Floor Statements

Mr. President, a few years ago, I met a young woman who lives in the Chicago suburbs. She told me a story of her college career and what it led to. It was something I had never heard before.

Her experience in trying to pursue a degree leading to law enforcement took her not to the normal, predictable academic sources, but to a new industry, which was opening up in our country--for-profit colleges and universities.

Hers was a sad story. She had been enrolled in one of these for- profit colleges and paid the tuition, took the courses--some of them in person, some of them online--and ultimately went to a counselor and asked if she was headed for a bachelor's degree because of her coursework, and he assured her that she was. She went on to say that she hoped to be able to get into law enforcement--that was her ultimate goal. He gave her assurances that that would happen.

She finished her degree at this for-profit college and university in Chicago and then took her certificate showing her graduation to would- be employers--police departments in the area. They laughed at her, and they said: That is not a real school. That is a for-profit school, and the courses you took don't count. If you want a degree in law enforcement that leads to a real job, you can't get it from a for- profit college and university.

Well, that was a heartbreak to her because she spent years working on it. But what was even worse was, she was so deeply in debt for student loans that she borrowed from this phony university.

She, when I met her, was living in her parents' basement, had no future ahead of her for doing what she thought was the right thing-- getting a college degree.

What she didn't know, and what we know now, is that there are two numbers that tell the story of for-profit colleges and universities. You hear their names like University of Phoenix--that is probably the most prominent one people hear over and over--and you see their advertisements and brochures that are mailed to high school seniors enticing them to sign up for these for-profit schools.

What you don't know is that although only 8 percent of high school graduates go to for-profit colleges and universities--8 percent--30 percent of all student loan defaults are the students from these same schools.

What is going on here? Such a low number--8 percent--going on to these schools and such a high number of loan defaults. That is because they issue worthless degrees and entice these students into deep debt.

Many times, a parent or even a grandparent will cosign on the loans for these for-profit schools; and when everything falls apart, as it is likely to, everybody is held liable and responsible. That is why we have had an ongoing battle here in Washington for years against the for-profit college and university industry.

There was a legal battle in a case called Sweet v. McMahon, which has gone on for years. It finally, this week, came to an end, and it is an important

case on the subject of for-profit colleges and universities.

It was the largest class-action settlement against the Federal Government in the history of our Nation. That is life-changing news for nearly half a million Federal student loan borrowers who will receive $23 billion in relief after being misled and defrauded by for-profit colleges.

If you listen to the radio on your morning commute or watch TV after a long days' work, then you have no doubt been hit with flashy advertising from institutions like the University of Phoenix looking to lure in unsuspecting students.

Here is the catch: These institutions often rip off those students, lying about their prospects for a job, their ability to have credits that transfer to any other school, or their likely salary after graduation.

In fact, these schools, as I mentioned, enroll only 8 percent of the students but account for 30 percent of all Federal student loan defaults. Too much debt; too little education.

NPR recently highlighted the story of Jessica Feindt of Michigan. She enrolled at the University of Phoenix to study psychology.

She said she ``paid a lot out of pocket'' and ``through student loans.''

She realized later that the school's recruitment counselor had repeatedly misled her, including by telling her that a degree would be accepted by Michigan graduate programs--that was false.

By the time she had learned her degree was useless, she was already underwater and deeply in debt. So she joined this class-action lawsuit, originally filed during President Trump's first term, to get relief. Mr. President, 4 years later--it took 4 years--she will finally see the relief, which she is entitled to.

The first Trump administration--go figure--denied nearly all of these claims by the students, which a Federal court described as ``disturbingly Kafkaesque.''

But in 2022, President Joe Biden and his administration settled the case and forgave the student loan debts of nearly 300,000 borrowers who had been defrauded. Under the terms of that settlement, borrowers who were not part of the original class had 5 months to file claims. If the Department of Education had not adjudicated the additional claims by early 2026, borrowers still waiting in limbo would be automatically entitled to relief.

But while the Trump administration can quickly green-light permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, as in their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, they hesitated when it came to giving relief to these students who just wanted a fair shot.

In late 2025, the Trump administration asked for an additional 18 months to review the students' claims--students who were defrauded by these schools.

A Federal district judge said ``enough.'' Last month, a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld this decision. Good.

Like their tactics with DACA recipients and the slow-walking of renewal applications with the USCIS, the administration was asking for more time so that they could bleed out these borrowers and deny relief to hundreds of thousands of students deep in debt living in their parents' basement trying to figure out if they had a future.

This is where the priorities lie. I am glad these borrowers, after years and years of waiting, will finally get the relief they are entitled to.

For the last 15 years or more, I have sent a letter to every high school counselor in the State of Illinois. I send it about the first of the year and warn them: Be careful not to let your students be lured into these for-profit colleges and universities. They are going to send them brochures. They are going to tee them up with all sorts of things on the internet. It will be a dazzling display about the college, which is not a real college; it is a for-profit college and university.

Be careful. The time that you spend there, the money that you spend there may be a total waste or worse. It could be a debt that trails you for years and years, if not decades, in your life.

Thank goodness for these students, the thousands of students who are benefited by President Biden's decision. The courts finally stood by them and gave these students a second chance. It has been a situation I have run into time and again. I have threatened some of these for- profit schools as a way of getting them to drop the loans that they were enforcing on these students because I know what happens in the end.

Students need to be careful. You can't go wrong starting with city colleges and community colleges in your community. It is affordable. There are alternatives there. Most of the time, the hours that you earn there are going to be transferable to real colleges and universities. I beg my young students in Illinois to start there and the student counselors to do their job and discourage kids from getting involved with these for-profit schools.

energy grant funding

Mr. President, last October, the Trump administration cut more than $7 billion in energy grant funding going to States across America, including more than $580 million for Illinois. At the time, the administration promised that these cancellations were meant to cut ``waste, fraud, and abuse.'' But someone once told me that in politics there is always a good reason, and then there is always a real reason.

