members of that community, and it is clear what must be done.

I still remember a young family. Literally, they were in their late twenties. They had to rush and leave the country because the civil war was breaking out. They left behind at that point, I think, their 6- month-old daughter. Three years later, their aging parents are not really able to take care of that daughter, who is now 3\1/2\ years old. The parents have not seen the daughter in 3 years, and they have no idea what will happen to her on a going-forward basis.

The Sudanese people did not ask for this war. As I mentioned at the outset, the outbreak of this violence and this civil war between these warring generals, warring groups trying to divide the spoils of the country, came literally 4 years after pro-democracy protests swept parts of Sudan in 2019.

In 2019, literally the young people of Sudan overthrew al-Bashir, the previous dictator who had been around for close to 40 years. What happened was there were literally hundreds of civic, professional, and political organizations that came together at that moment in the revolution--this was a people's revolution--and they thought that after the long term of this dictator, they might finally have civil liberties and an actual democracy.

I believe very strongly that the Sudanese people deserve an opportunity to live in peace and to have a responsive, democratically elected government that incorporates civil society, women, and youth. Instead, we have some of our allies in the region--Saudi Arabia backing one side and the Emirates backing another. Because of this divide, you now have other countries, like Russia and Iran, coming in to try to make more mischief and try to bring about more hardships.

Again, I urge all of us on both sides of the aisle to do more about this crisis in Sudan. I urge the administration to go forward and choose an envoy in the way the Biden administration had chosen former Congressman Tom Perriello. Please choose an envoy that can represent the President. This is a conflict by which the President of the United States, with the enormous influence he has with countries in the gulf, could use that power to, frankly, cut off the aid that funds this civil war tomorrow.

As we enter the fourth year of this conflict, please, regardless of partisan affiliation, we all ought to urge President Trump to make sure this conflict comes to an end so that, at the end of the day, the Sudanese people, whether they are in Sudan or are part of the diaspora around the world, can actually live in peace, have a government that reflects their needs, have a country that is blessed with lots of natural resources, and can actually enjoy the potential prosperity that was promised--that held out that hope--back in 2019 when young people overthrew the prior dictatorship. We should no longer allow this crisis to go unheard or unrecognized. Part of the problem is that, unfortunately, the country has barred a lot of the international press.

I urge any of my colleagues, as there are Sudanese diasporas in every State in our country, to meet with those communities, to hear their stories, to hear their struggles.

You know, again, there are no good guys in this battle between these warring factions. American leadership could bring this war to an end. It would go a great deal toward restoring people's trust around the world of the value of strong, moral American leadership.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today nearly a month into President Trump's ill-advised war of choice in Iran, which has obviously destabilized the region, disrupted global supply chains, degraded our munitions stockpiles, cost the lives of 13 American servicemembers, with more than 200 additional suffering injuries.

Fortunately, it is clear that even though this was a war of choice and can be decided by the President's own timing, he started this with no clear endgame and without adequately preparing for Iran's very predictable response, which obviously would have included the Strait of Hormuz, which obviously would have included Iran attacking other gulf nation-states.

The intelligence on this is consistent and overwhelming for years and, frankly, closes the Strait of Hormuz, which is one of the world's most strategically vital maritime checkpoints.

Now, look at the Strait of Hormuz for a moment.

Way back in the seventies, when we had an oil shock, 7 percent of the world's oil went through the strait. Today, 20 percent goes through. Back in the seventies, no natural gas went through the Strait of Hormuz. Now it is close to 20 percent. So the closure of the strait has wreaked havoc on both the global oil and gas supply chains. As I said, normally, about 20 percent of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait.

Today, traffic through the strait has nearly grounded to a halt. It is literally down 95 percent since the start of the war. The International Energy Agency has already called the effective closure of the strait and all of the other ancillary items coming out of it the worst global energy disruption in history, eclipsing even the Arab oil embargo of 1973--I am old enough to remember that, and the Senator from Maryland is old enough to remember that--which caused huge gas lines and damage all around the world.

