Floor Statements

Mr. President, for several years now, I have urged the release of an unclassified report by independent cybersecurity experts that is titled ``U.S. Telecommunications Insecurity 2022.''

Congress and the American people deserve to be able to read this report. And I may be the only Senator who has read this report. This report contains shocking details--let me repeat that--shocking details about national security threats to our country's phone system that require immediate action.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency permitted my staff to read the report at their office, and this was done in 2023. However, they have marked this unclassified report ``For Official Use Only'' and have refused to provide copies of the report to Congress or to make it public in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

So I asked then-Director Easterly to release the report. When she didn't act on my request, I wrote to President Biden--that was in February of 2024--urging him to address the serious national security threat posed by foreign governments exploiting U.S. phone carriers' weak cybersecurity. The Biden administration took no action.

CISA's top telecommunications security expert was so concerned, he actually filed a whistleblower report with the Federal Communications Commission. He cited his access to nonpublic reports and other ``very concerning information,'' and told the Federal Communications Commission that ``there have been numerous incidents of successful, unauthorized attempts to access the network user location data of communications service providers operating in the USA.''

He added that foreign surveillance went beyond location tracking and included ``the monitoring of voice and text messages'' and ``the delivery of spyware to targeted devices.''

CISA's multiyear coverup of the phone companies' negligent cybersecurity enabled foreign hackers to perpetrate one of the most serious cases of espionage--ever--against our wonderful country. Had this report been made public when it was first written in 2022, Congress would have had ample time to demand mandatory cybersecurity standards for phone companies in time to prevent the Salt Typhoon hacks.

CISA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have confirmed that the Chinese Government hacked multiple phone companies and accessed vast troves of sensitive call records. They even co-opted the system designed for law enforcement to conduct wiretaps and accessed phone calls of politicians and other high-value targets.

Vice President Vance said his communications and President Trump's were compromised in this hack. The press reported that then-Leader Schumer was also targeted. This espionage incident was the direct result--the direct result--of phone carriers' failure to follow cybersecurity best practices, such as installing security updates and using multifactor authentication.

I know the Presiding Officer is very interested in this technology area as well. This is Cybersecurity 101--101--and yet Federal Agencies failed to hold these companies accountable.

As far as I am aware, and I touched on this, I may be the only one in the Senate to have read this report. But the contents of the report directly impact Congress, both regarding the security of the Senate's communications and issues that have been the subject of prior Congressional oversight. When Chinese Government hackers broke into the major phone networks last year, their targets included several Senators.

The report also directly discusses issues that have been the subject of oversight by Senators. In 2021, I wrote to the Federal Communications Commission, with several of our colleagues, raising concerns about foreign companies remotely administering rural U.S. telecommunications carriers.

Our group said:

We are also concerned by media reports suggesting that

managed service providers may be partnering with for-profit

surveillance companies, creating the possibility that these

companies could provide their authoritarian clients with

trusted access to U.S. telecommunications networks.

I am going to close with this. None of these security vulnerabilities have been addressed--that is the bottom line--either by government or the private sector. The Federal Government still does not even require U.S. phone companies to meet minimum cybersecurity standards. So, in my judgment, we are sitting here now recognizing that it is too late to prevent the Salt Typhoon hack, but there sure is an urgency to prevent the next horrendous incident.

So that is why, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a true example of what we at home call the Oregon Way. At a recent open-to-all townhall meeting--I have held more than 1,100 of them--and this one was in Union County, and I was pleased to run into my friend Tim Cook. He is the president of Clackamas Community College, over 250 miles away on the other side of our State from my hometown in Portland.

I was glad to see him, and still my curiosity got the better of me. I had to ask why he was so far from home. Here is Tim's story.

He has been in the process of running to every one of Oregon's 17 community colleges to raise awareness for community college students about how challenging it is for them to meet the basic needs that they have to address as students.

Tim kicked off his ``Running for Oregon Community College Students'' campaign at Treasure Valley Community College in Ontario on the Idaho border. He plans to run 32 miles each day to reach each community college in our State.

He is on track to complete this 1,500 mile--let me repeat that--1,500 mile journey by August 11.

Tim told me he was inspired by so many students that have shared their stories with him about the hardships--particularly the financial hardships--they have endured while attending school.

That includes William Morehead, a Portland Community College student who said he has had virtually no family support, and he had no help as a young adult yearning for an education.