Of the 284 cancelled grants, how many do you think went to a State that voted for President Trump? 100? 50? 10? Of the 284 grants this administration revoked, only one went to a State that voted for Donald Trump. The rest went to blue States. At the time, the Trump administration went through pains to tell us that these cancellations were not political. We knew that could not be true. And now, we have proof.

The Department of Energy admitted in court documents that these cancellations were ``based solely on the political identity of the recipient's state,'' or in other words ``whether the recipient's location was in a Blue State.'' The administration wasn't making policy based on what's best for America. They were making decisions based on the President's vendettas. This is petty, it is unlawful, and it is wrong.

It is especially egregious to cancel these crucial grants when Americans' energy bills are skyrocketing. In the last year alone, Illinoisans paid $210 more for their power, and that number is only expected to go up in light of Trump's war with Iran. You would think that President Trump, who ran on bringing costs down on ``day one,'' would make addressing these record price hikes his top priority. Instead, he has deeply undermined our capacity to lower prices, all to settle petty political scores.

In Illinois, more than $150 million of the cancelled awards were meant to upgrade the power grid. These upgrades would have made the grid more reliable in the face of rising energy demand. Now, that work is in jeopardy. When the government cancels funding for grid upgrades, those needs do not just go away. Instead, utility companies will pass along the cost of upgrades to consumers. My constituents are paying more for their electricity, heating, and cooling because of President Trump.

That is why I am leading Illinois Democrats in a letter to Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and OMB Director Russ Vought outlining the harm these cancellations have done to our State over the past 9 months. I urge my Republican colleagues to join in urging this administration to reverse course and reject this administration's blatant defiance of Congress' authority under the Constitution. If this precedent is set, your State could be next to see its funding revoked.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, each of us serving in the Senate hopes to leave behind some sort of legacy. My own begins with the interns that have passed through my office. Over my four decades in Congress, I have had more than 3,000 interns work for me at one point or another, although my staff are convinced that the true number is even higher. These young people have covered me with glory, and it has been a great privilege to help them get their foot in the door of politics. Today, I would like to recognize one of my former interns, who has made a name for himself in his own right: mayor of Rockford, Tom McNamara.

Tom worked in my office in Washington, DC, in 2005, around the time he completed his undergraduate degree at John Carroll University. He arrived with a strong commitment to public service--a commitment instilled by his parents and honed during his time at school. At John Carroll, Tom volunteered at a correctional facility, where he assisted parolees and probationers who struggled with alcohol and substance use disorder. In between answering phone calls and giving tours of the Capitol, Tom's interest in the criminal justice system only deepened. He contemplated how he could improve the way we treat the incarcerated and how he could make his vision a reality.

After completing his internship, Tom took on a full-time role in my office as a staff assistant. But, in a great loss for my operations, he soon decided that he wanted to continue his education at John Carroll and returned to his alma matter to obtain a master's degree in nonprofit administration. While studying, he simultaneously worked at a nonprofit to help incarcerated individuals reunite with their families and reintegrate into society. But Tom couldn't stay away from Rockford for long. After completing his master's, he moved back to the Forest City to be closer to his family. Upon his return, he immediately plunged himself into a wide array of community service initiatives and began to assist candidates in various political races.

As Tom settled down in Rockford, he increasingly reflected on those who lacked the same opportunity. He could count on his fingers the number of his high school classmates who still lived in Rockford and was worried that this trend would continue unless someone fought to change it. Fortunately, Tom is not the kind of person to sit on the sidelines. In 2013, he ran to be alderman for Rockford's 3rd Ward, where he ran against a three-term Republican incumbent. Tom won and quickly got to work investing in Rockford. As alderman, Tom led initiatives to revitalize Rockford's housing market and spark new commercial developments across the city. When the city faced a budget crisis in 2017, Tom helped to craft a compromise resolution that spared the city from tax hikes while investing in public safety initiatives. With his success as a first-term alderman, it is no wonder that he won Rockford's 2017 mayoral race with 68 percent of the vote.

If you want to know how Tom has performed as mayor, just look at the numbers. In 2021, there were 2,301 instances of violent crime in Rockford. Last year, there were 1,359--a 41-percent decrease over the course of 5 years. In 2017, Rockford's property tax rate was 3.31 percent. Today, it is less than 2 percent. Property values have increased 56 percent since 2017, the number of vacant buildings has decreased by 17 percent, and the city is adding thousands of jobs as major corporations move in. It is remarkable to witness the transformation Rockford has undergone under Tom's leadership. Dilapidated factories are being turned into new homes and businesses, and people are flocking to what the Wall Street Journal has described as America's ``top housing market.'' The problem of vacant homes has been reversed, and now Rockford is racing to construct enough houses for all those who hope to move to the area.

While these changes are the fruits of the labor of thousands of people committed to Rockford's future, it is important to note the central role Tom has played in the city's redevelopment. Tom brought together police and community groups for more effective violence prevention programs. He worked with businesses and the city council to incentivize new developments across the city and balance Rockford's budget. As mayor, he brought an infectious sense of hope and optimism that now permeates throughout the city. I have worked with Tom throughout the years on a variety of Federal initiatives in Rockford, where I have had the opportunity to see his love for his city and community firsthand.

Of course, if you knew Tom's family, none of this would be surprising. Public service runs in the McNamara blood. Tom's grandfather served on the city council and school board in Whiting, IN. And John, Tom's father, was a U.S. Army veteran, having earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam, and was mayor of Rockford during many of the Forest City's darkest years. Like Tom, John guided Rockford through an incredibly difficult time and helped the city recover from a devastating manufacturing recession. Also, like his son, John did it all with unyielding optimism. John was a dear friend of mine, and I know that he would be so proud to see all that Tom has accomplished.

While Tom is stepping down from his position as mayor, his time in public service is far from over. Later this year, he will become CEO of the Illinois Municipal League, an organization representing Illinois' 1,300 municipalities. I look forward to seeing how he will support the State of Illinois in this new role.