So, if we just measure what has happened so far in these 3 weeks- plus--the date of the closure of the strait--it has removed approximately 400 million barrels of oil--around 4 days of the world's supply--from the market. Again, much of the oil that is still getting through had started on tankers before the war started. Those 400 million barrels of oil that have been removed--and that number will rise exponentially now--have led to price increases of around 50 percent for Brent crude. That is the global benchmark for oil.

As well--and this has gotten some coverage in our country but not enough--Iran has also carried out significant strikes on oil and gas facilities throughout the gulf. In total, more than 40 energy sites in 9 countries across the Middle East have been severely damaged due to the conflict, including the world's largest liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar, which is to be closed down. That produces about a fifth of the world's LNG.

Many of the facilities that were not even attacked still took out all of the natural gas from the facilities because, if a missile were to hit them with the

gas in the facility, it would cause a massive explosion. While I am no expert here, I have been told to restart those facilities will take weeks to months. The truth is, even if the President feels in his bones today or tomorrow that we have won the war and he stops the bombing-- with no guarantee that Israel will stop or that Iran will stop--and the strait starts to get reopened, we are still going to see economic pain across the globe for weeks, months, or, potentially, a year.

For consumers in the United States, the conflict, obviously, has led to a severe shock at the gas pump. Since the war began, average gas prices in the United States have increased by about $1 a gallon--30 percent. I will take a bet with anybody in this Chamber that we are going to see an average gas price of $4 that will be maintained for some time. That $4 price will be the highest since 2022.

And, here, let's take the optimistic view. Even if the strait is reopened today, the average household in our country will still be expected to pay about $740 more in gas prices for the remainder of the year. That is just gas.

What about diesel?

While Americans are struggling at the pump, skyrocketing diesel costs are threatening to increase the pain for households across a series of domains. Last week, diesel prices eclipsed $5 per gallon on average. That was only the second time in history that diesel got above 5 bucks, and that is about 40 percent higher than before the war began. Diesel is the trucking industry's second largest expense, and for most trucking firms, that diesel cost accounts for about 20 percent of the total operating costs. For most freight companies, a 40-percent rise in the diesel cost results in about an overall increase of 10 percent on all the items that are shipped. We depend on the trucking industry to ship goods. If their costs go up 10 percent, they are not going to pay it. That is going to get passed on to consumers. That will mean everything in the supply chain from lumber that is used to construct homes to groceries and everything in between.

And while we Americans are already feeling the impact at the pump, many nations across the globe, particularly in Asia, are facing even more extreme costs. Of the, roughly, 20 percent of the world's oil and gas that goes through the Strait of Hormuz, about 80 percent goes to Asia, and the impacts there have been even wilder. Oil prices have hit 150 bucks a barrel.

As the supply tightens and prices skyrocket, one country, the Philippines--literally because they get 100 percent of their oil from the gulf--has said we can't operate a full economy, so there is a mandatory 1-day-a-week holiday.

Vietnam has urged its residents to work from home. Cambodia and Laos have closed about a third to 40 percent of their gas stations because they just don't have fuel.

Now, we buy a lot of stuff from Asia--from Vietnam, from Bangladesh, from the Philippines, from China, from everywhere. If those costs have gone up 40 percent, all the stuff we buy from those countries are going to go up for American consumers as well. So whether it is electronics, clothes, appliances, if you haven't seen a price increase yet, don't worry. It is coming very shortly, and it will be significant.

Let's talk about jet fuel.

Americans can also expect to pay more on air travel due to the war in Iran as the price of jet fuel has more than doubled since the conflict has begun. In many cases, airlines have already responded by raising fares and canceling flights. Some estimates indicate the airlines have raised fares about 20 bucks each way--going and coming--on average. As a matter of fact, United recently raised its fares 15 to 20 percent just last week. Also, United, which, I think, is a precursor of things to come, has literally eliminated a number of long-haul flights. So, for anyone who is planning on going to Europe, who is planning on going to Asia or who is planning on going to South America--maybe not cross- country flights yet--your choices are going to drop dramatically.

This is all related to oil, natural gas, and jet fuel, but the fact is that the President's war in Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz is really wreaking havoc on a lot of industries from semiconductors to new cars. Let me tell you why.

