Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 338, S.J. Res. 103.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am on the floor today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the death of Sergeant Stubby, Connecticut's first-ever military working dog and an icon in our Nation's history.

In July 1917, members of the 102nd Infantry, 26th Yankee Division of the U.S. Army were training on the campus of Yale University in New Haven, CT, when a stray puppy wandered into their camp. Private J. Robert Conroy first found the dog and named him ``Stubby.'' Despite an official ban on pets in the camp, Stubby quickly became the mascot of the 102nd Infantry.

When the 102nd was deployed to France in October 1917, Private Conroy managed to smuggle Stubby aboard the S.S. Minnesota--and the rest is history. Stubby served with remarkable valor in the trenches of France for 18 months, participating in four offensives and 17 battles. Stubby was an invaluable member of the 102nd beyond just improving the morale of his comrades; he warned his regiment of mustard gas attacks and artillery shells, located wounded soldiers between trenchlines, and was even solely responsible for capturing a German spy during the Meuse- Argonne offensive. Stubby suffered wounds from hand grenades and mustard gas, but each time made a full recovery and returned to the frontlines, with a special gas mask custom-made for him by the 102nd.

At the end of the war, Private Conroy and Sergeant Stubby returned home safely to newfound celebrity. Stubby led parades across the country, met Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren G. Harding, and received many awards. In 1921, General of the Armies John J. Pershing presented Stubby with a gold medal from the Humane Education Society. That same year Private Conroy and Stubby enrolled in Georgetown University Law Center, where Stubby became the Georgetown Hoyas' team mascot and performed during halftime for the football team.

Sergeant Stubby died peacefully in his sleep on March 16, 1926, and was preserved via taxidermy. Private Conroy presented Stubby to the Smithsonian Institution in 1956. He is now part of the permanent collection at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History and is currently on display in the ``Price of Freedom: Americans at War'' exhibit.

Even 100 years later, Sergeant Stubby's legacy stands strong and tall. He has been called the most decorated war dog of World War I and has been posthumously honored numerous times. His memory lives on through the 928th Military Working Dog Detachment of the Connecticut Army National Guard, the only such unit in the U.S. Army Guard or Reserve.

In the past century, military working dogs like Sergeant Stubby have expanded their role, helping our servicemembers stay safe. I am proud to have successfully advocated for better treatment and respect for our military working dogs and their handlers. They are an important--and beloved--part of our military. Indeed, this past Friday, March 13, our nation celebrated National K9 Veterans Day.

I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating Sergeant Stubby and his steadfast service to our nation.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my very eloquent colleague from Vermont in the common cause that brings us to the floor tonight, which is to say no--no--to a bill that so fundamentally and far-reachingly would undermine--in fact, destroy--our democracy. It may sound like an exaggeration, but it is the truth.

Republicans want you to believe that this bill is about making sure that citizens vote. Actually, it is about making sure that citizens cannot vote. Trump and the Republicans can't win on their policy decisions, so they must win by taking away the vote this November and for elections to come.

Make no mistake, this bill will take away votes from millions of Americans. Literally, it will roll back the clock on the civil rights era, on decades earlier during Reconstruction, on the Civil War itself. It will move America back in time and jeopardize our very democracy.

The simple fact is 21 million Americans do not have the requisite documentation this bill requires to register to vote. Passports are expensive. A passport book costs more than $100. And birth certificates are not readily accessible to many, many people. I have to admit, I don't know where my birth certificate is. There are many people who may not have their birth certificate at all and will have to try to track it down and then spend the money that is necessary to obtain it.

Then, for 69 million married women who have changed their name but whose documentation reflects at birth their maiden name, they will be required to provide documentary proof of citizenship plus additional documentation like a marriage certificate or they will have to sign an affidavit.

The SAVE America Act is not about saving America. If it were, it would not make it harder for service men and women, our veterans, and our military families to vote. Think of it for a moment. It fails to recognize military IDs as valid proof of citizenship.

I want to emphasize this point for a moment because I think it so epitomizes what is evil about this legislation. A military ID can grant servicemembers access to military bases; highly secure, sometimes classified and in some cases restricted facilities; but under this Republican proposal, it just isn't enough to allow those servicemembers access to the ballot box, the foundation of democracy. They go to bases. They go to restricted areas. They can go to other kinds of military facilities. But they cannot go to vote.

It imposes burdens on servicemembers abroad, including children of servicemembers. It excludes them--military voters born abroad--and it imposes burdens on servicemembers and military families stationed overseas, requiring in-person proof of citizenship at a government office in the United States when registering or updating voter registration. So in order to vote, they have to know about the law, and then they have to make a trip to a government office, probably while they are on leave with limited amounts of time. They want to be with their family, and they have to spend additional time going to a government office to register to vote. These are men and women defending our right to vote, and this bill restricts their right to vote.

The bill would also impose unacceptable barriers to voting for disabled veterans and veterans living in rural communities. It would require veterans to travel long distances simply to register or update their registration. Yet, for veterans with service-connected disabilities, mobility challenges, or limited transportation options, this requirement will create unacceptable obstacles for them to exercise their right to vote--veterans, again, who served and sacrificed for our country, who defend our rights and liberties, including the right to vote, themselves effectively being denied that right.

It is wrong. It is wrong morally. It is probably wrong constitutionally. Our servicemembers, military spouses and children, and veterans sacrifice so much for this country. It seems unfathomable and unforgivable to make it harder for the military community to vote because of one President's vanity and vengeance and political games-- and the effort to win election.

Senate Republicans make a lot of promises when it comes to our veterans and our military. They have the best rhetoric going. I want to remind them that promises are meaningless unless they are kept; words are ineffectual unless there is action to support them.

While we sit here debating a bill that will make it harder for members of the military and veterans to vote, I want to remind this body that Senate Republicans continue to block the Major Richard Star Act--a bipartisan bill to deliver combat-injured veterans their full military pension. That is right. Republicans have blocked it twice just this year.

Let's keep in mind what this legislation does and why it is supported by the vast majority of Members of Congress and the people of the United States. It says, in effect, you cannot deduct from a combat- injured retiree's pay the amount that goes to that person for disability compensation. Republicans say the cost is too high. They say it is double-dipping. Our veterans have earned both retirement pay and disability compensation. They have earned it. It is not something given to them out of charity.

They have not only blocked the passage of that bill, but they have also blocked my efforts even to allow floor consideration of it. I asked for unanimous consent twice just to give us a vote. Let that sink in. They will not even allow a vote. It wouldn't take more than 30 minutes. Let's see if we have the votes. Let's see who is going to be accountable.

We made a promise to these veterans that they would receive both retirement and disability benefits. Our legislation would deliver on that promise.

Republicans in leadership can't find the courage to give this legislation a vote despite 77 Members sponsoring it--both sides of the aisle, across the ideological spectrum. Yet they have found floor time to try to pass this mockery of a bill, to pass the SAVE America Act--a bill that will make it harder for our military and our veterans to vote.

This isn't the message we should be sending to Americans, especially amid action that is putting more troops in harm's way. What a time. American troops deployed in kinetic action, in harm's way, and the SAVE America Act has a single, simple goal: turning away American voters at the ballot box, including our military and our veterans.

We have seen this discouragement of voting time and again: sending Tulsi Gabbard to Fulton, GA, continuing the false narrative that somehow there was fraud in the Georgia vote; continuing the distorted message that there is voting fraud rampant in the Nation. The statistics and the facts prove this contention is absolutely wrong. It is false, fallacious, mistaken.

The intimidation of poll workers, the demand for voting information, private information not available to the public--all of it unjustified, probably illegal. This administration continues to pursue it because the goal is to suppress the vote.

Let's be clear. Voter suppression is the objective. This bill is the cornerstone of that vast voter suppression effort. I will give him credit for his consistency. It has been constant, the effort that President Trump is demanding of Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE America Act--a bill that would constitute the most significant restriction on the right to vote in generations--because Republicans cannot win this November without it, and they have said the quiet part out loud. In fact, President Trump has shouted the quiet part out loud. We don't have to read between the lines. He has made it absolutely clear that voter suppression is the end, the strategy, and the goal.

Over 20 million Americans--1 in 10 voting-age Americans--simply don't

have access to the documentation that this bill would require to vote. Voting identification in some form ought to be required, no question. This is not a voter identification bill; it is a voter purge bill. It would take that private information from voter rolls and in effect eliminate those names from the rolls based on other information available to the administration.