I am grateful that I had the opportunity to welcome Tom to the world of politics more than two decades ago. It has been a great honor to see him develop as both a leader and public servant. I hope the whole Senate will join me in congratulating Tom, his wife Sarah, and their children Olympia and Malachy as they begin the next chapter of their lives.

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

Mr. President, I am nearing the end of my Senate term, and I am reflecting on some historic events which I have witnessed at this table, at this desk. One of the most historic I remember--and specifically the date--January 6, 2021. The reason why that day was important was that the votes all across America had been counted to see who was elected President in the 2020 election, and the process involved certification by the House and the Senate of the electoral votes that were to be counted.

In the past, it has been almost a pro forma event, hardly noticed by anyone. But on January 6, 2021, it was much different--much different. The Presiding Officer of the Senate for that electoral vote count is the Vice President of the United States; in this case, it was Vice President Pence.

There was more security than usual in the Capitol Building. To those who are here today witnessing this session and visiting the Capitol, you are lucky. You are protected by one of the best security forces, police forces, in the Nation, the Capitol Hill Police. Most Americans don't know much about them. Those of us who serve in Congress know a lot about them. These are men and women who keep you safe and me safe in the Capitol Building and make sure that the visitors have peace of mind when they come and go.

We want to maintain the availability of this building to visitors from certainly the United States, but from all around the world. And these men and women--some in uniform, some in ordinary dress--make sure that happens. Well, on January 6, 2021, there was a special emphasis on security. The reason: It was not only a historic event with Members of Congress in their chairs and the Vice President of the United States presiding over the Senate. There was also a rally going on downtown by the outgoing President of the United States, Donald Trump, at the end of his first term.

He had summoned his supporters and friends to come for a rally down by the White House and the Washington Monument that day. No coincidence. It was an attempt to put pressure on Congress not to count the electoral votes.

You see, the President then and now had this fiction in his mind that he actually won the election. He was only off by 7 million votes--that is how much he lost it by. But he kept filing lawsuits and making protests and arguing that he should be President again. At one point, he dispatched the thousands--thousands--of people that he had summoned to Washington to leave the Washington Monument area and to march on the Capitol, and they did.

So we were sitting inside with the knowledge that these thousands of people were coming up to our building

here, the Capitol Building, where we did business on this historic day. We didn't quite know what they would do when they arrived. But if you witness the videotapes from that day, draw your own conclusions. They tried to storm the Capitol. They broke through locked doors, crashed through windows to come into the building.

At approximately 10 minutes after 2 o'clock in the afternoon on January 6, 2021, I was seated at this desk. Vice President Pence was presiding, and I noticed something curious: Those doors opened and members of the Secret Service came in and grabbed--literately grabbed-- the Vice President to pull him out of that chair; took him out that door. And here we sat with no announcement, nothing, but we knew something was going on outside with this rally that had been directed up this way.

In a few minutes, a representative of the Capitol Police spoke to us in the Chamber and said: Stay calm. Stay where you are. We are going to make the Senate Chamber a safe place for you to stay no matter what happens in the rest of the building. So some of us relaxed in our chairs and looked around and waited for the next development.

The next development took about 10 minutes. Mr. President, 10 minutes later, the Capitol Police came and said: Disregard that earlier alert, leave in an orderly fashion, file through those doors, and follow us to a safe location.

So we abandoned the Senate Chamber and the Capitol and left to go to a building nearby and wait out this ordeal, which was going on in the Senate.

What happened you can witness yourself on videotape. It is all there. About 150 of our Capitol Police were assaulted by these demonstrators-- some seriously injured, others pushed to the brink psychologically, which led to their deaths a day or two later. It was a horrible scene. It wasn't until late in the afternoon that we were able to return to the Senate to complete our business with the electoral vote.

What followed from that with the new President was an attempt to investigate what happened that day and who should be held responsible. There was nothing extraordinary about that. Anyone who did damage to this great building or the people in it obviously should be held accountable. And so the largest investigation in the history of the Department of Justice and the FBI started.

At the end of the day, almost 1,500 individuals were charged with a crime, and they were convicted. Some of them paid a fine, some served brief periods of time, and others more serious offenses depending on what they did. That was the reality of what happened.

Fast-forward four years, and what happened next? President Trump was reelected. And with the power under the Constitution to pardon those who committed crime, on his first day in office in his second term, President Trump gave a full and unconditional pardon to every one of the convicted demonstrators who stormed this building.

If you remember the scenes afterwards, it wasn't just an orderly procession of people visiting this building. They crashed through doors. They broke windows. They did their darndest to cause as much damage as possible.

C-SPAN, which televises what happened here, kept the cameras running, and we were able to see them scramble into the Senate Chamber, pose for pictures sitting in the chair of the Presiding Officer, and riffle through our desks. I watched as some person--I still don't know who it was--went through my desk to look and see if there were some things that he could take that day. I don't know whether he did or not.

But that is the sort of thing that went on for 4 or 5 hours while an effort was made to mobilize police and state troopers and others to reclaim the Capitol Building from the demonstrators.

The reason I bring up this event years later is because there is an important issue to be voted on this week by the U.S. Senate, and that is the choice of the next Attorney General of the United States.

The Acting Attorney General is Todd Blanche, who was President Trump's personal lawyer when he was charged with crimes and who has been Deputy Attorney General for months now. He is seeking a full-time position.

One of the items of controversy is pretty easy to explain. President Trump believes--and Todd Blanche believed at one point--that the people who attacked the Capitol, the people who breached the Capitol, who crashed through the doors, broke down the windows, threatened individuals inside, should receive financial compensation for doing it. Financial compensation.

And you say to yourself: They got a full, unconditional pardon by President Trump. Now they want money too? And the answer is not only yes, but, unfortunately, they have done it with some pride.

The Trump administration proposed an Anti-Weaponization Fund. And just to give it a cute little twist, they appropriated $1,776 billion for that purpose. Well, it didn't go over very well with Congress because as we read this decree by the Trump administration, people said: Wait a minute. We are giving money to people who were convicted of a crime of attacking the Capitol, disrupting the business of the Senate, injuring 149 Capitol policemen? We are going to give them not only a pardon, but some sort of financial compensation?