So there he was with zero support, and William decided he could make a better life for himself through training and education. He signed up for welding classes and attended regularly. He did that while living in his car.

Despite these roadblocks, he persevered and graduated with an associate's degree in welding and had a 3.9 GPA. He was nominated to serve as the student commencement speaker at graduation.

Now William is learning AI ethics, and he said recently:

In welding you use metal and fire, and in computing you do

the same thing but in a digital realm. I want to apply this

degree to evaluating Artificial Intelligence systems that

interface with the public and make sure it does it in a way

that's beneficial and not harmful.

The story I tell about William isn't unique. Many young, promising Americans are not living up to their best potential and not for a lack of trying, but there has really been a lack of support.

When adults lecture young people to ``pull yourself up by your bootstraps,'' they often miss the point that some students were never even provided with the boots. They didn't have the boots to yank themselves up.

Getting any degree is expensive enough, but it is even further out of reach for so many young people when you factor in everything a student needs to succeed beyond tuition--things like transportation, housing, food, books, access to technology, and an array of other necessities.

Many talented and promising students can't fulfill their potential and suffer in a system that lacks the potential to see that and see it and get them the opportunity for them to get ahead.

And now, with deep cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid under the Republicans' disastrous recent budget bill, coupled with high housing costs and rising prices from the Trump tariffs, the safety nets for students who fly solo are being slashed.

Donald Trump and DOGE are even trying to take a sledgehammer to funding for key programs like JobCorps, which help young people get the resources they need to secure a degree and a good-paying job.

So President Tim Cook is running not for office, but he is running for his students. He is pounding the pavement in the summer heat to highlight that when students' basic needs are met, they can focus on their education and create a brighter future for themselves, their families, and their communities.

That is why I am here on the floor today. I want to be part of sending Tim a powerful message that Congress agrees with him and must not leave students behind. The world's next Einstein--and I say this to all my colleagues--may be in your town, scraping together a way to earn an education and make a positive impact on the community and the world.

Let's help light the beacon of opportunity for those students. For America to be great, we have got to make sure that everybody in our country gets a fair shot. So I will close by saying I am gratified by the passion and insight that Tim Cook and other Oregonians are bringing to this cause.

They understand the importance of investing in our kids because that draws a map to a brighter future for all of us. It may not be possible for everybody to run 32 miles a day for nearly 2 months, but as Senators, we can certainly make a difference.

This country needs more commonsense policies that put students first and prepare us all for a brighter tomorrow. That is what Tim Cook is bringing us.

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support these educators and others for helping students.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members from my personal office and the Senate Finance Committee teams be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Sara Korniewicz, Sabina Lee, William Wyden, Gabriel Ritter, and Jackson McFadyen-Ray.

Mr. President, Donald Trump has made some farfetched statements over the last few months, but a stunner in the last few days was his claim that the Jeffrey Epstein matter was a ``hoax'' and a ``scam.''

Here is why the President is wrong. The figure at the center of this story was an ultra-rich, well-connected sex trafficker. He was a serial rapist of women and young girls. And for some reason, the Trump administration that claimed they would be the most transparent administration ever turned on a dime.

The President had run on a campaign with a promise to expose the Epstein files. Now, he and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, say, nope, nothing to investigate when it comes to Epstein and sex trafficking. All these claims are just ludicrous.

I want the American people to know that is wrong. If you want to know why, just look at the latest report from our investigators that was discussed in the New York Times this morning. Somewhere in the Treasury Department, locked away in a cabinet drawer, is a big Epstein file that is full of actionable information--``follow the money''--details about his financing and operations that await investigation.

Last year, the Biden administration allowed our investigators to look at portions of the file. We did that at the Treasury Building. Here is what it says. Treasury's Epstein file details 4,725 wire transfers. Let me repeat that--4,725 wire transfers--adding up to nearly $1.1 billion flowing in and out of just one of Mr. Epstein's bank accounts. If you ask me, that is more than 4,000 potential lines of investigation right there. Hundreds of millions more flowed through other accounts. That is even a lot more to investigate.

The file shows that Mr. Epstein used multiple Russian banks, which are now under sanctions, to process payments related to sex trafficking. A lot of the women and girls he targeted came from Russia, Belarus, Turkiye, and elsewhere.

One shudders to think about the kinds of people who must have been involved in trafficking these women and young girls out of those countries and into the Epstein web of abuse.