If President Trump were really serious about stopping voter fraud, especially cyber interference and possible foreign influence, he would not have dismantled the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, he would not have decimated the Agency that is responsible for stopping voter fraud, he would not have dismantled the counterterrorism units of the FBI and the Department of Justice. He would make them more robust, devote more resources to them, because that is the way to stop voter fraud, is to have investigators and experts go after it, pursue it, prosecute it. But the goal here is not to go after noncitizen voting because that problem is negligible. It is miniscule. The objective is to stop legitimate voters from going to the polls.

Mr. President, 250 years ago, America broke from the chains of monarchy. They chose democracy, a government that is supposed to be by and for the people. But as we approach this Nation's birthday, we are challenged as never before to defend democracy by advocating the right of every American to vote in free and fair elections and defending that right--not enough to talk about it but to defend it.

Thankfully, we still do have our democracy. It is under threat as never before. We are seeing the tentacles of totalitarianism begin to strangle the free press through the FCC's vicious attacks, through the effort to stifle legitimate dissent within our government and among our people. But we know there are people willing to stand up and speak out. We have seen it in the indivisible rallies across the country. We have seen it in voter registration. We have seen it in the anger that we are all hearing and the angst and anxiety about the future of our great Nation in peril at the moment.

We will have it as long as we recognize that democracy is not a spectator sport. It is not something that is guaranteed unless we defend it. We will have it only so long as we keep it, as Benjamin Franklin warned. And we will have a republic, as he told the person who asked him after the Constitutional Convention, only as long as we can keep it. It is up to us. Our time is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, these times are not normal. In normal times in the history of the United States of America, government agents bashing down doors, trashing living rooms, terrorizing children, detaining and arresting people without a judicial warrant would be condemned by the administration and they would say: We need reform.

In normal times, masked agents in unmarked cars without identification on their bodies would be forbidden by the Government of the United States of America. In normal times, mass sweeps in the streets or shootings of U.S. citizens for no reason, citizens without any criminal record, and killing two of them, would prompt sweeping reforms by that administration.

And in normal times, the Government of the United States would say: When we are responsible for harms that violate people's rights and injure them, they should have recourse. They should have redress.

In normal times, that is what would happen. These times are not normal because this administration has no respect for the law. It is not only

condoning, it is encouraging an out-of-control, lawless, and reckless Agency--ICE--and also the Customs and Border Patrol, which is operating unlawfully as a matter of clear statute outside where it should be just geographically.

And in normal times, we would value public servants at TSA, in the Coast Guard, in FEMA, rather than having a Department of Government Efficiency--DOGE--causing cuts, massive firings, cancellations of contracts that devalue and demean and degrade those public servants.

The failure to pay them now reflects that demeaning and degrading attitude toward public servants because this administration has the money to provide those payments, and it has done in the past, moving funds from one account to another in ways that are perfectly possible now, but the measures that we have before us would compel them to pay those public servants.

These times are not normal, and that is why we stand here today to insist that the Constitution of the United States be respected.

Mr. President, 250 years ago, Colonies revolted because British soldiers bashed down doors and took stuff from the Colonial settlers, and America revolted. It took years, long years, winter fighting, George Washington rallying the troops, continuing to recruit and keep them going, along with others, a fraction of the population at that point, enduring suffering and pain far more painful than standing in line at an airport.

But the values and the laws that we are here to defend are what should be normal in America. They are what is normal in our Constitution and our respect for individual rights and liberties. And we are in the minority in this body, as well as in the other House. We are in the minority in the Congress. We have no one in the White House. The Supreme Court is controlled by the majority party.

The power of the purse is one of the levers that we do have, and we are using that power to say no to DHS funding as long as these kinds of violations of laws are occurring and reoccurring, not only in Minneapolis, but all across the country.

And the hearing that I held in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, a spotlight hearing with people, U.S. citizens who have been dragged out of their cars and assaulted, forced to the pavement, injured, denied medical care, access to phones or lawyers or their families, the hearings that we had with a whistleblower who told us that that kind of misconduct was no accident, it was the result of instructions and training specifically given to those agents, to violate the Fourth Amendment.

And, of course, the brothers of Renee Good, who was killed, telling us how it happened. America is demanding these reforms. It isn't we who are imagining or hypothesizing the need for them; America is demanding them after America has seen what ICE and CBP are doing.

And we can enable payment of TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard and those brave and dedicated public servants in those Agencies by simply approving today the measure that the Senator from Washington has so ably brought to us.

Commonsense reforms are not incompatible with the payment of these individuals. Let us pay them now, adopt this measure, and then make sure that we keep faith with America, that we adhere to the rule of law, that we apply the same standards of conduct to Federal agents as are applied to local police in your community.

If your police chief took the position that this administration has done, they would be fired. If they defended local police who bashed down doors without judicial warrant at homes, without consent, and if they defended masked members of their local police force--doing sweeps with masks, without identification, and in unmarked cars--they would be fired. If they opposed the idea that people who are harmed in violation of the law by local police should have no recourse, they would be fired.

So I hope my Republican colleagues will get serious about what should be normal and will decide to do what is best for their constituents and for America.

We are ready. We have been ready. We are simply asking that ICE and the CBP follow the rule of law and adhere to the same standards as local and State police forces and that our Republican colleagues get serious about paying the dedicated men and women of these Agencies, who are working hard every day and deserve our respect.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just left a hearing involving the Veterans of Foreign Wars before the Veterans' Committee. In fact, it was a joint hearing of both the House's and the Senate's Veterans' Committees, where I am the ranking member.

I informed them that I was coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate to seek unanimous consent on the Major Richard Star Act, and there was a spontaneous standing ovation. I dare say that that applause was totally bipartisan--nonpolitical--because there is no more glaring and egregious injustice affecting veterans today--our Nation's patriots-- than the fact that 50,000 veterans and servicemembers are forced to medically retire or to undergo medical separation because of combat- related injuries and are unable to collect both retirement benefits and disability compensation. Right now, the men and

women who are in harm's way in the Middle East may be injured--we hope not--but there may be casualties. We know that some have already been injured.

If they retire as a result of those combat injuries with less than 20 years of service--the majority of them have less than 20 years of service--they will be reduced in their retirement pay, dollar for dollar, from their VA disability benefits. Let me just repeat: Right now, combat-injured veterans are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction of their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. So if they have to retire because they have been injured in combat, they sacrifice, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because of the disability benefits that they receive. They are entitled to both. They have earned both. The Nation promised them both. They deserve both.

The Major Richard Star Act will finally provide some justice to those veterans. It will finally provide these military retirees with their full disability and Department of Defense retirement benefits, righting this longstanding injustice.

It is sponsored by 77 of my colleagues in the Senate, including both Republicans and Democrats. It has similar support in the House of Representatives. We have never been provided with a vote--yes, a vote. If it did receive a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly. The simple request for a vote has been denied. There are a variety of excuses that have been offered like ``It costs too much.''

Well, as the national commander of the VFW said today, in supporting this bill, the costs of providing for our veterans are part of the cost of war. We are in a war right now, real-time, and some of those combat- injured veterans will be sacrificing their disability or retirement pay because of this injustice. And then some have characterized the Major Richard Star Act as providing for double-dipping. Well, our veterans forced to retire because of combat injures have earned both. We can afford to right this injustice. Whatever the estimate on the amount of funding required--and it has varied over the years--it is a pittance compared to the costs of our national defense--close to a trillion dollars now. This country can afford to do the right thing by these combat-injured veterans, and we have a moral imperative to do so.

Veterans who have served more than 20 years already received both the VA and the DOD payments in whole. Veterans who have served less than 20 years because they are combat injured--frankly, for any reason--deserve better.

This week and last, thousands of veterans have flown into our Nation's Capital from every corner of the country to advocate for their top priorities, and collectively, they are calling on Congress--all of them--all of the veterans service organizations, all of the groups that represent our Nation's heroes have told us unequivocally and repeatedly that correcting this injustice is absolutely necessary. The benefits they have earned are the benefits they should be receiving right now, and it will make a huge difference in the lives of all these veterans.

Take, for example, SSG Clayton Smith. He was involuntarily medically retired after 11 years in the U.S. Army because of his combat-related injury. He feels that veterans impacted by this offset have upheld their commitment to serve, but the system fails to recognize its commitment to him--promises made, promises kept, but in this case, not kept. In his words:

Passing the Richard Star Act would not only restore

financial fairness, but it would restore confidence among

combat-injured veterans that their sacrifice is recognized

equally.

It would also help veterans like Dan Nevins from Florida. His military career was ended when an improvised explosive device detonated beneath his vehicle during his deployment to Iraq in 2004. He is a bilateral amputee. He has overcome years of recurring infection and countless surgeries. He says he has no regrets about his service. He joined to serve his country. He believes it is worth fighting for.