For example, the current situation is threatening to upend the global semiconductor industry and other advanced technology industries by impacting the availability of a crucial input--helium.

Now, most of us here at home think about helium as what we use for party balloons. Senator Van Hollen, I know, has used it many times to make his voice sound higher as well, but--and I didn't realize this-- helium is also a critical input in many advanced technology industries: chipmaking, medical imagery, aerospace. The truth is, there is no viable replacement for this helium.

Qatar is the world's second largest supplier of helium behind the United States, and they literally produce, approximately, a third of the world's supply--about 63 million cubic meters out of a total of 190 million cubic meters produced globally.

So, if the strait stays closed, you get rid of 27 to 30 percent of the world's supply of helium. Again, it is a global market. Spot prices on helium have already doubled, and the costs could rise another 50 percent if the strait remains closed.

The nations, again, that are going to get hit first on this are Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan, which, again, are home to some of the world's most advanced chip facilities. None of the chips we put in our rockets in the most advanced jet fighters are made in America. They are all made in Taiwan.

So what is going to happen?

The chip facilities in Taiwan and South Korea believe that about 70 percent of their helium comes from the gulf. If it goes away, they can't replace that. There are no such things as helium strategic reserves.

Again, if the President says, OK. He feels it in his bones, ``I won the war. I am going to stop,'' it will take weeks, not days, to restart the Qatar helium production, meaning that, even in these next couple of weeks, with already the spot pricing doubling, there is going to be a supply chain risk that will take place over the coming weeks and months.

Aluminum. This closure is also disrupting the aluminum supply chain-- a material essential for construction, transportation, energy generation, and more. The region, again--and I didn't realize this before the war--accounts for, approximately, 9 percent of all global aluminum production. Major smelters--I think there are four in the world, and two are in the region--have been forced to curtail supply due to the continued closure of the strait. Since the war began 3 or 4 weeks ago, global aluminum prices have spiked to their highest rate in the last 4 years.

Again, that is what we have seen so far, and a prolonged closure could see significant impacts here in America. Today, we rely on the Middle East for about 20 percent of our imported aluminum. Even before the war with Iran had started, aluminum prices in our country were at record highs due to the President's tariff policy of putting 50-percent tariffs on aluminum products. So, if you add the tariff policy with already high aluminum prices and shut down some of the smelters, this is going to drive up the cost of aluminum not just around the world but in the United States as well. A lot of aluminum goes into autos. If you are thinking about buying a new car, it may not be a good time. It may be better to buy today than a month from now, but the cost is going to go up.

The President's war of choice in Iran is also threatening global food production and the livelihood of farmers in the United States and across the world. Typically, about one-third of all fertilizer shipped globally passes through the Strait of Hormuz; but not dissimilar to the oil and gas production and transit, that fertilizer exiting the gulf has literally ground to a virtual 100-percent halt just as the spring growing season is starting in America.

I talked to a farmer in Amelia County in central Virginia. His costs have already gone up 40 percent, and that means that the back end when he collects--when his products grow, who is going to eat those costs? American consumers.

The United States relies on the Middle East for about 15 percent of our fertilizer inputs. This has already caused--as I said, in Amelia, it was 40 percent--nationwide, a 30-percent increase in fertilizer prices in America.

That fertilizer shortage has also been already shortened because we are short on nitrogen, and we are short on potash, which we get from Canada, again, because of the tariff policy. So what we grow and what the costs are for this growing season are going to be dramatically affected. Where is that going to show up? Prices at the grocery store.

Now, how has the President responded to this energy crisis caused by his war of choice?

On Truth Social, he stated: When oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.

Who exactly is making that money?

It is not ordinary Americans who were paying more than $380 million a day just on the increased price of gasoline before the war started.

As a matter of fact, if you are going to pick winners and losers at this point, American consumers are losers across five or six different domains. The winners? Russia and Iran.

And this is the one that kind of just blows my mind. In response to rising oil prices, President Trump and his Secretary of the Treasury announced he was lifting sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian crude. What does that translate into? That translates into more than $14 billion to the bad Government of Iran, who is shooting at American soldiers, who is bombing our allies. That $14 billion could be a lifeline to that government.