Again, these are all potential leads the Department of Justice ought to be digging into. This is about years and years of international sex trafficking.

None of this is a hoax. None of it is a scam. I would like to say, I consider it insulting to the intelligence of the American people for the Trump administration to simply say there is nothing to investigate here.

When the Trump administration came in with a lot of fanfare about transparency and openness, I said I am going to follow up on that. So I wrote to the Attorney General, Ms. Bondi; Treasury Secretary Bessent; FBI Director Patel, and I asked them all to produce the Epstein file to the Senate Finance Committee so it could be reviewed. In fact, I made that request multiple times. The Trump commitment to transparency based on the response didn't mean a whole lot because they just refused.

Here is what one Treasury official wrote back to me:

The Department of Treasury has previously made documents

available relating to the matter in response to your

inquiries. Accordingly, we understand that you have the

information you seek from the Treasury related to this

request. We thank you for your attention to this important

issue.

For anybody who is familiar with how these discussions go in Washington, DC, what I just read was code for the bureaucrats saying: You are asking for information. Go pound sand.

The Trump administration may be trying to close the books on the Epstein sex trafficking, but I want it understood, as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, where we spend a lot of time looking at where substantial sums of money are going, particularly if they may be promoting wrongdoing and helping to evade taxes, we are going to stay on this fight to hold the wealthy individuals accountable for the harm that they, clearly, were involved in, injuring the young women and others in this sex trafficking.

I am going to have more follow-up for Attorney General Bondi very quickly. As for today, if she doesn't want to do the investigating, doesn't want the DOJ to do it, let me just reinstate my original demand: Have that Treasury information given to the Senate Finance Committee and have us, on a bipartisan basis, do our work. That is what we do in important investigations.

If the Trump people believe they need additional authority to carry out the requests that I make, again, this afternoon, let me offer to help them write the bill myself. The idea that there is nothing more to investigate--not when you have 4,000 wire transfers, many of them associated with the possibility of wrongdoing and sex trafficking promoting--the idea that you have that and there is nothing to investigate when it comes to the Epstein sex trafficking operation is ridiculous.

Pam Bondi was the attorney general in the State of Florida where a lot of the Epstein crimes were committed. The Attorney General ought to know better, of all people.

I can't begin to understand the President's handling of this or why he thinks this is just going to go away. But I am here to say that our investigators have spent 3 full years looking into this. And the reason why is because we feel so strongly about the horror of sex trafficking and our commitment to root it out.

The President of the Senate is new to this body, but I am sure he has dealt with these issues before. You can't have a much bigger horror in front of you than sex trafficking abuse. So we are talking about real evil--real evil--done to women and girls by Jeffrey Epstein. And, Mr. President, nobody gets to sweep that under the rug.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I want everybody to understand what is going on here on the floor of the Senate.

Last week, the Republicans passed a gigantic bill that was full of massive cuts to healthcare and food assistance as well as huge tax handouts to big corporations and the ultrawealthy. It also included a lot of smaller scale policies that didn't get a lot of notice. In a lot of cases, they were just half-baked, poorly written, and now I see Republican Senators walking all over the Capitol, saying they didn't even know anything about this policy and this process.

The Republican bill is full of special carve-outs for some groups and new taxes on others. The fact is, when you rush a process like this in this way and cram in all of these policies that you haven't really thought about, you risk some consequences for people back home, and that is what is going on here in this attempt by our colleague to pass this special tax carve-out for one institution--just one--in his home State.

The Finance Committee's Democratic staff already litigated this issue in bipartisan meetings with the Parliamentarian. We knocked this proposal out of the Republican bill specifically--specifically--for one reason: It is a special carve-out, and it is plain and simple that that is what is going on.

My own view is, if my Republican colleagues want to exempt their home State colleges and universities from the endowment tax, they shouldn't have passed this deeply flawed bill in the first place. So I strongly support our colleague from Nevada's efforts. I oppose the amendment proposed by our Finance Committee colleague Senator Young.

I close by way of saying: It is just not right to give a special home State tax carve-out a free ride on an entirely separate proposal. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank Senator Durbin for his work on this and on so many issues exactly like this. What Senator Durbin's career has always been about is making sure that communities are stronger, more inclusive, and give everybody a shot at getting ahead, and I just want to thank him for doing this and all the times over the years that we have had a chance to work together.