These veterans deserve elected officials who will fight for them and deliver the benefits they have earned. In the words of Barry Jesinoski, the DAV's national adjutant and CEO:

Respect without action is meaningless.

A message to my colleagues: Respect without action is meaningless. Rhetoric without action is meaningless. Words without action are worthless. So let's put the politics aside and listen to our veterans. Let's pass the Richard Star Act today.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard Star Act; 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.

Mr. President, I am saddened, I am angered, and I am heartbroken for the veterans across this great country that the Senate is failing to match their courage and dedication and failing to keep faith with them. I am heartbroken for a nation that can afford to spend tens of billions of dollars, as we are doing right now--perhaps hundreds of billions--in a conflict far away, putting American lives in harm's way, causing deaths--six, at least, so far--and casualties in realtime when we are failing to match their bravery with our own. It is unconscionable. A lot of words, a lot of numbers, a lot of fallback to Senate procedures, process--meaningless--the words and numbers are meaningless to veterans who are deprived of benefits they have earned, benefits they have been promised.

So I regret my colleague's objection to this bill. I believe he is in a small minority of this body. He has a right to object under our rules.

But I would like to offer to him a commonsense middle ground. Even if we don't have unanimous consent to pass the Major Richard Star Act right now and support our combat-injured veterans, let's agree to a vote. Give us a vote. That is our job--to vote.

I have a time agreement here that would authorize the Senate to take a single up-and-down vote on passage of this bill before August, not precipitously--sometime before August--one vote scheduled by the majority leader, Senator Thune, at his discretion. It could start and finish in 45 minutes. It simply guarantees one vote on passage at a 60- vote, filibuster-proof threshold. That is our rule.

And I would offer, most respectfully, that surely this great body can afford a half hour or 45 minutes to give our combat-injured veterans a vote on restoration of their hard-earned benefits.

Let us vote. That is our job. Let us give our veterans an up-or-down vote on a matter of simple justice: benefits they have been promised.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. President, we have regular order in the Senate, and there is regular order in the military. I will have a hard time looking in the eye of those soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guard members who are in conflict, in harm's way, right now in the Middle East, defending the national security of this great Nation. I will have a hard time explaining to them what ``regular order'' means when they are combat injured and they suffer, dollar for dollar, their retirement pay because they are receiving disability benefits when they are injured--right now--in this conflict.

I don't know how I can look them in the eye. I don't know how any Member of the U.S. Senate can look them in the eye and explain: We won't vote because of regular order. That is a mockery of democracy, and it is shameful.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I received a text just a couple of hours ago from a Connecticut serviceman, serving in the Middle East directly in harm's way, who asked me a very simple question: What is the vision of success? And I am trying to formulate for him an answer that does justice to his sacrifice, that keeps faith with his family and the tens of thousands of other service men and women whose bravery is unquestionable. Their skill is undoubtable. Bravery and skill are not a strategy and, alone, are not a vision of success.

We have said countless times that war must be a last resort, never a first choice. Yet the administration seems to be engaging in a war of choice that is needless and reckless, conducted chaotically, and, most alarmingly, spreading and widening throughout the region. It is no longer a conflict involving only the United States and Iran or the United States and Israel with Iran; it is now a regional conflagration.

War demands precision and discipline in formulating goals and strategy, in conducting the kinetic operations that are the foundation for success. But in this war, which has been rejected while diplomacy is still within reach, the administration has failed to present the American people with a clear objective, an end game, or an exit strategy, and it shows exactly why the Founders said that the Congress should have the power to declare war.

Not only does the Congress speak for the American people, and they must be the ones to approve war, but an arbitrary and reckless use of war power is more likely when it is done by an autocrat who claims and seizes authoritarian power.

There is a discipline imposed when democracy functions, and democracy demands passage of the War Powers Act. That is the reason that I will vote for it and why I have supported it.

What is the vision of success? The President has been all over the place in his statements on Truth Social, earlier today on TV--snippets of conversation, 1 or 2 minutes long, with reporters individually. It may be deposing a regime, but so far, there has been change within the regime but no regime change. It may be stopping nuclear capacity, but the President said just last June that its capacity had been obliterated.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said just half an hour or so ago that the goal was to destroy the ballistic missile capability of Iran before they ``cross the line of immunity in . . . a year or a year and a half.'' Crossing the line of immunity in a year or a year and a half is no imminent threat. Iran has had ballistic missiles for years and the capacity to produce them.

The simple fact is, there is no imminent threat, and my colleagues have said publicly that their intelligence briefings indicate there was no imminent threat either to the homeland or to our allies in the region that justify this attack on Iran.

The simple fact is, Donald Trump is workshopping a war. He is making it up as he goes along in real time. He is inventing and discarding and reviving objectives as though he were a child playing with a puzzle, trying to fit the pieces into a coherent whole. There is no coherent whole right now, and it ought to anger the American people that lives are put at risk, that resources are spent, that the region is now on fire without a strategy or an explanation from the President to the American people.

Maybe most alarming, the administration continues to talk about regime change. Well, history teaches that regime change almost inevitably leads to boots on the ground and prolonged American involvement.

The simple fact is that regime change cannot be achieved at 30,000 feet. Airpower alone has never delivered regime change. It is a matter of simple common sense. Bombing cannot achieve a change in the governmental structure of a country.

The President has asked that the people of Iran rise up and change their regime. It is an invitation to slaughter innocent lives, potentially lost because of a President that seems to promise relief that he cannot or will not deliver, unless our sons and daughters in uniform are put on the ground in Iran with the burden on them in blood and years lost away from home and wounds that last long after the fighting ends.

The President has thrust our Nation into a widening war that risks almost inevitable expansion without making the case to the American people, without seeking congressional authorization, without explaining how the conflict ends, and maybe, most egregiously, without building support among the American people.

We sat in the Chamber last week for a speech lasting 108 minutes. Only 3 of those minutes were devoted to Iran and in a very cursory, superficial way. He has failed to build support from the American people because this war is against their wishes. He knows it is against their wishes because he promised he would not engage in such a war; that he would end wars, not start them; that forever wars would be an anathema. Yet that is the risk we face now, a forever war. Whether it is short or long, a war must be approved by this body.

I want to be clear, a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Iran's malign activities throughout the region, its support for terrorist proxies, its killing its own people, its killing Americans--this regime has blood on its hands, not just the group that was killed in the attack most recently, but the entire regime. Its destabilizing actions impose a severe danger to us and to our allies, and its terrorist proxies will continue to cause death and destruction throughout the region.

So the broad concern about this regime and the threat it imposes is well-justified. The President stopped negotiations that might have achieved the same ends that he is seeking here. And we have seen this story before, the absence of a clear end state, disregard for diplomacy, military action for regime change. The President risks repeating some of the most painful chapters in our history, conflicts that were entered with great confidence and bravado but prolonged without defined purpose or exit--unilateral action without lawful authorization. This is not how constitutional democracies decide matters

of war, and we must not underestimate our adversaries amidst this uncertainty.

Iran is weakened, but it is far from incapable. Iranian strikes have already killed six servicemembers and the President himself has said there will be more casualties. It is not a narrow engagement. It is a regional conflict touching many countries, many domains, and, potentially, many fronts.

My foremost concern is for the safety and well-being of the men and women in our Armed Forces, like the one who texted me earlier today, along with their families who are now in harm's way. I salute their bravery. I pray for their protection. But bravery is not a strategy. Hope is not a strategy. We must remember that civilians are also caught in the crossfire: Families in Iran, in Israel, across the region, these lives have been tragically changed by this widening conflict.

After 20 years of war in the Middle East, after all the lives lost, trillions spent, and promises of quick victory that stretched into years and years of sacrifice, we should be cautious, not reckless, about another potentially open-ended conflict.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability, its support for terrorist proxies, its repeated attack on American personnel are dangerous, destabilizing, destructive. They have armed militias across the region. They have threatened Israel's security. So we must be vigilant and resolute, but vigilance is not a strategy either. Wars are unpredictable. Vigilance does not mean impulsiveness. Vigilance requires strategy and objectives clearly defined. The Constitution is clear: Congress alone has the authority to declare war and approve it. It is a necessary part of the process.

The War Powers Act requires that the President inform and consult Congress when introducing American forces into hostile facilities. These requirements are not optional. They are not procedural niceties. They are the constitutional requirements that must be obeyed. The question is raised by many: How long will this conflict be prolonged? The simple fact is the President has said 4, 5 weeks, maybe longer, maybe shorter.