That was the plan: The Anti-Weaponization Fund. And who was the person who executed that plan? Todd Blanche, the person who is seeking to become the next full-time Attorney General of the United States.

The controversy involving that particular proposal is well-known. Not only was there a bad reaction among Democrats to this idea but many Republicans as well.

Some of them kept their opposition behind closed doors. I understand. But others were very vocal about it. In fact, two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they want in writing, from Todd Blanche, a promise that he would never create this fund to reward cop beaters and demonstrators in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

It went forward in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the negotiations between two Republican Senators and Todd Blanche continued until the beginning of this week when it was announced they had reached an agreement. Sadly, that agreement--the so-called agreement not to create the Anti-Weaponization Fund--is written in a way it wouldn't pass law school Contracts 101.

There is no signature on any of these pages of promises when it comes to future activity. They say: We are rescinding the previous order, but there is nothing to stop a new order from taking place. That is a gaping hole in the logic and the effectiveness of any of these documents.

We should have clear indications from the parties to that lawsuit that both sides agree; that would include the President of the United States, who was a party to the lawsuit that led up to this. But they can't bring it together because the President doesn't believe that the Anti-Weaponization Fund should go away. He said publicly over and over again he believes in it, wants to do it, wants to give the demonstrators money. Todd Blanche thinks he has taken care of this problem, but he has not produced any documentation to make that point clear.

Secondly, there was a provision in a lawsuit. Now, here is what the lawsuit is all about: The President sued the IRS and Treasury arguing that they disclosed his income tax returns without his permission.

They arrested the man who actually did it--they caught him--and he was prosecuted, as he should be. He broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law when he disclosed the President's income tax returns.

The President sued the IRS and Treasury for billions of dollars-- billions--because they disclosed his income tax return. I have completed quite a few years of public service. I disclose my income tax return every year without fail as a Member of Congress and the Senate. I am not posing for holy pictures; I am just trying to tell you it isn't that big a deal if you follow the law.

Do you know what the settlement of the Trump lawsuit was for disclosing his income tax returns? Part of the settlement said--get this now, and Todd Blanche is the draftsman of this as well--part of it said neither the President, his family, or any of the companies in his Trump empire business can be held for violating any tax crimes in the United States.

How would you like that? Get-out-of-jail-free card. And that was part of the agreement, and it should be contested.

If we say no one in America is above the law, how in the world can you justify doing this for the Trump family and their businesses? And we know this President deals in big numbers when it comes to income.

His first year in office--estimates--between $1.4 and $2 billion in the President's first year in office of his second term--$2 billion. How did he do it? Well, you won't be surprised to know that there are cryptocurrency fingerprints all over this deal.

The President made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a meme coin or some contraption that comes out of the cryptocurrency world. That is the reality.

And who was overseeing this operation? Todd Blanche, the man who wants to be the No. 1 law enforcement officer in the United States of America.

Well, I will tell you, I am not going to go much longer because I see some of my colleagues are gathering, and they want to speak on this issue as well.

This is a serious mistake for the Senate to approve Todd Blanche as the next Attorney General. If there was ever a moment in history when we need an Attorney General above reproach who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it is right now.

The history of this era will be written, and it will be a shameful history for those who are empowering this man, Todd Blanche, to take his personal representation of this President to the highest possible level as he becomes the next Attorney General.

I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I think I know how many of you feel privately, but I know you are afraid to cross this President. He has been guilty of retribution many times in the past, and he would be on this. But don't be in the history books on the wrong side when it comes to this issue. Come out against corruption; come out for the prosecution of corporate fraud; come out for changing the current situation in the United States to one that is more respectful of the law and more respectful of the families and voters who create this democracy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Todd Blanche as the next Attorney General of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

What a treat it is to be on the floor of the Senate with a colleague from the Republican side of the aisle working together-- together--to try to solve the problem. It doesn't happen much around here. You see these empty desks? They are empty almost all the days, week in, week out, month in, month out.

We do important things like nominations. There is nothing that is trivial about that. But we don't tackle the issues that really affect people at home with their families.

Here is one: Social Security. Mr. President, 75 million Americans rely on it. Half of them, it is their only source of income, so a Social Security check means a lot.

So the experts on Social Security tell Dr. Cassidy and myself that just in a few years--6 years--Social Security will be unable to make full promised payments. It will be cut by 22 percent in terms of benefits.

Let's take an example. The average Social Security check now is around $2,400 a month. If you reduce that by 22 percent, it means that people receiving Social Security will receive about $450 to $500 less a month.

If this is your only source of income, imagine for a moment that $2,400--just lopped off $400, $500 from your monthly payment. How does it affect you? Paying your rent; paying your mortgage; paying your utility bills; paying what it might take at the grocery store to get by. It is going to be a real hardship.

As Senator Cassidy said, for the senior citizens of America, it means that those under the poverty level will increase by 50 percent. We can't let that happen. We have to do something about it.

And the bill that I have introduced with Senator Cassidy basically doesn't pick a solution--although we can come up with a couple. It doesn't pick a solution. It just says: Don't waste any time. Start talking about it; start debating it; let the American people engage in this conversation with you; and vote on some alternatives.

Now ``vote'' is a word that used to be part of being a Senator. Not so much anymore. Except when it comes to nominations, there aren't a lot of votes on substantive issues around this Chamber.

I know a little bit about this. I have given more than half of my life to Congress: 14 years in the House, 30 years in the Senate. I know what you are saying: It sounds like a career politician. Well, maybe I am--and proud of it and particularly proud of serving in this Chamber.

I have seen some glorious things happen in this Chamber on a bipartisan basis, but it takes a couple Senators, maybe more, to stand up and say: We have got to do something that is risky and controversial but important.

This is not the first time I have faced Social Security. When I was a Member of the House elected in 1982, came to serve in 1983, I was told that in a matter of months Social Security would run out of money.