Now, as Senator Durbin has indicated, a few days ago, Republicans rammed their budget bill through the Senate. In the coming weeks, they will force a vote on yet another dangerous piece of legislation. Any day now, the Senate is going to vote on a bill that will let Republicans revoke previously approved Federal funding for key services and key programs that our people rely on--all so they can follow through on Donald Trump's illegal and disastrous funding freeze he tried to implement earlier.

Under their bill, Republicans want to gut over 70 percent--7-0--70 percent of funding for public broadcasting. Now, when you hear the words ``public broadcasting,'' a lot of people, of course, think about the beloved characters Elmo and Big Bird, who are wonderful. I remember that with our kids. At the same time, public broadcasting is a lot more than that.

Over the last several years, local newspapers and radio broadcasters have been sidelined in many parts of the country. They just don't have the funds to keep their doors open. Many are getting bought up by private equity funds and corporate and media conglomerates that sanitize and repackage local reporting to fit their own media narrative.

Oftentimes, these new owners close the doors of local papers altogether. This is especially true, as Senator Durbin eloquently mentioned, and a challenge in rural areas. There, broadband access is often unreliable and often too expensive to get out far into these communities.

Meanwhile, news is increasingly driven by the interests of big cities sitting behind pay walls or requiring high-speed broadband to access it.

Now, this issue is a personal one for me. I am a journalist's kid. I grew up with a front-row seat seeing the importance of protecting reporters and the vital work they do. That work is central to our democracy.

My home State hasn't been immune to the changes in the media landscape. More and more, Oregonians turn to public TV and radio programs like Oregon Public Broadcasting for news and information. In some of my State's most rural areas, like, say, Halfway in Eastern Oregon, Oregon Public Broadcasting is the only broadcast station residents can access.

These programs are literally a lifeline for Oregonians during a time when local journalism is dying off.

Not only do these programs provide news that is trustworthy, they also serve as linchpins in State and local emergency alert programs. Oregon Public Broadcasting is a State primary station for our State's emergency alert system. The broadcasters work closely with Oregon's Office of Emergency Management and other first responders to monitor and alert residents about

statewide, regional, or national emergencies.

In 2024 alone, Oregon Public Broadcasting helped notify Oregonians about child abductions, severe storms, and flash floods. Unfortunately, just this past weekend, we saw the devastating impact of underfunded emergency alert systems with the deadly flash flooding in Texas.

As more details emerge, there is one area that seems to me to be clear: More could and should have been done to bolster the local emergency alert system to help avoid and limit the horrendous tragedies that we have watched nightly for the last few days.

As extreme, deadly weather events like this become more and more common, local, State, and Federal governments need to be investing in, not shrinking, systems like public TV and radio.

These programs play such an important role in emergency situations, helping to get the most up-to-date information to their viewers and listeners. Instead, Republicans are watching the catastrophic situation unfold in Texas and still plowing ahead with plans to essentially defund these local emergency alert systems anyway.

Cutting off this funding is going to be a death sentence for one of the most reliable sources of news and information that our people rely on.

And rural areas that aren't served by big corporate media companies are going to be hit the hardest. Defunding public broadcasting is going to take news even farther away from local communities. And I know the people of my State don't want to be dealt with by somebody from a town on the eastern seaboard in a high rise.

I am going to close with this: Everything Republicans have done since gaining their trifecta of power has been with the goal of helping corporations consolidate power and profits on the backs of everybody else. And, for me, this is a regular reality because I see it as the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes and trade and healthcare. This bill is no different from what we have seen over the last few weeks in terms of corporations consolidating power and benefiting from legislation.

If it passes, this bill is going to take a wrecking ball to the services that Americans across this country rely on. It is going to make communities less safe just so Republicans can brag about another partisan ideological trophy.

So that is what we are dealing with here. When Donald Trump says: We are going to do this, Republicans say: How high should we jump?

By passing this legislation, Republicans would send a message, once again, that they are willing and eager to give up their congressional power to the executive branch.

I so appreciate Senator Durbin bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate to open a lot of eyes on what is on the line because I know he--and we have talked about this before. We believe in a government that gives everybody a fair shot, gives everybody a chance to get ahead.