We know for sure that the President alone can't answer that question. The enemy has a vote. The enemy can prolong this war. President Trump has chosen the path of war that could lead to American men and women on the ground in Iran without explanation, without imminent threat, without clearly defined objectives. This decision carries consequences that will long outlast his Presidency. We have a duty constitutionally to act on the War Powers Act. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here to mark a solemn anniversary. Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked, unjustified, brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He sought to extinguish a democracy. He sought to erase a whole people's identity, their culture, their way of life, their language. He sought to redraw the map of Europe by force, against all of the norms and accepted rules that have preserved a peace for decades since World War II.

He failed.

Four years later, Ukraine stands proudly, resolutely, bloodied, scarred, but unbroken. Russia is not winning. There is a false narrative, in fact, that Russia is prevailing because it is taking bits and tiny pieces of territory at humongous cost in lives and resources. That false narrative must be dispelled, and I am here to say to my colleagues, to America, to the world: We know Ukraine can win if it has the tools to prevail. It has the will and the determination, unquestionably. It has the courage and the strength. It needs the weapons and the economic sanctions that will enable it to prevail.

Peace is our devout hope, but peace will be achieved only through strength because Vladimir Putin is unserious about peace now and will become serious only by demonstration--unequivocally and unambiguously-- of strength.

I have just come back from a trip to Ukraine, both to Kyiv and to Odessa, meeting the engineers who are repairing the electric generation sources that Putin has bombed--he has bombed all of the nonnuclear sources--children who have been kidnapped and saved and brought back; they are among the 20,000 that Putin has abducted; President Zelenskyy, who remains absolutely firm in his determination to lead the people of Ukraine, to push back the Russians; and in Odessa, the frontline forces on the Black Sea who are not only detecting but destroying the invading drones and missiles; and the faith community there who have remained so absolutely supportive.

The fact is that Putin is bombing not only Ukraine--civilians in their hospitals, homes, and education centers, schoolrooms--he is also bombing American businesses. Of the 600 major corporations with operations in Ukraine, almost half of them--300--have been damaged or destroyed in some way by Putin's bombing, drones, missiles. Putin is attacking Ukraine, but he is also attacking America, and America should be outraged by these attacks on American businesses.

In the meantime, my main takeaway from this trip--my ninth--was the incredible endurance and resilience of the Ukrainian people. But they don't want our applause; they want ammunition. They need weapons. They want weapons, not words. And so I am here to advocate, on this fourth anniversary, that we give them the tools they need to prevail because they are fighting on.

This conflict is the most destructive in Europe since the Second World War.

Entire cities have been reduced to rubble. Tens of thousands have been killed. Millions have been displaced. Families sleep under the threat nightly of drone and missile attacks. And they are fighting not only for their homes and their children but for a principle that protects us all. We all have a stake in it. Our national security is at risk here. And the principle is that borders cannot be changed by tanks and terror, sovereignty is not negotiable, and democracy is not disposable through force.

I have traveled to Ukraine--in fact, nine times--and I have met soldiers defending their homeland with extraordinary guts and grit. I have met parents who have lost sons and daughters in Russian bombing. I have met families whose children were kidnapped and taken across the border in a really grotesque campaign of abduction and indoctrination-- war crimes that stain the people of Russia, not just their leader. And the world has demanded accountability, designating Vladimir Putin as a ``war criminal.''

He is not seeking peace. He is seeking domination. He is unserious about the negotiations that are taking place right now. He wages war not only with artillery and armor but with cyber attacks, propaganda, disinformation, energy blackmail, systematic brutality. And he believes that time is his ally. He believes that democracies grow weary and that America will blink. And we must prove him wrong.

The Senate has demonstrated bipartisan resolve before, and it must do so again now. We have proven that when freedom is under assault, this body will rise above partisanship. We need to sustain that unity and make unmistakably clear to Putin and the people of Russia that aggression carries consequences. That means advancing stronger sanctions on Russia's war economy; designating Russia a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' if it fails to return those abducted children; shutting down the Kremlin's shadow fleet transporting oil and gas to the countries that are buying it and fueling Russia's war machine; and, in fact, sanctions and even tariffs targeting those countries, focusing on them because they are truly enabling this slaughterous invasion by Vladimir Putin.

The Russian assets that now are in bank accounts in Europe can be used to finance the purchasers of weapons, Tomahawks, F-16s, interceptors for the Patriot systems, 155s, all of the munitions and weaponry that Ukraine needs to win.

We must be unified in this Chamber and so must America across this great land with other democracies that are under attack through the hybrid warfare that Putin is waging. We have reaffirmed our deep partnership with the Ukrainian people, their Parliament, their President. And as Ukraine conducts the business of democracy while sandbags literally line their hallways, we must be behind them.

Four years of this unjustified invasion, and Ukraine is fighting not only for itself but for all of us--all democracies. Russia remains the most immediate and direct threat to NATO. Supporting Ukraine is not about charity; it is a strategy. Appeasement is not a strategy, nor is hope. Appeasement and reliance only on hope are the way to further conflict, wider war, which we must avoid.

Ukraine has endured these 4 years standing strong for democracy, and they are not only in this fight for themselves; they know that peace going forward is also at stake. Democracy is at risk.

I want to shift to the democracy that is at risk here at home, the democracy that is dependent on free and fair elections, the democracy that we must preserve against efforts to degrade and decimate it.

President Trump has called for a nationalization of American elections. Now, Americans may ask themselves: What is nationalization of elections? Well, you need to look no further than the so-called SAVE America Act, which would create absolutely horrendous burdens for all Americans registering to vote and then, in fact, voting.

It would create burdens for States which have the constitutional responsibility to administer elections. It would require Americans to use their driver's license or other governmental-issued IDs alone in registering to vote.

Now, I support the requirement that voters identify themselves when they go to vote. It is mandated in Connecticut. I do it every time I go to vote, presenting my driver's license.

But the SAVE Act is not about voter identification; it is about voter purges. In effect, it would require States to provide information-- private information that is not available to the public--to the Federal Government, which would then purge voter rolls.

Purging voter rolls is an anathema when it relies on inaccurate ICE information. That is essentially what the SAVE America Act would require. The SAVE America Act requires voters not just to present voter identification; it enables voter purges and federalizes that requirement in a way that is antithetical to all the principles of our Constitution that maintain State responsibility for voting.

I am proposing that we also protect our elections by ensuring that ICE cannot be used at the polls, that ICE agents and officers be barred from the polls. We need to make sure that there is an absence of intimidation and fear when voters approach the poll because, otherwise, they will be discouraged from voting.

ICE has no business in front of voting booths. It has no right or responsibility at the polls. The discouragement of voters is happening in realtime, sending Tulsi Gabbard to Fulton, GA, continuing the false narrative that somehow there was fraud in the Georgia vote, continuing the false narrative that there is voting fraud rampant in the Nation. The statistics and facts prove that contention absolutely wrong. The intimidation of poll workers, the demand for voting information, all of it absolutely unjustified.

President Trump is pushing Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that would constitute the most significant restriction on the right to vote in generations. He has devoted a full web page to the bill on the White House website, and ironically, it would make it harder to vote than to buy an assault rifle. Voting by noncitizens, which is the issue the bill claims to address, is already illegal, and it has been proven time and time again: Voter fraud rarely, if ever, occurs.

But while the problem is a fake, the bill would have real effect. It would make the sacred act of voting exponentially more difficult for all Americans. Over 20 million American citizens--1 in 10 voting-age Americans--simply don't have the access to the documentation that this bill would require to vote.

Voting identification in some form ought to be required but not in the way that this bill does it, restrictively and discriminatorily.

Mr. President, 250 years ago, America broke from the chains of monarchy and chose democracy--a government that is supposed to be by and for the people--but as we approach this Nation's birth date, we are challenged as never before to defend democracy, to defend it in Ukraine by supporting the brave freedom fighters there, and by supporting it here by defending and advocating the right of every American to vote in free and fair elections.

Thankfully, we still have our democracy. It is under threat as never before, but as the saying goes, ``Democracy is not a spectator sport.'' We will have it only as long as we can keep it, as Benjamin Franklin said to the person who asked him about it after the Constitutional Convention. We have a republic only as long as we can keep it.

We need to emulate the courage of the people of Ukraine and of our Founding Fathers and to fight back against President Trump's effort to silence us and to potentially threaten our democracy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, something really extraordinary happened in the U.S. Capitol yesterday. It wasn't a floor speech. It wasn't a formal committee meeting or a hearing. It wasn't a press conference. It was five everyday Americans coming to the Capitol to tell their stories about the brutality and violence they suffered at the hands of their own government--everyday Americans just like all of us coming here to tell us how they were stopped, assaulted, detained, and brutalized by ICE and CBP agents. It was one of the most moving experiences of my time in the U.S. Senate, not only because of the words and the facts that they conveyed but because of their raw courage, their bravery.