Imagine that. You are a brandnew Member of Congress scared to death you won't be reelected, and they tell you, you have got to make a big change in the biggest social program in America. It scares you to death. But you know what? We did it.

Our goal was simple: 50 years of solvency in Social Security. Can we change Social Security and guarantee 50 years of solvency? We made a lot of changes. And you know what we got for it: 2032--1983 to 2032, we kept our word--50 years.

It is not too much to ask this Congress to fix Social Security and keep it solvent for 50 years. We can do it. And the longer we wait to do it, the more difficult it becomes.

I look back on voting for that, and I thought it was the end of my political career, which was only a few months old, but it turned out no Member of Congress--Democrat or Republican--in 1983 and 1984 lost an election because they voted for Social Security changes.

The American people expect us to make the best choices we can, and they accepted what we did. We bought 50 years of solvency--that is an amazing thing when you consider how important this program is.

And so what Senator Cassidy and I have suggested is a process which basically says we won't go by the old Senate rules.

I might add--I was going to show it, but I think it violates the Senate rules. The Senate is a Chamber of tradition. Down here, a few of you can see it, is a brass spittoon--a brass spittoon. It has been held onto as part of the tradition of the Senate.

Well, we have traditions in the rules that make things almost impossible to pass except after a long period of time. Weeks go by sometimes; days certainly go by, trying to get from a measure on the floor to an actual vote. The Senate rules are not kindly. They are tough.

So the bill that I introduced basically cuts through some of this redtape and delay and says we will move after several weeks to consider alternatives to Social Security. The bottom line is: It isn't enough to get a majority in the Senate under the current rules, and it isn't changed at all under our proposal. We still need 60 votes to ultimately pass any change to Social Security. Well, Democrats don't have 60 votes; Republicans don't have 60 votes; but together, we think we can reach that goal.

Now, I have been a little disappointed, but not surprised, that some of my colleagues that I have talked to about this said they thought it was a good idea, but on reflection they have decided it is too risky, that we are moving things too fast.

The Senate has never been accused successfully of moving too fast on almost anything. We take our time. That is why we are here. The Senate is different than the House, and I served in both and respect both.

So to my colleagues who oppose this approach and say we need more time to do it, I want to back up Senator Cassidy. It costs money over time. It costs benefits over time. The solution becomes more expensive over time.

The longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes to save Social Security. And we absolutely, positively have to save it. Too many people are counting on it.

I bet you the folks who gathered here today have many relatives of their own who count on Social Security--either because they are disabled or elderly. I understand that in my own family. I think everybody does.

So it is a great day in the Senate when a Democrat and a Republican stand on the floor and don't criticize one another but actually talk about working together. It has been a real pleasure for me, I would say to Senator Cassidy, to be part of the Cassidy-Durbin team.

We are both ending our Senate careers on January 3 of next year. We hoped that this would be one of the things we could achieve before we left. I am still not giving up completely. Miracles do occur. But I had to step up and make a proposal with Senator Cassidy to get my colleagues into conversation.

The conversation about Social Security has increased dramatically since we started this effort, and I think it should. The sooner, the better. The more expensive it becomes the longer we wait.

I yield back to Senator Cassidy.

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

Mr. President, when I think about the issue of public health, I remember a time in my childhood when one of my friends didn't show up for school. I asked people: Where did she go?

They shook their heads and said: Polio.

When she finally returned, she couldn't walk without heavy leg braces. I will never forget the agony I saw in her eyes.

Sadly, in my childhood, that story was common. For decades, a kid could go to school healthy and be paralyzed before the end of the day.

But suddenly--suddenly--it all changed. Dr. Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine. Dr. Sabin came up with a form that didn't require a needle. By 1979, polio was eradicated in America. A disease that would strike fear in the hearts of everyone was a distant memory.

I think there is a special place in history reserved for researchers and scientists like Dr. Salk and Dr. Sabin, who devoted their lives to saving others--people like Norman Borlaug, Edward Jenner, Madame Marie Curie, and Albert Calmette.

There is another person whose name could be on that list as well-- someone who has saved millions of lives, both in America and around the world, through his lifetime of public service. His name: Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Dr. Fauci worked for the National Institutes of Health for 54 years, 38 of which he served as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He has advised seven Presidents, of both parties, and seen our Nation through countless public health crises-- from SARS to avian flu, swine flu, Zika, Ebola, and on and on.

Aside from his work against COVID-19, Dr. Fauci may be best known for his work on HIV/AIDS. Dr. Fauci's tireless efforts on HIV/AIDS, both domestically and worldwide, through the creation of PEPFAR--the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--is the main reason why this horrible disease is no longer a death sentence. In recognition of his achievement, Dr. Fauci was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008, our Nation's highest civilian honor, by then-President George W. Bush.

Dr. Fauci is an example of American excellence, a brilliant scientific mind, and yet the Republican Party has chosen to make this doctor who has saved countless lives a political target.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subpoenaed Dr. Fauci, in front of the Congress, for a hearing with the express goal of humiliating and vilifying him. For nearly 3 hours, my Republican colleagues berated, cursed, and insulted a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the health of American families.

This behavior is below the dignity of the Senate. Put simply, it was an embarrassment.

If my colleagues had genuine concern for America's public health, they would turn their attention instead to the destruction wrought by this administration's anti-science agenda.

Listen to this rollcall. Measle cases are at a 35-year high in the United States of America. Whooping cough has resurged. Our response to the hantavirus and cyclospora outbreaks has been abysmal. And hundreds of thousands of people have died due to the administration's vaccine skepticism and public health cuts.

If my Republican colleagues want to hold hearings, perhaps they should hold one on the impact of President Trump's cuts to NIH research funding, which has slowed research into heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's; or they can investigate how the FDA has lost 20 percent of its staff under this administration, deeply damaging food safety efforts. If they were truly concerned for America's health, they would hold hearings on the fact that ACA premiums are doubling for many families across the United States because of the Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill.