You have made that point today; that government is not just supposed to be about the mighty and the powerful and the people with money. And I thank you for this and all your wonderful service.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Rev. Dan Fowler and First Presbyterian Church of Ashland on 150 years of commitment to welcoming and accepting people through all walks of life into your community of faith. Ever since Rev. Moses Allen Williams organized the First Presbyterian Church of Ashland on August 18, 1875, this church in southern Oregon has remained dedicated to--in their own words-- ``honoring the teachings of Jesus and being a safe haven for all who walk through its doors.'' First Presbyterian Church celebrates its 150th anniversary as a diverse church family that includes families, professionals of all kinds, including artists, college students, and people struggling with homelessness, all of whom come together to walk with God and serve their community.

Since 1875, First Presbyterian Church of Ashland has been committed to serving the local and global community and has prided itself on being a welcoming and affirming place for all. Their specific forms of aid include overnight parking spots for those facing homelessness, a free pantry, emergency transportation and food aid, and free answers to medical questions. The church's continued service to our community represents the very best of Oregon's spirit of commitment, service, and dedication.

First Presbyterian Church of Ashland's impact extends far beyond just the people they have directly helped; it ripples outward to make Oregon a better place for all of us to call home. The church's willingness to remain engaged and active in service exemplifies the values that we, as Oregonians, hold dear.

It is an honor to represent First Presbyterian Church of Ashland in the U.S. Senate and congratulations again to the church on its 150th anniversary.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill:

1. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

prevent changes in policy that will lead to increased

electricity prices for American families and small

businesses, while protecting American energy jobs.

This motion to commit is supported by Senators Cantwell,

Bennet, Warren, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Booker,

Gallego, Heinrich, Hickenlooper, Rosen, Schatz, Schiff,

Schumer, and Shaheen.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a motion supported by all Finance Democrats to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to strike all the Medicaid cuts and ensure that big corporations and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

It is now clear that there is bipartisan opposition in the Senate to the Medicaid cuts in this bill. That is because it is the biggest Medicaid cut in history and represents the largest transfer of wealth in history.

It is caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, Mar-a-Lago over the middle class.

These Medicaid cuts are going to reach down into every corner of our Nation's healthcare system. We have heard from rural America: Rural hospitals will close their doors.

Seniors are going to lose care at home and be left with fewer nursing homes and fewer nurses. Kids with disabilities will lose healthcare. We saw them on the steps of the Capitol last night.

Never have I seen legislation--

--focused on denying healthcare to eligible Americans.

This amendment is an opportunity to take these awful Medicaid cuts off the table and find another way forward.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Blackburn amendment penalizes innocent people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage and they are waiting to cut through a thicket of redtape and get healthcare. This can go on for months and months and defies basic fairness and common sense.

The Parliamentarian has already ruled that the Federal Government, if it does this, it would be coercive and not acceptable under the reconciliation rule. This is a distraction from Republican attempts to decimate Medicaid benefits.

Point of Order

And I therefore raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Motion to Waive

Mr. President and colleagues, here is how flawed this plan is. The danger Senate Republicans are causing for rural hospitals is so great, Republicans have had to create a rural hospital relief fund so they can look like they are fixing the problem they are causing.

It is a bandaid on an amputation. It provides just a tiny fraction of the nearly $1 trillion in cuts the bill makes to Medicaid. It would be much more logical to simply not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the first place.

This amendment doubles down on that flawed plan that is going to set rural hospitals adrift.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending measure violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President and colleagues, Republicans started out planning to repeal the tax credits that Finance Democrats wrote for wind and solar energy. Then it got a whole lot worse.

The Republican plan actually taxes clean energy. Taxes raise energy bills. The Republican plan will raise your energy bills. If this passes, it is a death sentence for the wind and solar industries and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. It is a surrender to China on clean energy manufacturing.

Leader Schumer and my colleagues on our side all support this effort. If you are for all-of-the-above energy, something I have heard my Republican colleagues say, you will support my motion to commit the bill back to the Finance Committee to strike the cuts to clean energy.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am going to speak very briefly, and then I think my colleagues would like a voice vote.

I rise in opposition to the Lee amendment. The Lee amendment repeals important technology-neutral electricity credits. Tech-neutral allows all energy sources to compete on a level playing field.

Wind and solar are an essential part of American energy. These sources keep prices from skyrocketing as demand soars and keep the AC on during historic heat waves. U.S. manufacturing in wind and solar rely on the deployment of these technologies.

Reversing course on 21st-century energy sources wipes out American jobs.

I urge a ``no'' vote when we vote on a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 2745

Mr. President, I am happy to have a voice vote. Let me just speak briefly on this.