I had tears in my eyes as I listened to Luke and Brett Ganger telling us for the first time in public in such a setting what it was like to lose their sister Renee Good.

They said:

In the last few weeks, our family took some consolation in

thinking that perhaps Renee's death would bring change in our

country. It has not.

Yesterday's hearing, very simply, was a call to action, and I am going to talk about those American citizens who came forward. But make no mistake, what happened to them could happen to any of us on our way to church for a clothing drive or to make a donation, on your way to a doctor's appointment, or even heading home from dropping off your 6- year-old son at school--everyday activities, American activities, by American citizens with no criminal record.

Luke and Brett Ganger said:

These encounters with federal agents are changing the

community and changing many lives, including ours, forever. I

still don't know how to explain to my 4-year-old what these

agents are doing when we pass by.

They said:

Renee is not gone from us. She's in the light that finds us

on hard days. She's in the resilience we didn't know we had

until we needed it. She's in the laughter, the memories, the

love that continues to grow.

Every one of the brave Americans who came forward yesterday demonstrated that resilience, a courage that we now have an obligation to match, a bravery that should inspire us to the action that Luke and Brett Ganger urged us to do in the memory of their sister.

We heard from Marimar Martinez. She was on her way to church to donate clothing. Her car was full of that clothing. She was stopped by agents who ``came up to me with his cell phone and took my photograph. It was the same agent who had previously kept coming in and out of my room, and I had to tell him repeatedly to leave. It still haunts me that this agent has my photo on his phone.'' She was stopped and shot. The bullets caused her to bleed profusely. The wounds caused her almost to bleed to death.

The agent who shot her seven times--seven bullets in her body-- boasted about it. Charles Exum, the agent--she knew him; she named him.

Here is what Charles Exum had to say to his friends, his colleagues, on his cell phone:

I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book

boys.

Cool. I'm up for another round of ``[eff] around and find

out.''

It is the cruelty of seven bullets in her body, causing her almost to bleed to death--a woman who teaches in a Montessori school.

As she put it:

On Friday, I was teaching the young children at the

Montessori school, and we were singing and dancing and

getting ready for spooky season--preparing for fall

activities to do the following week--and on Saturday, my own

government was calling me a domestic terrorist, and I was in

a federal detention center, with bullet holes all over my

body.

She was shot by agents of the U.S. Government. For what? For what? She was charged with some kind of crime, and those charges were dismissed in court when the government tried to defend them, just as countless charges have been dismissed against similar so-called terrorists. The government sought to assassinate her, and then it sought to assassinate her character.

My attorneys showed the court the disgusting text images

Exum sent to his fellow Border Patrol buddies, literally

bragging about how many times he shot me. I got sick to my

stomach seeing how a federal law enforcement officer would

talk this way about shooting me--a woman who he swerved into.

It was both eye-opening and heartbreaking.

This hearing--a forum that had no official status in the U.S. Senate but

provided a platform to these victims of government brutality and overreach--was, indeed, eye-opening and heartbreaking for all of us.

Daniel Rascon was stopped by agents and then had his car shot at by them. They were attempting to kill him. Miraculously, they missed. His car was full of bullet holes.

I will never forget the fear and having to quickly duck my

head as the shots were fired at the passenger's side of the

car. Any one of those bullets could have killed me or two

people that I love.

His soon-to-be brother-in-law and father-in-law were the two people with him in the car.

We no longer felt safe. We didn't feel like we could leave

our home or operate normally in the world. How do you move on

from knowing someone tried to kill you and the people you

love?

``The agents pointed the bright lasers attached to their assault rifles at each of us'' when they came to his home. ``They even pointed their weapon at my fiancee,'' who was pregnant at the time. He has a 3- week-old baby now.

We kept telling them she was pregnant and we would comply.

I was surrounded and trapped in a roomful of the ones I love

and fearing for every single one of our lives.

His message should stay with us:

Our fight for justice is not over. We will carry this

incident with us forever.

Truly, Ms. Martinez, Mr. Rascon, and Luke and Brett Ganger will carry the scars of this experience with them forever. So will Aliya Rahman, who is a woman with a disability who was dragged from her car, which is shown in a video that should sicken every American. It has been played numerous times now. Americans have seen it and heard it.

I cannot lift my arms normally. I was never asked for ID,

never told I was under arrest, never read my rights, and

never charged with a crime.

She hit the ground and felt pain in every part of her body. She suffers from trauma as well as a disability.

Our nation lacks rules and accountability around what a

person claiming to be law enforcement can do to another human

being.

``[A]nother human being.''

What struck me is the absolutely stark contrast of the deep humanity of these Americans and of their bravery and courage in coming forward with their stories and the humanity that they showed us as opposed to the inhumanity of the criminal--yes, criminal--actions of these ICE and CBP agents physically assaulting them, attempting to kill them, and, in fact, murdering Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

We are at a defining moment. It is a moral moment.

At yesterday's hearing, Renee Good and Alex Pretti should have been with us. They were there in spirit, and through Luke and Brett Ganger, Renee Good certainly was represented. They were murdered by their own government in cold blood. Alex Pretti was shot in the back after he was disarmed.

For the countless others who could not be there yesterday because they were killed or they were injured, the courage of these witnesses was a profile in bravery and in eloquence. They were the voices and faces of those countless Americans who have suffered at the hands of their own government.

Their stories are about brutality, lawlessness, and inhumanity. Their stories span the Nation. They are not only about Minneapolis. All the Nation is Minneapolis. We are all Minneapolis today, and these stories are a national call to action.

The violence unleashed by the Trump administration against our own citizens can touch any American at any time, any one of you on your way to a church, a clothing drive, as Miramar Martinez was, on your way to a doctor's appointment, or even heading home from dropping off your 6- year-old son.

These stories and far too many others demand that every one of us takes a stand against these injustices and insists on accountability.

Make no mistake, the lawlessness underlying these actions and the directives that have caused this lawlessness come from the very top, as shown by a secret memo that we revealed just days ago, a new policy uncovered yesterday, and the administration's obstinate refusal to change course.

That secret memo authorizes agents to kick down doors, smash into homes, terrify children, ransack living rooms and bedrooms, and detain and arrest U.S. citizens, as well as undocumented immigrants, without a judicial warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And that violation is only one of many violations of constitutional, explicit guarantees that we have seen repeatedly in Minneapolis, but around the country.

Ms. Martinez is from Chicago. Mr. Rascon is from California. And, yes, Ms. Rahman is from Minneapolis. But Brent and Luke Ganger came to us from Colorado. The ripple effects of the cruelty that we saw demonstrated in that attack--utter and total cruelty--are repeated again and again and again.

Today, DHS announced, through Tom Homan, that there will be a ``withdrawal'' of 700 personnel--agents, whatever they have as their title--from Minneapolis. And numbers are important. Part of the reason for the brutality is the quotas that have been implemented and exacted--quotas for arrests and detention. Those quotas haven't changed.

The numbers of agents in Minneapolis may be reduced, but the tactics--the police state and paramilitary tactics--that have caused this brutality and violence will remain the same unless we take action. The reduction in numbers of agents is a hollow and disingenuous attempt to nullify the intense criticism that DHS is seeing--a criticism and an explosion of outrage in the American people who have seen these videos, who have heard these stories--because it so violates our sense of decency, not to mention our adherence to the Constitution.

The hearing that we held yesterday was part of an investigation underway by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that I serve on as ranking member. That investigation is going to continue. We have more stories and more factual material that we will present to our colleagues and to the American public. We will continue to investigate and uncover wrongdoing.

But we will also propose and demand reform. There need to be real changes at DHS, and those kinds of changes have to include body cameras and identification on every officer, masks off at all times, rigorous use-of-force training and policy, independent investigations into acts of violence and ongoing monitoring of the agency's conduct, and, most important, accountability and enforcement.

I believe we need some kind of independent monitor, just like would be appointed, and has been done, when local police forces are found to be so corrupt that they need an outside enforcer to make sure that there is adherence to the rule of law--an outside monitor who can take complaints, who can oversee and report to the public. And, at some point, maybe we need a truth and justice commission to look at the systematic failure of this Agency.

Rigorous use-of-force training and policies are an absolute must. As attorney general of the State of Connecticut, I advised police forces about what the law required of them. The proposals that we have made and the demands that we have set forth are hardly novel or radical. They are basically what is expected of and enforced for State and local police forces across the country.

To my Republican colleague, if you want some guidance on this issue, talk to local cops, talk to your local police chief. What are the rules for them? What are the norms? What are the expectations?