I still remember like back under Obama, where I think there was some payment around the JCPOA with $300-plus million released to Iran. Every one of my Republican colleagues said: Oh my God. This is the worst thing ever--the worst thing ever. How could this happen?

Well, now, in the middle of a war--we weren't in a war at that point--in the middle of a war where Iran is attacking us, this President has given a green light to fund $14 billion to the Iranian regime--funding our enemies. How is that in America's best interest?

In another master stroke by the ``king of deals,'' President Trump lifted the sanctions on approximately 130 million barrels of Russian oil, directly helping Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

You know, recent reports indicate that Russia has already earned about $230 million per day on crude oil exports during the first 2 weeks of Iran's war. Since February, that is about $10 billion. What is that $10 billion going to buy? It is going to buy Russian drones, Russian tanks, Russian missiles--maybe call me old-fashioned--that are attacking and killing our allies in Ukraine--the allies that, thank goodness, we have supplied military equipment to, and we are funding their enemy.

Now, again, you start a war of choice, you think about these things. You think about the ramifications and the cost increases. You think about how this would affect our allies. You think about, do we really want to benefit our enemies? You think about the fact that maybe we ought to have a plan to get American nationals out of the Middle East before the war starts. You might even say, maybe I will quietly tell Saudis and Emiratis and others: Hey, store up some oil and natural gas because this war is going to start.

The President says he didn't think they would close the Strait of Hormuz; he didn't think Iran would attack the gulf countries.

I sit as vice chair on the Intelligence Committee. The intelligence community has been absolute not for weeks, months, but for years that if you start a war with Iran--and the Iranians are bad guys. Prior Presidents, including President Trump--I remember one time he was going to bomb Iran in his first term, and he pulled back because of all of the implications of starting that war without enough planning.

So he started into this war of choice with no planning on how we protect Americans, on what this is going to do to American consumers. Hey, does it really make sense in this war to fund our enemies Iran and Russia?

This is what happens when strategy, actual strategy, is replaced with impulse; planning is replaced by wishful thinking; and warning from our intelligence professionals whose job it is to make these predictions, who made the prediction that there was no imminent threat--when those intelligence professionals are ignored instead of heeded.

Now, we can't fully predict the full, long-term impacts of President Trump's war of choice in Iran, but we can make a pretty damn good conclusion at this point on who is going to get hit the worst: working- class Americans.

We all talk about affordability--both sides. You know, it is hard for a single political figure--even the President--to dramatically bring down prices, but it sure is not hard for a single political figure--in this case, the President of the United States--to raise prices: fertilizer, aluminum, helium, jet fuel, diesel fuel.

I just hope everybody will remember every time you go to the gas pump and you look at that price--Lord knows this happened when prices rose under Biden. There were these cute little stickers saying: Joe Biden did this.

Well, there is no doubt in my mind and, frankly, on any factual basis, when you gas up your car every week and you see that extra dollar or dollar-and-a-half increase in price, that price was brought to you by one political figure in America: the President of the United States.

We are going to feel the consequences of this war for a long time to come, and everything I talked about here gets exponentially worse--not on a linear timeline but an exponentially long, worse timeline--if the strait remains closed.

Americans deserve better. Our servicemembers who are in harm's way deserve better. Frankly, the world deserves better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleague and friend the Senator from New Jersey who, I think, has brought us a fresh voice, has incredible energy, and is somebody who has a history of working extraordinarily well on national security issues.

I agree with virtually everything he just said in that this is a bit of a distraction. I think part of the reason it is a distraction is that, at the end of the day, this President has frankly refused to acknowledge that the American people's will in 2020 was not to rehire him. He cannot accept the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election. Despite officials from his own administration calling the 2020 election the most secure in American history, the President continues to promote unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, and that is after investigations from multiple courts and the States' attorneys general and election officials from both parties strongly declaring that there was no evidence to support allegations of substantial fraud. Simply put, the 2020 election was certified, litigated, and affirmed.