This amendment is a backdoor way to undermine unemployment insurance. The fact is, Republicans have turned down numerous opportunities to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. That is not what this amendment is about.

This is about turning a social insurance program that everyone pays into, a program built on earned benefits, into something Republicans can cut until it disappears. If it happens to unemployment insurance, it can happen to other parts of the safety net.

I oppose the amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending measure violates section 313(b)(1)(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because it reduces revenues over the budget window.

And I am happy to have a--I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I withdraw my--

I am happy as well. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. President, why would anybody vote against this? Duh. We can accept--

We can accept a voice vote on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what the Republican majority is doing right now on the Senate floor is hiding trillions of dollars in handouts to corporations and the wealthy--trillions of dollars. If you measure this bill the way we measure every other reconciliation bill, it simply doesn't comply with the rules. The Republican majority has figured out a trick that allows them to sidestep the Parliamentarian, violate the Congressional Budget Act, and lift the filibuster for Trump's entire legislative agenda in one fell swoop. It is fakery. The budget numbers are a fraud, but the deficits will be very real. The prospect of a catastrophic death spiral is very real. The hardship this terrible bill is going to inflict on tens of millions of Americans will be very real.

So my parliamentary inquiry will proceed now: Does the score of the finance title of the Senate substitute, which the chairman asserts complies with its instruction, rely on the use of two distinct baselines: current policy for taxes and current law for health provisions like Medicaid?

Mr. President, I want to pick up on the point that my colleague from Washington State touched on.

Everybody ought to understand that this is the nuclear option. It is just hidden behind a whole lot of Washington, DC, lingo. The only difference is, instead of pressing a big nuclear button right at the beginning of the Congress, Republicans decided that they would hide behind the cloak of Senate procedure and go nuclear for every individual bill they want to pass on party lines.

I just say to my colleagues: There is going to be a lot of horrendous messes to clean up after this legislation.

But my colleagues need to understand that the move, as my colleague from Washington State has said, cuts both ways.

I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to thank my colleague, in particular for putting a human face on what this is all about for us on this side of the aisle--that small child, the senior you were talking about. I am going to pick up on what you said, and I thank you for your leadership.

I am going to get into the specifics of this horrifying bill, in a moment--all the details, the healthcare carnage, and the clean energy bloodbath that Republicans are dragging America toward. First, though, I want to spend just a few minutes on the state of the Senate and our democracy.

As of a few hours ago, the rules of the Senate are whatever Republicans feel like when the day begins. It is democracy-defying, plain and simple.

The bill before the Senate is loaded--loaded--with fraudulent budget math that hides trillions of dollars in handouts to corporations and the ultrawealthy. It is a violation of the rules that used to be followed for years for the reconciliation process. It is a violation of the Congressional Budget Act. It is a violation of common sense. Republicans decided that none of that matters. So they have kind of gone nuclear to advance the bill.

Apparently, in this Chamber, if the Republican chair of the Budget Committee says so, one plus one equals three. That is unsustainable. We are going to be a sicker, poorer, and weaker country if this bill becomes law, and the Republicans have used this process, going nuclear, to pass it.

But these moves cut both ways, and there will be a lot of cleanup for Democrats to handle down the road.

Now, in my time in public service, I have never seen a more destructive, regressive, commonsense-defying bill debated in the Senate. This bill is going to determine the future of healthcare in America. Millions of Americans will lose their health insurance if Republicans pass the bill.

My colleagues seem to be ignoring, for example, the fact that rural hospitals are the anchor of life in much of America. This bill will sever that anchor and set rural healthcare adrift.

Here is how flawed the Republican plan is. The danger they are causing for rural hospitals is so great that Republicans have had to create a rural hospital relief fund. It is a bandaid on an amputation.

I can tell you, one thing I know for sure is that only in Washington, DC, would you create a relief fund to address a problem that you caused. How about you just not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the first place?

Now, I wanted to get a sense of what rural America thought of this legislation. So last weekend, I held four townhalls in three Eastern Oregon counties. It is as rural as it gets. Donald Trump carried these counties overwhelmingly. One of them was Malheur County, where Donald Trump received more than 70 percent of the vote. This is where I held an open-to-all townhall meeting. It happens to have one of the highest Medicaid enrollments in the country. The message I heard was very clear and very loud: This bill will be a disaster for Malheur County on rural health.