All we are asking here is that the same apply to ICE and CBP and DHS. And make no mistake, these are demands, not requests. I will oppose any additional funding for DHS and any DHS funding package unless it includes these changes.

Let's be very clear: Rights without remedy are empty promises. Rights without enforcement, when they are violated, are a mirage. And so I proposed, along with a number of my colleagues Senator Padilla and Senator Whitehouse, a very simple change in the law--four words--so that Federal agents have the same kind of legal responsibility and the same liability, if they violate rights, that any local cop would have.

Section 42, United States Code 1983--I think it was passed in 1871-- says that ``Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage''--and it now says--``of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,'' and so on, becomes liable,

becomes legally responsible, and citizens can seek redress against that individual. They have legal recourse in court. They have a day in court. They can seek monetary damages and a court order that stops the violation. It is used all the time in the United States of America against State or local police or law enforcement that break the law and harm individuals in this country. And all we need to do is add four words so that not only local and State law enforcement, but ``agents of the United States''--``United States''--those four words will change the nature of DHS and its practices and tactics. It will serve as a deterrent. It will force compliance with basic standards of decency and use-of-force protocols and regulation. And it will raise the standards that we expect of our Federal enforcers.

Rights without remedies are empty promises, and we owe the people who came forward yesterday that we will fulfill the promises made to them-- promises made to them not by us, but by the Constitution of the United States, the basic tenets of our great democratic project--that people are protected from governmental intrusion and overreach, their privacy by the Fourth Amendment, their right to free expression by the First, their right to possess a firearm by the Second. Every one of those rights is sacred, and we have a duty to make sure those promises are real, that the rights are protected.

We need to match the courage of the people who came forward yesterday with our own courage, match their fortitude with ours, and, yes, their perseverance because I am very clear-eyed. I know my speech here is not going to provoke a groundswell of support for the changes we demand. It will take continued outrage that we bring to the American people through the stories that we will tell and the faces and voices that will appear before them. They are the most moving and powerful advocates: everyday Americans assaulted and brutalized by their own government, financed by our taxpayer dollars.

But soon we will decide whether to spend on the Department of Homeland Security. Without these far-reaching, fundamental changes that, in effect, scrap the current culture and rebuild an Agency that is out of control, I will vote against a DHS funding package. And I think others will join in that opposition because this Agency is bankrupt--morally bankrupt, as well as legally, and, yes, politically bankrupt.

What happens with bankrupt corporations that go into chapter 10 is that they are dissolved, and their assets sold off to creditors. Or, under chapter 11, they are reorganized.

The analogy is only partial in its validity because what we need here is a fundamental overhaul of an Agency that has run amok in its violation of American rights and principles, and leadership that must be changed. And I have advocated for impeachment of Secretary Noem, if she will not resign or if the President fails to fire her.

But changes at the top are only part of what is needed. The basic principles about use of force and firearms, about respect for rights and liberties, about dedication to the rule of law--these must be part of the bloodstream in this Agency. They are lacking now and are absolutely necessary in the future. We have an obligation to make it real.

The statement of Aliya Rahman can be found online at https:// www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2026-2- 3_aliya_rahman_statement. pdf.

The statement of Marimar Martinez can be found online at https:// www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2026-2-3_marimar_martinez_ statement.pdf.

The statement of Martin Daniel Rascon can be found online at https:// www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/ doc/2026-2-3_daniel_rascon_statement. pdf.

The statement of Brent and Luke Ganger can be found online at https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo /media/doc/2026-2-3_luke_and_brent_ ganger_statement.pdf.

And the statements of the two other witnesses in that proceeding, Antonio Romanucci can be found online at https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo /media/doc/2026-2-3_antonio_romanucci_ statement.pdf, and Seth Stoughton can be found online at https://www. blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2026-2- 3_seth_stoughton_statement.pdf.

And, Mr. President, I ask that the vote occur immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two extraordinary public servants whose leadership has helped sustain and strengthen public media at a pivotal moment for our Nation: Patricia Harrison, president and chief executive officer of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Mark Contreras, president and chief executive officer of Connecticut Public.

Mark Contreras recently announced his retirement after more than 7 years of distinguished leadership at Connecticut Public. During his tenure, Connecticut Public expanded local and multilingual journalism, strengthened its financial foundation, and continued to serve communities across the State with trusted news, educational programming, and cultural content. He also reinforced Connecticut Public's role as the lead station for the New England News Collaborative, coordinating regional reporting on critical local and regional issues. Even amid the loss of Federal public media funding, his steady leadership ensured the organization remains resilient, mission-driven, and deeply connected to the people it serves.

I also wish to recognize Patricia Harrison, who is concluding her service as president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as the organization winds down operations following the loss of Federal funding. Throughout her tenure, Ms. Harrison ensured that Federal investments in public broadcasting delivered meaningful, local impact. In Connecticut, that commitment was reflected in CPB's sustained support for trusted journalism, civic engagement, and educational opportunity. Under her leadership, CPB strengthened State government coverage in Connecticut, ensuring that residents had access to reliable, nonpartisan reporting on the work of their State leaders and institutions.

Ms. Harrison also supported American Graduate, an initiative that mobilized public media stations and community partners to help students stay on track to graduation and connect families with vital educational resources. In Connecticut, American Graduate has strengthened local collaboration and expanded access to educational support for young people across the State. In addition, Ms. Harrison championed regional journalism through CPB's support for the New England News Collaborative, with Connecticut Public serving as the lead station. This collaboration enabled public media organizations across New England to work together to report on issues that cross State lines, providing deeper, more comprehensive coverage for communities throughout the region.

As a longtime supporter of public broadcasting, I know firsthand the vital role that organizations like CPB and Connecticut Public play in strengthening our democracy, supporting local journalism, educating children, and serving communities of

every size and background. The careers of Patricia Harrison and Mark Contreras truly exemplify that mission. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the service and lasting contributions of Patricia Harrison and Mark Contreras.

Mr. President, the American people can be forgiven for wanting to turn off their computers or TVs and feeling a sense of abhorrence and repulsion at what they are seeing again and again and again as the video of Renee Good's killing is replayed for them.

What it shows is a horrific tragedy--a mother who was 37 years old, an American citizen, subjected to alleged murder. I use the word ``alleged'' because I have spent most of my career in law enforcement, and the word ``alleged'' before a conviction is always mandatory. But what is on that tape is there for everyone to see--the absolutely needless, reckless use of excessive force with a firearm, without any apparent need for self-defense.

We are seeing a surge of violence in this country that is not only from private individuals but now from supposed law enforcement--ICE-- which has a responsibility to uphold the law and respect norms that protect everyday citizens.

We are a country built on due process and the rule of law, and we were founded on the idea that we resist tyrannical monarchs; that we fought a war, in fact, against a tyranny that used totalitarian, Gestapo-type tactics. And now we see them on the streets of our own country.

Yes, Americans have a right to be repulsed by these videos and outraged, angry, but also saddened and grief-stricken because the killing of Renee Nicole Good last week at the hands of an ICE agent showed the tragic outcome of abuse of power. This death was preventable and predictable. It was preventable. It needn't have happened.

But it was also predictable because it is only an example of the rising tide of lawlessness and recklessness on the part of ICE that has been documented, in fact, by my report on the investigation we did, as ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the report that was the result of that investigation. We released it several weeks ago, and it can be found at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2025.12.8-ICE-Report-revised-FINAL.pdf.

I released this report, which documents firsthand accounts of 22 U.S. citizens in 10 different States who were physically assaulted, pepper- sprayed, denied medical treatment, detained, sometimes for days, by Federal immigration agents. And we did a hearing with a number of those American citizens who were injured, denied medical care, prevented from contacting their families or lawyers, some of them for days on end, while detained under very harsh conditions. And it was graphic; it was gripping. But it was only 4 or 5 examples of 22 individuals we interviewed who themselves were only a subset of hundreds of American citizens who were physically assaulted, detained, and many of them injured.

This pattern and practice is not coincidental. It is the result of an apparent policy on the part of this government Agency that involves agents who are masked, unidentifiable, who turn violent without provocation, crashing their government vehicles into citizens' cars, dragging them from those

cars, slamming them to the ground, violently assaulting them, often leading to lasting injuries, including trauma.

One of the individuals who appeared at our hearing was a veteran who served and sacrificed for this country in the belief that he was helping to preserve the very liberties that he was denied when he was arrested.

Now, every one of these people sought to tell the agents that they were an American citizen. They offered their passports or their driver's license or other identification to show they were American citizens. There was no reason to assault them in this way.