These are the real health crises of the day--all entirely of this administration's own making. But my Republican Senate colleagues have chosen to ignore real life-and-death issues to relitigate COVID conspiracy theories--not in an effort to find out what might have gone wrong or how to prepare for the next pandemic, instead, to try and tear down a man who has devoted his entire life to lifting others up.

Dr. Fauci deserves an apology for the way he was treated by my colleagues, and the American people deserve better than the pitiful display we saw in the Senate last Wednesday.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have been in the House and the Senate for quite a while. I have written a lot of bills and amendments. I have read even more.

I am absolutely confounded by the language of this proposal, S. 3101, by my friend and colleague from Florida. There are so many issues bouncing around in this proposal of a serious nature that we would be foolish to do this by voice vote here immediately in the Senate. This deserves a real hearing, a real investigation, because it involves a lot of elements that affect many people personally, many families personally. We are talking about reproductive rights. We are talking about personal freedom.

I don't have a medical license. Some of my colleagues like to practice medicine on the floor of the Senate. I tend to listen to the experts on the subject. But I want to put this in perspective, if I can, for a moment.

At issue here is the issue of surrogacy. How do I explain that in a few words as a layman? It is basically a person who says: This may not be a fertilized fetus that I have been responsible for creating, but I am willing to allow my body to have this fetus during the gestational period until its birth.

That is the surrogacy involved in it.

Let's put this into perspective for a moment, if we can. How many live births are there in the United States each year? There are 3.6 million.

First, let's go in vitro fertilization because that is part of this conversation too. How many in vitro fertilization births are there out of the 3.6 million births in this country? There were 100,000--2.6 percent--in 2023 that were in vitro fertilization

Surrogacy. How many gestational surrogacy births in the United States are there each year? I would ask the Senator from Florida. He may know, but I will tell him. It is somewhere between 5- and 6,000. It is a fraction of a percentage.

Now, involved in this debate is the belief by some that we should allow no surrogacy. I am not one of those people.

Let me tell you a story of a family I know. Husband--father and mother decided they wanted to have a family. They went to great lengths through IVF so that she could become pregnant. It was a tragedy to them personally when they lost the baby late in the pregnancy. She was crushed.

Her sister, who is a medical doctor, said: It appears you have some problems with delivering a child. Let me suggest to you that if you go through IVF, I will be the surrogate mother and carry the baby for you and your husband.

They agreed. She went forward with it. And wouldn't you know, shortly afterward, the IVF worked for the original mother, and she became pregnant as well. So sisters were pregnant by the same father and mother in this situation. It was an act of kindness and courage on the part of her sister to help them out. If you saw them in the park today with their little boy and little girl, you wouldn't pick them out of a crowd, but through IVF and through surrogacy, they have a family that they dreamed of.

I think that is the right thing to do--legally and morally the right thing to do. Surrogacy has its place. It is an exceptional procedure. When there are 5- or 6,000 a year in America, it is certainly not one that really can be argued is part of any large conspiracy.

But there are actually--we have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee--there are actually Republicans who believe--listen to this; it sounds preposterous--they believe there is some kind of effort in a nation like China to have babies born in the United States and then bring them back to China and prepare them to come back to the United States someday to undermine our government or something. We have had hearings on that. When you ask them ``How can you prove what you just said?'' they have no evidence. But it is a conspiracy theory, and it is part of the calculation behind this amendment.

This bill is purportedly about protecting our national security from foreign adversaries and protecting children from exploitation and trafficking. If you want to introduce a bill to deal with trafficking or exploitation of children or others, count me in, but this bill goes so much further.

The Senator from Florida pointed out at one point a horrifying story of more than 20 children birthed by surrogate mothers. In one case, they were found abused and neglected in a home outside of Los Angeles.

I am not in favor of those abuses. I join him in stopping human trafficking. But this bill would not stop child abuse or trafficking. It would not prevent espionage by foreign adversaries. This bill will do nothing to prevent the situation that I just described in Los Angeles.

Instead of targeting bad actors, this bill would restrict who can access or enter into surrogacy contracts based solely on the nationality of the parties involved. This bill is not only grounded in an objection to birthright citizenship but in some sort of a weird, unusual, national security theory that goes behind this.

For the record, the Supreme Court has decided on birthright citizenship. And for the record, the 14th Amendment is as clear as can be: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court did not take long to agree with that, and I think that is part of the objection that is behind this amendment--the objection to that Supreme Court decision.

Instead of targeting bad actors, this bill would restrict who can access or enter into surrogacy contracts based solely on the nationality of the parties involved.

This bill voids all surrogacy agreements between a surrogate parent who is inside the United States at the time of the birth or who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and a prospective parent who is a national or resident of certain countries.

The bill criminalizes assisting with making or executing such a surrogacy agreement in any way.

The bill's plan would impact all surrogacy agreements with nationals from Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. It does not allow for consideration of how long these parties have been in the United States or the nature of the surrogacy agreement. For example, it would prevent an Iranian asylum seeker and her spouse from starting a family.

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision holding birthright citizenship as the law of the land, this bill reads like the latest MAGA conspiracy attempt to achieve what they were unable to achieve in the Supreme Court--ending birthright citizenship.

State lawmakers from Florida and Texas are using similar legislation to chip away at access to reproductive rights. There was a controversy, and you may remember it, as to whether or not in vitro fertilization is consistent with MAGA principles. They ultimately announced that it was, that IVF was fine, but that just shows you that they have run into a number of cases already where the principles do not bear out the reality of life in America.

Some are pushing to ban surrogacy altogether. The case I gave you is a good illustration in my mind of why we shouldn't do that.

They argue that the surrogacy agreement amounts to slavery and violated the 13th Amendment, a preposterous argument. Voiding and criminalizing surrogacy agreements with nationals from certain countries looks like the first step in a broader troubling plan to restrict surrogacy.

Countless couples, families, and individuals facing fertility challenges rely on access to surrogacy and other reproductive services to have children.