Now, healthcare is a top employer in America. If these cuts go through, the healthcare workforce in rural areas of our Nation is going to be decimated. Nurses, doctors, and support staff will lose their jobs, and rural economies are going to suffer.

Many of the Americans that will feel the consequences of this legislation, today, walk an economic tightrope. Many have multiple jobs.

Millions more Americans will lose their benefits, like home care and mental health, and services that already fall far short of what our people expect. These are overwhelmingly kids, people with disabilities, seniors--all to pay for more tax cuts for multinational corporations and the ultrawealthy.

It is not just the cuts. It is also a whole lot more redtape, making it harder for people to get care.

At the center of the Republican Medicaid changes is a bunch of redtape thickets designed to entrap people into a never-ending maze of AI chatbots and phone trees that make it impossible for them to get the coverage they need.

And even if you manage to get through all that bureaucratic water torture and sign up for Medicaid, the Republican plan says: If you lose your job, you lose your healthcare.

Why would the Congress want to inflict that on more people?

Nobody I could find wants these cuts, no matter their political persuasion, and I was in places that were bright red.

I am sure most of us can agree there is a real debate to be had on how we can make healthcare more affordable and accessible, but this bill achieves none of that.

Let me mention seniors. My colleagues have touched on the elderly. Two in three nursing home beds in America are covered by Medicaid. If Republicans pass this into law, conditions will deteriorate. Seniors will be forced out of their nursing homes or forced to move in with a family that doesn't have the necessary skills to care for their aging parents or grandparents. Nursing homes would be forced to shut their doors as a result of these cuts, during a time when States are in desperate need of more nursing home options, not fewer.

The bill also repeals nursing home safety standards. That is going to mean fewer nurses in nursing homes. You would think that would be a concern of Republicans in the Trump administration.

But when the Finance Committee was considering the nomination of CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, he said:

I believe we can provide quality of care equivalent to

having a nurse in that nursing home using tools and

technologies.

Dr. Oz was apparently talking about AI, and I said: You are for cutting nurses. What is going to happen when an 85-year-old woman has to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night and needs some help?

He had no answers. But he is still being a big booster on artificial intelligence.

I am deeply troubled about what the Trump administration has in store for America's seniors. That is on top of the fact that the home-based care that most seniors prefer will be one of the first benefits States are forced to cut because it is optional now rather than mandatory.

Hundreds of thousands of seniors are going to see a premium increase of about $200 a month.

The bill also applies the worst forms of corporate redtape to the Affordable Care Act: shorter enrollment periods, more verification forms, more hoops, more bureaucracy, more redtape for Americans who just want affordable healthcare.

And the healthcare carnage may get worse with the Republican amendments coming up. It is my understanding that they are going to offer an amendment that would lower the Federal Medicaid match for new enrollees in what is known as the Medicaid expansion. That was a key part of the Affordable Care Act, which delivered affordable healthcare to roughly 21 million Americans last year.

If this amendment is adopted, taken together with the other awful policies in the bill, it would amount to repealing the Affordable Care Act and making good on the 15-year Republican crusade to dismantle that law.

Millions more working Americans are going to lose their health insurance, and it would break a promise to the 41 States that have expanded Medicaid, many of them red States.

These healthcare cuts aren't just going to be felt by Americans with Medicaid. Those who buy health insurance on their own are going to be similarly hit. Emergency room wait times are going to skyrocket, and premiums will spike.

Families will be one lost job or financial calamity away from being tossed onto a safety net that has rips and tears everywhere you look. So many are going to fall between the cracks.

I also wanted to touch on another horrendous provision on healthcare buried in the bill: the defunding of the Planned Parenthood program. And they are doing it in a way that is essentially a backdoor, nationwide abortion ban.

This provision is going to strip clinics of their funding and make it impossible for them to provide lifesaving healthcare, cancer screening, and annual exams. All of that will disappear for the people who rely on these clinics for basic care.

The healthcare cuts are getting a big focus with myself and colleagues because of the challenge for so many communities, but there is something else that is absolutely imperative; that is, the clean energy bloodbath, and it certainly deserves attention.

In the middle of the night Friday into Saturday, the bill that was already a disaster for clean energy got much, much, much worse. What Republicans have on offer doesn't just repeal the tax credits I wrote for wind and solar energy in the Finance Committee; now we have an actual massacre on our hands.