Tomorrow, we are going to hear from some of the intelligence officials as our committee takes on the worldwide threat assessment where, unfortunately, senior intelligence officials seem to be still focusing on relitigating the 2020 election rather than making us safe for 2026 and 2028 because the truth is, after all of these years, the President and his allies haven't been able to find any evidence of legitimate voter fraud in past elections. As a matter of fact, there have been studies ad nauseam that show millions and hundreds of millions of votes and that the number of people who were undocumented and voted by mistake were in the single digits.

Now, they are looking forward to the effort that is on the floor right now toward suppressing and wrongfully influencing future elections through this so-called SAVE America Act.

Again, I know the Presiding Officer and my friend from Wisconsin and others are going to say I am going to go over the top, so let me just use the President's own words. The Presiding Officer comes from Utah, which has a proud history of States' rights and local control, but in the President's own words, he wants Republicans to ``take over'' election administration, going so far as to say Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. If there were ever an ``Alice in Wonderland up is down and down is up,'' that is what is happening.

Again, I don't know if this comment led to her firing, but before he fired her, the President's DHS Secretary Kristi Noem pushed for the passage of the SAVE America Act while stating that her goal was to have the right people voting so we can elect the right leaders. I mean, this sounds like it comes out of some dystopian novel or 1930s advocacy. I just don't get it. We all know that the strength of our democracy depends on voter participation and access to the ballot box. I have been doing this, I guess, long enough that I remember when things like ``motor voter'' and ``let's make it easier to register'' were all bipartisan.

Unfortunately, contrary to the name the SAVE America Act, this legislation undermines the very foundations that it claims to protect. This bill would impose sweeping requirements that would make it extremely difficult for eligible voters to participate in our democracy. New voters, married women, and servicemembers would face additional hurdles when registering to vote. That is because, under the SAVE America Act, Americans who have voted for years and have had no question about their citizenship would have to go back and provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in Federal elections.

Let me say, at the front end, that I support voter ID. We have voter ID in Virginia. I don't think you should be able to vote without showing a legitimate ID, but under this bill, that so-called reasonable policy would put in place requirements that are so stringent that it would mean if you don't have access to the right documentation, like a passport, you wouldn't be able to vote for the President of the United States.

The truth is, according to the U.S. State Department, only half of all Americans possess a passport. That means, if this bill passes, half of all American citizens would not be able to provide one of the primary acceptable forms of documentation that would be required to vote under the SAVE Act.

Additionally, under this bill, States would be barred from accepting online and mail-in voter registrations unless the applicant also presented proof of citizenship in person. So this is somebody who made the choice to change their name who is now 85 years old and who has to go back and find a birth certificate or get a passport and has to show up in person to kind of get registered again, even though she has been voting for the last 50 years with no question about her citizenship.

This effectively, frankly, guts the online and mail-in voter registration processes that are available across many States, which creates, I think, an unnecessary burden for all voters, particularly rural voters, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities disproportionately.

I see my friend from California here. It has been States in the West, whether it is Oregon or California or Utah, that have used these tools to get more people involved. In fact, these efforts don't make our elections more secure. All this does is disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

My view is that the goal of the SAVE Act is more about cutting out voters and suppressing the vote than it is about saving anything going forward. We are having this debate, and we are going to probably go through lots of procedural antics that most folks won't understand. I just wish that my Republican colleagues would come back to what I think we should be spending all of our time on. If we are going to spend all night, let's focus on funding the TSA, FEMA, CISA, and the Coast Guard.

Frankly, I believe we need to fund all of the folks at the Customs and Border Patrol who aren't assigned to interior immigration enforcement. So, last week, Senator Murray and Senate Democrats attempted to say: Hey, we have got to debate about ICE, and we have got to debate about some of the CBP people who are doing domestic enforcement. If we can't come to an agreement there, let's fight over that, but let's not make sure that we hold all of these other folks hostage.

Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues blocked five separate bills that were offered by Senate Democrats that would have fully funded all of the components of DHS. I think about our

hard-working TSA officers who, thank goodness, got a paycheck on March 12--a partial paycheck--but now, they are going unpaid.