Most people seeking surrogacy in the United States are Americans. Some are foreign nationals who reside in the United States; others are foreigners who are turning to surrogacy in the United States because of limited access in their home countries.

I support thoughtful efforts to ensure that access to surrogacy in the United States is not exploited by those seeking to abuse our laws. This bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and am ranking member.

I would be happy to work with the Senator from Florida on the complex issues that he raises with the amendment. We won't agree on everything,

but we certainly would agree when we talk about exploitation and human trafficking.

This bill does nothing to address those two issues, which are a major concern for me as well as the sponsor.

I hope we can work together to come up with something meaningful in the weeks ahead, and for that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we start with this little document called the U.S. Constitution. Every one of us has sworn to uphold and defend this document. And we go to article I, the first article in the Constitution, section 8, and it spells out with clarity who declares war under this Constitution: The Congress of the United States.

We are now engaged in a war in Iran. Did the Congress declare war on Iran? No.

Did the President even ask Congress to declare war on Iran? No.

Well, were there public hearings in Congress about this decision to invade Iran, to attack Iran? No.

Did this President of the United States go to the allies of the United States, like the NATO allies, to discuss the invasion of Iran? No.

This President decided that we would go to war on his own--strictly on his own--without regard for what the Constitution requires.

Now, I am glad to concede that there have been many Presidents that have gone to war under similar circumstances, but almost without exception they at least took the case to the American people directly or through Congress. This President did not.

So where are we today? Mr. President, $88 billion--that is how much has been spent so far in Iran. We are in the fifth month of the first year of a never-ending war that this President promised over and over again at his rallies would never, ever, ever happen under his watch.

Now we have the Senator from Alaska coming to the floor raising questions about why we aren't moving on certain items. It is because there has been no involvement in the decision process that led up to this.

Do you know what the increase is in defense spending for next year: 40 percent of the Department of Defense budget--40 percent. Why? We have an $88 billion war going on in Iran. There are those of us who have serious doubts that that is the right thing to do.

We look at the Strait of Hormuz. Before we invaded Iran, they were open for the transport of energy, oil, and fertilizers. Now, they are virtually closed because of President Trump's decision to invade Iran.

Does it have any impact on you personally? Filled your gas tank lately? Do you know what is going on there? The cost of gasoline is going through the roof because of the invasion of Iran and the decision to move forward.

So you can tell from my comments here that I have serious doubts that we are doing the right thing in Iran. I am not going to be a defender of Iran. I have called for sanctions on that country over and over again for their misconduct. But to sit here and argue that we are somehow shirking our constitutional and congressional responsibility by not funding this war is to ignore the obvious.

This was the President's decision to go forward with this war. My advice to him over many years that I have served in Congress: It is easier to start a war than it is to end it. And we are learning that right now.

The Strait of Hormuz are still at risk, and other parts of the world are at risk because of that decision. It is not the right decision.

Remembering Lindsey Graham

Mr. President, let me also say a word about Lindsey Graham. Lindsey was my friend. On some issues, my ally. He did things for me which I thought were politically risky but to help, for example, to pass the Dream Act. It was Lindsey Graham who was the sole Republican who would cosponsor my bipartisan Dream Act each year.

I respect him so much for doing it. It was a political risk for him to do it. But either for me personally--God bless him--or for the thousands of young people who were facing deportation, he stuck his neck out for me. That is why I went to the service yesterday in respect for this man. I do respect him.

We didn't agree on everything. Particularly when it came to issues of war, there were serious differences. But there are many things that united us.

The gentleman from Alaska raises the question of: What would Lindsey do? I'm sure we can come up with our own interpretation.

Government Funding

Now, here is the bottom line moving forward: We have got to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to fund this government after September 30 when this particular budget ends and a new budget starts. I want to do that. Senator Murray wants to do it. I think Senator Collins would like to do it. But now we have to do it together on a bipartisan basis. We come to an agreement on the top line about how to reach a budget and then we start setting out on appropriations bills.

I have been fortunate enough to serve in the Appropriations Committee in the House and the Senate. I have seen some extraordinary bipartisan good work. We can have it again, but we have got to sit down and, in good faith, start working toward a conclusion.

A conclusion that gives 40 percent increase to the Department of Defense and zero increase to the rest of the government is a mistake. It is a serious mistake. We have important things that need to be done to help families that are struggling with the cost of living.

And so to the Senator from Alaska: I just disagree with you on the premise. We can and should work on a bipartisan basis, and it needs to start with next year's budget.

Temporary Protected Status Designation

Mr. President, last month the Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to end a program called temporary protected status designation without any judicial review.

The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has supercharged President Trump's mass deportation campaign, with devastating consequences for temporary protected status holders and the American communities who rely on them.

Temporary protected status under American law was intended to prevent the deportation of immigrants to countries where it is not safe to return. By law, a TPS designation can only be made or extended in increments of 6, 12, or 18 months. It is truly temporary in nature.

Ahead of every TPS expiration, the Secretary of State must reassess the conditions in the countries and decide whether to renew the designation or let it end.

To take one example, there is no question that Haiti is unsafe. Our Department of State has issued a Level 4 travel advisory telling Americans it is unsafe to travel to Haiti due to the risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, and civil unrest. That is the official statement of the Department of State of the Trump administration.

So why has the Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti and many other countries where it is not safe to return? Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed that TPS for countries like Haiti must end simply because it is the nature of the program--that it is temporary.

Here is the thing: Since 1990, 36 years ago, when TPS was established, there have been 30--30--TPS designations. Even before the Trump administration, at least 10 of them--countries like Angola, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone had their designations made and then officially terminated. They were temporary.

In some cases, like Haiti, conditions have never been safe enough to justify a termination.

Haitian TPS holders have bought homes in the United States, started American families, and become part of our communities.

Members on both sides of the aisle oppose deporting these Haitian immigrants. In fact, our former Senate colleague and my friend Republican Mike DeWine, now the Republican Governor of Ohio, called the Trump administration's decision to terminate Haiti's TPS ``a mistake'' and a ``job killer'' that is ``not in the best interest of the United States nor Ohio.''