In California, they beat a 79-year-old man so badly that they broke his ribs, and they slammed another man's head into the ground so hard that he was concussed. In Illinois, a woman was shot five times, while, in Indiana, a man was punched in the face and dragged outside his family home in the early morning hours. It didn't matter whether children were present; agents acted with reckless disregard for their safety and well-being. In Idaho, children were taken from a car at gunpoint and later zip-tied. In Massachusetts, an autistic child was deliberately taken from her parents and used as bait by law enforcement to try to lure their parents out of the house.

These detentions were not limited to one State or a few States. They spanned the Nation--from Idaho to Alabama, from California to Illinois. And we know there are so many stories that haven't been told because people fear retaliation and retribution--American citizens fearing their own government retaliating against them for speaking truth to power about physical assaults by their own government.

These ICE agents have been trained and they have been recruited by the Department of Homeland Security, which is complicit in this misconduct--complicit because it has failed to provide the right training and perhaps has recruited people who are wrongly in these roles, and it has failed to either provide protocols or to enforce them.

What became clear through our interviews and across the stories that keep emerging is that the Department of Homeland Security does not have just a few rogue agents. It has become a lawless force as an Agency of the government. It is engaged in a coordinated, nationwide effort using the same tactics, the same violence wherever they are deploying.

So after months of investigating these kinds of lawless abuses, I am really saddened to say that Renee Good's death came as no surprise. It was predictable, and it was preventable. And also preventable are the injuries and the deaths and the lawlessness that are happening every day, right now, in the streets of America, in the neighborhoods of our great country.

They are a betrayal of the rule of law that is the foundation of our Nation. It should shock America's conscience, and I believe it has, as it has shocked mine. These kinds of brazen, abusive, lawless tactics do not represent our Nation. Americans will have a hard time--and they should--recognizing our great Nation in what they are seeing hour after hour, day after day--right now, in realtime--in those abuses and in so frequently used Gestapo-type tactics.

I initially thought: I don't want to go there. My father escaped Germany in 1935 and came to America after seeing what was to come in those same Gestapo-type tactics in Germany. He came here speaking no English, having not much more than the shirt on his back and knowing virtually no one. If he had stayed in Germany, he would have seen a paramilitary force going door to door, rounding up people just like him, exactly the kinds of tactics we now see unfolding: ICE as a paramilitary force going business to business, door to door, church to church, school to school, seizing people, dragging them out of their cars or homes without much more cause than the fact that they are people of color or they speak a different language or they are working in a place where undocumented immigrants are thought to be working.

In this country, now, decades after that time in the 1930s, in the pinnacle of democracy, what we are seeing is a paramilitary force stopping people in this same way, searching them and assaulting them. And the parallels are unmistakable and frightening. We cannot, in this body or anywhere in our great country, stand idly while our fellow citizens are rounded up and subjected to this treatment. We should not be standing idly as any human being, whatever their status, is subjected to this kind of abuse.

I will continue, on my subcommittee, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the work that we have done, the investigation that is ongoing right now. We will press for accountability. We will press for the facts, the truth. And we have a lot of it already. We will not sit idly and watch as the Nation I love--all of us in this body do--demeans and betrays our Constitution. We have all taken an oath to uphold it. So have those ICE agents that are betraying it. Our Constitution will crumble unless we fight for it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we all remember if we were here 5 years ago, this building was attacked. The Capitol was stormed. Democracy was under siege, not just the physical structure, but our lives, literally. Each of us had a memory of that moment.

And I will never forget, I am sure most of my colleagues won't either, how we left this Chamber, without panic, but certainly in a surge of emotion as we heard the pounding at the doors as we were told to move quickly.

Senators were ordered to move out of harm's way, and we saw through the windows or the doors--or face-to-face some of us--the pipes and baseball bats. It was a moment that nobody who went through it can ever forget because insurrectionists scaled the walls; they smashed windows; they forced their way through the doors into this Chamber and the House. They broke into the legislative branch of government.

And it wasn't simply a symbolic move; it was literally to stop the counting of the electoral votes, to halt the peaceful transition of power, which is the trademark of our democracy.

Five years ago, Capitol Police and other law enforcement stood between these attackers and ourselves, Members of this body. They resisted the insurrectionists trying to scale these walls with their own bodies, and they were hurt. One hundred forty officers were injured, several died--five perished.

And in that terrible moment, one of the darkest times in the history of our democracy, we came together. We joined arms, maybe not literally, but we were together in that undisclosed location-- Republicans and Democrats--who had walked at a pretty good pace through the halls and then confined together, guarded by members of law enforcement as well as the military.

We were together, and we felt under threat together, but we decided, when we were asked, that we would stay. We would not go home for the night, as some of the security wanted us to do. We would stay to count the votes. As dark as that moment was in the history of the United States of America, we can be proud, as a body, of that decision to count the votes and do our duty, rather than shirk it in the midst of that continuing unknown and potential danger as the security literally went through the broken glass and the desecrated offices and this very Chamber to make sure that there were no bombs or rioters left and we could come back with some assurance of safety. That moment, we came together, 5 years ago--5 years ago.

And what a difference 5 years makes. In the past 5 years, segments of society have latched onto baseless and harmful conspiracy theories about the attack. There are January 6 deniers, just as there are election deniers and there are Holocaust deniers. We live in an era when conspiracy theorists can spread falsehoods through social media and other means around the globe, certainly around our country.

And these baseless and harmful conspiracy theories are, by now, in a book by the current FBI Director, Kash Patel, who claims that the January 6 attack was ``the insurrection that never was'' and was encouraged by ``deep state'' agitators as a pretext to persecute Trump supporters.

Well, we know who incited the January 6 insurrection. It is on tape. It can be seen. In a speech outside the White House on January 6, Donald J. Trump claimed to a crowd of thousands of Trump supporters that ``we won this election and we won it by a landslide.''

He promised to ``stop the steal.'' He vowed that ``we will never give up, we will never concede.''

And, most damningly, he told that crowd:

[I]f you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a

country anymore.

And that is when the crowd marched down the National Mall to this building, which they stormed, to the police officers whom they attacked, and the doors that they knocked down.

They entered the Capitol at 2 p.m. Not until 4:17 p.m. did Donald Trump call those supporters to go home--2 hours after people were injured and some died.

So we shouldn't be surprised, perhaps, that Donald Trump, in one of his first acts of office, pardoned all of those rioters--blanket pardon, even the ones who hit and caused the deaths of the Capitol Police.

And maybe we shouldn't be surprised that just several weeks ago, when I asked three judicial nominees--three lawyers nominated to be Federal district judges by Donald Trump--``Was the Capitol attacked on January 6,'' they refused to answer, each of them parroting a standard remark to the effect of: President Biden was certified as the winner.

They refused to tell the truth about January 6. That is how history is degraded. That is how history is rewritten. That is how the truth is suppressed. That is why we are here today. That is why I am standing here to make sure that history is preserved.

You know, we say often we want to speak truth to power. We need to speak history to authority. We need to speak the truth to America about what happened on January 6.

Notwithstanding all of those conspiracy theorists, the Department of Justice inspector general reported there is ``no evidence . . . that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6. No FBI CHS [confidential human source] was authorized to enter the Capitol or restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on January 6.''

I am under no illusion. I know this speech is not going to talk any of those conspiracy theorists out of their deep-seated beliefs, but we owe it to our children--and I owe it to two grandchildren born within the last 6 months--that we preserve history, despite the blanket pardon, despite the distortion of history that has occurred.

So we are here today to say to our Republican colleagues: Join us in preserving that history. Join us in making sure the truth is told from this Chamber to America, to all of our country.

Do not forget, 5 years ago, rioters, incited by President Trump, tried to destroy our democracy.

Trump pardoned, glorified them, even empowering some of them in key administration offices. We cannot allow him to rewrite history.

Do not forget. Police were brutally attacked, injured, and killed for doing their job to enable a peaceful democratic transition of power. They still bear the scars. So does our democracy.

Do not forget democracy is not guaranteed. It cannot be taken for granted. Do not forget it is our duty to remember the truth.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the remarkable career of Richard A. Silver. Rick has long been recognized as a model of excellence in Connecticut's legal profession and as a national leader and champion for victims of wrongful harm and injustice. His specialties are in medical malpractice, personal injury, and complex civil litigation, but he is truly a tireless advocate of fairness and decency in a wide variety of causes.

Rick was born and raised in Stamford, CT, and became interested in the law as a means to give back to his community and help others. After graduating from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1960, he returned to Connecticut to begin work at the law firm of David Goldstein.