The amazing thing is that this is kind of a crisis that doesn't need to be a crisis. The fact is, last July, my Republican colleagues voted to give the Department of Homeland Security a slush fund worth nearly $170 billion. Of that funding, $75 billion was a blank check to ICE, providing the Agency with a budget larger than of most global militaries. I actually think the ICE budget is now bigger than the French military's, and I know it is bigger than the FBI's budget. You know, the truth is that $75 billion could actually fund ICE for the next 7 years without any additional appropriations.

I am here today because I and my Democratic colleagues are fighting to ensure that all the funding that is used for immigration enforcement will no longer be used in inappropriate ways. I think even most of my Republican colleagues have acknowledged that what happened in Minneapolis kind of went off the rails in that we were seeing ICE agents literally abuse and brutalize Americans and disrespect basic human dignity.

The unfortunate thing is, under this administration, ICE has been turned frankly into kind of a secret police that I believe has waged enormous violence against Americans. I know in my State, that of the daily quota of people they have to pick up, 80 to 85 percent have never violated any other law other than coming into the country and most of them are going through an amnesty process that was set up. You know, we have seen the images of ICE ripping apart families and arresting moms as they drop off kids to daycare. As a matter of fact, I know that I tried to do some oversight, which is part of my job, and it took a lot of hoops to get through to even do that oversight.

I believe, because of these actions, all of our citizens are less safe. So we have got to make meaningful reforms to ICE which I don't think are outrageous, like requiring body cameras, making sure that immigration enforcement officers show their faces and identify themselves, and making sure there is proper training and upholding traditional use-of-force standards. These are the same requirements that my local law enforcement has to deal with every day and has had to for years. These aren't new. These are commonsense, basic accountability measures that, as I said, our State and local police abide by because that is how you keep communities safe.

Unfortunately, so far, the White House doesn't seem to see it that way. They continue to drag their feet on negotiations at the expense, frankly, of the TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Patrol--not the folks doing interior enforcement--who are not getting paid. That doesn't make any sense.

As a matter of fact, we have even seen tools where, in the last shutdown, the administration didn't decide to cut off Global Entry or TSA PreCheck because those are actually funded by separate fees, but suddenly, they decided to amp up the political pressure and close off those programs. Now, thank goodness, because of pressure from the public, the Trump administration has reversed course and restarted the Global Entry program, but it should have never been suspended in the first place. We have got to get these folks paid. Take yes for an answer. Take yes for an answer.

As I pointed out earlier, with $75 billion for ICE, it is not going to stop. We have got to get the reforms in place. So let's keep the negotiations going. We ought to get them done. I am going to make sure that the TSA agents at Dulles, at National, and at airports across my Commonwealth get their paychecks.

As a State on the ocean, I want to make sure that the Coast Guard gets their paychecks. We have been hit hard by Hurricane Helene, and I want to make sure FEMA gets funded. And CISA--the Cybersecurity Agency, which is one of the things that guards against foreign malign influence--has been decimated by this administration. As we go into an election season where I extraordinarily fear foreign interference, close to 50 percent of the personnel have been cut or eliminated.

So we can do better. We must do better.

We can debate the SAVE Act, which I think is, again, about voter disenfranchisement, not voter safety or integrity, but I do think, while we debate this, why not go ahead and take yes for an answer and fund all of the other components of DHS so those folks who help protect us day in and day out get their paychecks?

Let's reopen these critical Agencies. Let's acknowledge that ICE has a $75 billion slush fund that we could complain about as Democrats-- Democrats do--but it is the law of the land. They have the resources. In the meantime, why hold up the pay of these Americans who are doing so many things to keep us safe? I think those folks deserve better. I think we all deserve better.

I guess I am a little old-fashioned. I actually think, back to the subject at hand, you know, our elections are better if more people participate. I am welcome to having more folks participate--citizens participate. Citizens participate. Unfortunately, this SAVE Act cuts back on a whole lot of Americans that will be disenfranchised simply because, oh my gosh, they did the radical thing of changing their name when they got married; or, oh my gosh, they were willing to join our military; or, oh my gosh, they are aged and they don't want to spend 150 bucks to get a passport.

Our country deserves better.

I yield the floor.