Let me say parenthetically: Mike DeWine is my friend. We are opposite political parties. We served together in the Senate. It was Mike who encouraged me to join him and his wife when they visited Haiti, and I saw it for the first time. It opened my eyes to the poverty and danger of that island country.

The Trump-Mullin administration has ignored the comments of Governor DeWine and others. Instead, ICE is preparing to target Haitian immigrants for arrest and deportation as early as this week. Immigrants who have been lawfully present in the United States for years now risk being deported.

This is all so that Trump and his trusted adviser Stephen Miller can meet their 2,000-arrests-a-day quota. They are not looking for the worst of the worst with these Haitians. They are not looking for terrorists, murderers, sexual predators, human traffickers. It is just whether they are Haitian or not Haitian.

It is time for Congress to give these long-term residents the security that they deserve. That is why I am calling for the passage of the SECURE Act, legislation that will provide certainty for these individuals and their communities by giving them the ability to apply for legal permanent residency.

Later today, my friend and colleague Senator Van Hollen of Maryland will ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill. I join him and appeal to my colleagues: In the name of humanity, for God's sake, don't send these people back to an island which we have already declared is too dangerous for any American to visit. Let them stay safe with their children and families here in the United States until things have improved in Haiti. If they are a threat in any way to any person in America, they need to leave; but if they are leading good lives, doing the best they can for them and their families, give them a chance. It is not too much to ask, and to deport them into this dangerous situation is not consistent with the basic values of America.

Confirmation of Walter Clayton

Mr. President, on a separate subject, yesterday the Senate voted to confirm Jay Clayton to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

He replaces Acting DNI Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist who purged career intelligence employees and who launched investigations into the President's political enemies as Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Similarly, anyone hoping Clayton will show loyalty to the Constitution over the President who appointed him is sorely mistaken.

Much like his predecessor, Jay Clayton has peddled the Big Lie and worked to do the President's bidding, using the levers of government to target Trump's perceived enemies.

Don't believe me? I will show you.

Earlier this month, in a clear threat to freedom of the press, the Trump administration issued subpoenas targeting several journalists for the New York Times who reported on security concerns related to the President's brand-new, Qatari-donated Air Force One. Who issued the subpoenas? None other than Jay Clayton in his capacity as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. After sharp questioning by a Federal judge, prosecutors withdrew the demands.

And 2 weeks ago, while appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his nomination, Clayton refused--time and time again--to say who won the 2020 Presidential election.

We have seen this play out in the Judiciary Committee as the President's nominees for the Federal bench bend over backwards to avoid stating a simple fact: that Joe Biden won in 2020. And Donald Trump lost.

Why? Because these people are loyal to the President above all. And that has been his guiding light when picking nominees for appointments.

Most importantly, Clayton lacks the basic qualifications necessary for the job of overseeing and coordinating our Nation's 18 intelligence agencies. By law, the Director of National Intelligence is required to have ``extensive national security expertise.'' Not only does he lack extensive national security expertise, he lacks any.

The Trump administration has already spent the past 18 months politicizing and denigrating our intelligence community. In fact, both of Clayton's predecessors, Pulte and former DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who took the unprecedented step of meddling in a domestic law enforcement action on election interference, laid bare just how important it is to separate politics from the work of the IC.

I voted no on Jay Clayton's nomination to be DNI. Despite this, I hope Mr. Clayton will show fidelity to the rule of law and be an independent voice to safeguard our IC.

His track record does not inspire confidence, but time will tell.

Todd Blanche

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a key vote on Todd Blanche's nomination to be Attorney General.

The Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice--our Nation's premier law enforcement agency--as well as the FBI, DEA, and many other essential Agencies. The position demands that the Attorney General be someone committed to the rule of law and the Constitution more than any one person or political party. This principle is exactly why Todd Blanche is the wrong person for this role.

In his 16 months at DOJ, Blanche has shown that he is more concerned with serving Donald Trump than the American people. Pardoning January 6 rioters and cop-beaters wasn't enough for President Trump, so 2 months ago, Blanche colluded with President Trump's private lawyers to create a nearly $2 billion slush fund to benefit the January 6 mob that attacked the Capitol. When I met with Blanche earlier this month, he told me he recognized this decision for what it was: a ``mistake.''

But when I asked him under oath, Blanche insisted that he never made this statement, displaying either a short memory or a dangerous willingness to lie for President Trump. When pressed during his hearing, Blanche even refused to directly condemn those who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6 and would not commit to permanently ending this slush fund.

Blanche has done more than just support the President's allies; he has also used his position to directly enrich the President himself. Earlier this year, Blanche personally signed a document to provide President Trump, his family, and his businesses with immunity for any past Federal tax law violations.

And last year, he dismantled DOJ's crypto enforcement team and shut down ongoing investigations of the crypto industry, an industry that has made President Trump more than $1 billion since returning to the White House. Blanche himself held crypto assets worth more than $150,000 at the time--and when he finally did divest himself of these assets, he did so by transferring them to his adult children and grandchild.

It is hard to believe how Blanche could possibly be an honest broker as Attorney General, especially when he refuses to even admit that the Department of Justice should decide who to prosecute without political interference from the President.

During his nomination hearing, one of my Republican colleagues asked Blanche if he and President Trump are friends. Blanche responded, ``I'm his

lawyer.'' That Freudian slip sums up why he has been nominated. The Attorney General should be the people's lawyer. The Department of Justice should work on behalf of the people. But President Trump still views Blanche as his personal lawyer, a role he held up until he was confirmed to be Deputy Attorney General. And it is clear that Blanche still views himself as the President's lawyer.

Todd Blanche's DOJ has become one where the President and his allies are protected while ordinary Americans suffer and his perceived enemies are baselessly prosecuted. The position of Attorney General is too important to be held by someone unwilling to say no to the President, which is exactly why I will be voting no on his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.