Rick was an immediate success--in fact, winning his very first case despite being given less than a week to prepare. In 1965, he set out on his own, eventually joined in his new firm by partners David Golub in 1975 and Ernie Teitell in 1978. From the outset, he sought to stay small and excel. His model has been so successful that many of his cases are referrals from other lawyers, a testament to the firm's extraordinary record and reputation.

Rick's legal advocacy has changed the landscape of medical malpractice law in Connecticut. His arguments before the Connecticut Supreme Court for the 1976 case of Katsetos v. Stamford Hospital were pathbreaking in the assessment of medical expert testimony and cemented a statewide standard of care. His victories in many other cases like Pisel v. Stamford Hospital and Oram v. DeCholnoky have been precedent setting and historic in imposing accountability and access to legal remedies.

Rick has been widely and repeatedly recognized and honored, and his leadership has been instrumental in raising standards of professional excellence. He has been listed in Best Lawyers in America under Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, and Product Liability Litigation since 1987 and has been included in Connecticut Super Lawyers since its inception. He is also on the board of governors for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, where he is co-chairman of the medical malpractice committee, previously served as president of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates, and is a member of both the American Law Institute and the American Association for Justice.

Equally important, Rick has been an extraordinary mentor and model, generously devoting his skill to developing talent in others and finding opportunities for others to excel. He has helped young lawyers to achieve success and public service.

Rick's lifelong commitment to giving back includes numerous worthy causes and organizations. His generosity is longstanding and legendary. He is a major supporter of the Silver Education Center, named in honor of his family, at the Bartlett Arboretum in Stamford, CT. He is also engaged in supporting higher education as a member of the board of trustees at Quinnipiac University and a member of the advisory boards for both the Quinnipiac University School of Law and Medical School.

Having recently celebrated his 90th birthday and more than six decades of remarkable public service, he shows no sign of slowing down. Now, as ever, the legal profession relies on him--as do countless clients seeking justice--for his dedication, courage, and skill. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and celebrating the remarkable career and work of Richard A. Silver.

Madam President, first, my thanks to Senator Graham for his steadfast advocacy and eloquence and his partnership. It has been bipartisan from the start. It involves Senators Britt and Klobuchar, as well as Senator Shaheen, who is with us today, and Senator Coons and so many others.

In fact, let the world know, the Senate is united behind the children and parents of Ukraine. There may be some dissent--and we just heard one voice--but it is a small minority. To our European allies, to Ukraine, to the world, and, most importantly, to Vladimir Putin: You should know that America will stand against kidnapping and abducting children. That is the principle that brings us to the floor today.

Let me say to my colleague from Kentucky, there is not a scintilla of evidence--not one single bit of fact--that could persuade you that passing this measure will slow down or impede any peace negotiations. That is not what we are hearing from the negotiators. It isn't what we are hearing from Ukraine and its leaders who steadfastly support this measure. It is not what we are hearing from our European allies who also have expressed

support for this measure, and it is not what we are hearing from our conscience.

We are here today because we see in Vladimir Putin and his policy of abducting children literally the face of evil. There are very few issues where there are black and white sides. You know, most of the issues that come before this body are gray--on one hand, on the other hand.

This kind of war crime ought to shock the conscience of America and the world. And, in fact, let's call it what it is. It is genocide. It is genocide because what Vladimir Putin wants to do is to destroy a people. He is abducting the children of Ukraine to deprive that nation of its future--of its children, of its culture, of its race and nationality.

It is more than just about tanks and bombs and drones. It is about the future of humanity, who we are and what we will tolerate from a world leader who is bent on destroying a nation and its people. When you destroy its children, you are destroying its future.

I have been privileged to visit Ukraine eight times since the beginning of Vladimir Putin's slaughterous invasion, most of them with Senator Graham, who has been such a great partner in this effort. And I have some very searing memories of meeting with the amputees and veterans of Ukraine who have been at the front--not just for months but years--literally fighting because their country's future is at stake.

I have memories of meeting with those veterans. I have memories of visiting Bucha where, in the first days of this war, Russians literally lined up women and children and shot them in the back of their heads and then buried them in a mass grave; memories of speaking to President Zelenskyy and hearing about those days when the Russians came within kilometers.

We have driven from his bunker to the place where the Russians were stopped--literally, a 5-minute car ride--and his courage in staying there and continuing this fight.

I have memories of the bombed schools and hospitals and apartment houses. But the memory that sticks with me most vividly is of children who have been rescued after their abduction and parents whose children have been kidnapped, hearing about those children taken to reeducation camps, to foster families, where they were, in effect, made Russian. They were forbidden to speak Ukrainian. They were forbidden to practice their religion. They were forbidden to try to reunite with their families.

It is beyond horror and heartbreak to hear these stories. What we are doing here is very simply recognizing that the world will not tolerate, again, this kind of genocide, that it should shock our conscience, and that designating Russia as a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' puts it in the same category as the other outlaw renegade nations, whether it is Cuba, Iran, North Korea.

And by the way, we haven't bombed their ships. We haven't bombed their countries. We haven't bombed their planes. Designating them as state sponsors of terrorism doesn't mean we bomb them. To my colleague from Kentucky, I have my own criticisms of what is happening in the Caribbean today, and I share many of his criticisms, but it is simply a stream of consciousness that brings the two together. There is no logic or fact that makes them the same.

We need to stand strong behind Ukraine in those negotiations and insist on Ukraine's security, airtight and approved by the U.S. Congress, an article V-type of guarantee that commits the United States to Ukraine's security.

But today we are here about a moral and a practical issue. We are here about 10-month-old Margarita. Russian forces abducted her, changed her name, her citizenship, her birthplace. They changed it from Kherson, Ukraine, to Podolsk, Russia.

Artem, a 16-year-old boy taken by Russian soldiers to a remote orphanage, slept on ``sagging metal beds'' without bedding. He was forced to eat crackers every day.

Ilya, a 9-year-old from Mariupol, his mother was killed in a Russian missile attack. He was made an orphan by the Russians, who then called him an orphan as though it was something unconnected to what they did. He buried her with his own hands, and then Russians took him to a hospital in Donetsk, operated on him without anesthesia, and told him not to say ``Glory to Ukraine'' anymore.

These are war crimes. Children should be safe. They should be protected. They should never become pawns in an imperial war of conquest. This assault on children is a real assault on humanity. It is an attempt to erase Ukraine's identity through the manipulation and torture of the most vulnerable. There are at least 210 facilities across Russia and Russian-occupied territories housing these abducted children.

Russia has brazenly obstructed international efforts to rescue them, even to locate and document them. It withholds records. It cuts off communication. It deliberately undermines any effort to remit these children to their homes and families. Congress must act. Now is the time.

Let me be clear. These are not just Ukrainian children. They are future scientists, artists, dancers, teachers, and leaders. They are the heart of a free and prosperous Ukraine. The world cannot abandon them.

We may talk here about tankers and territories, and we should seize those shadow fleet tankers--no question about it. But this tragedy is deliberate, systematic, evil. It cannot go unanswered. We cannot turn a blind eye to this cruelty. We cannot evade the obligation to fight for every Ukrainian child stolen from a family in that great country.

I yield the floor to my great colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.

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

Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Cornyn came to the floor and asked for unanimous consent to pass the ENFORCE Act. I am proud to have co-led that bill with him, and he has been an excellent partner in this work. I couldn't be here when he asked for and received unanimous consent, but I am enormously appreciative about the bill passing the U.S. Senate today.

This bill is deeply important to protecting our children from child sexual abuse material, which is rampant on the internet. Every parent knows and every teacher is aware of the dangers of child sexual abuse material, of the toxic content that is driven by artificial intelligence and algorithms that people barely can pronounce, let alone understand.

As technology advances, we know that the methods of abuse also change. Using modern AI, abusers can generate realistic child sexual abuse material every day, using normal photographs of children--school pictures; local paper photos from soccer games, track meets, or scout troop fundraisers. The stuff of everyday life becomes weaponized by the CSAM abusers. With AI, every one of these images can be turned into pictures of horror and do hideous harm to children.

On the modern internet, those abusive images are available forever. We know about forever chemicals polluting our environment, like PFAS. These forever images contaminate a person's life forever.

The ENFORCE Act would ensure that people convicted of producing AI- generated child sexual abuse material would be subject to the same consequences and accountability as people convicted of producing other types of child sexual abuse material.

The harm of AI-generated CSAM is immense. It is devastating. It is destructive of human lives, literally, and sometimes actually results in young people taking their own lives.

I am glad this important bill has moved through the Senate today. I hope our colleagues in the House of Representatives will stand with us and adopt the ENFORCE Act so we can take effective law enforcement action against these hideous abusers of children. There is no excuse for delay or inaction. The lives of our children are at stake.

I yield the floor.