This Republican plan actually taxes wind and solar--a new tax on the cheapest and easiest ways to get new energy to the grid. At the same time, somebody tucked into the bill a brand new tax break for coal. So here we are, 2025, and the Senate is about to pass a bill that taxes wind and solar while subsidizing coal. It is so backward, it leaves you slack-jawed.

When you look at this bill, it is awfully clear that the Republican goal is to destroy key sources of clean energy in America. It is a death sentence for the wind and solar industries in our country, a total abandonment of hundreds of thousands of workers who are about to lose their jobs as a direct result of the bill.

The head of the North America's Building Trades Unions that represents millions of construction workers issued a stunning statement on the bill yesterday. I will read a few select lines from the statement. He said it is ``the biggest job-killing bill in the history of the country,'' is how he described the Republican plan; ``staggering and unfathomable job loss;'' a threat to ``an estimated 1.75 million construction [workers].'' This union leader said it was ``the equivalent of terminating 1,000 Keystone XL pipelines'' and that it was ``another lifeline and competitive advantage to China in the race for global energy dominance.'' He also said that ``critical infrastructure projects [will be] `sacrificed at the altar of ideology.'' Those are all direct quotes.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy investments, under the Republican plan, will simply disappear--not government subsidies or handouts; these are private sector investments we will not have. Even worse, this is a guaranteed way to hike utility bills for families and businesses of all sizes in every nook and cranny of America.

I have never seen this kind of economic self-sabotage. The demand for energy booms right now. Even the heads of companies involved in fossil fuels are saying to me and other Members of Congress: We need solar quickly to get more electrons to the grid. But Republicans don't want to listen, because this plan risks plunging us into an energy crisis. It would be a disaster and a total surrender to China on clean energy manufacturing.

It is clear as a sunny day that all the talk from Donald Trump and Republicans about American energy dominance was just a fraud, nothing but a hollow campaign slogan.

I will close with this: There is no question in my mind that the American people went to the polls in 2024 to vote for cheaper groceries, cheaper utilities, and cheaper gas. They didn't vote to kick 16 million people off their healthcare so Republicans can give more tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. They didn't vote for an energy crisis that benefits nobody except Big Oil investors.

There is a real cost-of-living crisis facing American families right now, and this Senate ought to be focused on finding ways to lower drug prices, for example, expand access to quality and affordable healthcare, and bring down the cost of living. Instead, Republicans are using every ounce of their power to jam through another round of tax breaks for those at the very top, and they are doing it on the backs of everybody else.

There are serious challenges ahead, and there is going to be a serious mess to clean up, but until then, countless Americans will needlessly suffer and die as a direct result of losing their healthcare under this legislation.

I don't believe the American people are going to forget, and this side of the aisle will make certain that this topic is something that is dealt with again and again until the American people finally get a fair shake.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill:

1. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that (1)

would strike any provision that cuts funding for Medicaid;

and (2) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy

pay a fair share in taxes.

This motion to commit is supported by Senators Cantwell,

Bennet, Warner, Whitehouse, Hassan, Cortez Masto, Warren,

Sanders, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Alsobrooks, Baldwin,

Blumenthal, Blunt Rochester, Booker, Gallego, Gillibrand,

Hickenlooper, Hirono, Kaine, Kelly, Kim, Markey, Murray,

Padilla, Peters, Reed, Rosen, Schumer, and Van Hollen.

It is also supported by Accountable.US, AFL-CIO, American

Association of People with Disabilities, American Federation

of State, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, County and

Municipal Employees, Catholic Health Association of the

United States, Families USA, First Focus Campaign for

Children, Justice in Aging, Leading Age, Medicare Rights

Center, National Association of Community Health Centers,

National Council on Independent Living, National Health Law

Program, National Women's Action Fund, Planned Parenthood

Federation of America, and UnidosUS.

2. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) increase annual funding for the Child Care Entitlement to

States established in section 418 of the Social Security Act

to at least $20,000,000,000 per year; (2) provide an

additional $5,000,000,000 to such Child Care Entitlement to

States annually to provide new grants to improve child care

workforce, supply, quality, and access in areas of particular

need, including rural communities; and (3)

eliminate provisions that would cut taxes for millionaires

and billionaires.

This motion to commit is supported by Senators Warren,

Smith, and Booker.

3. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that forces families to sell their

home to qualify for long-term care in Medicaid; and (2) would

ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair

share in taxes.

4. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that makes it harder for States to

expand Medicaid to cover uninsured residents; and (2) would

ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair

share in taxes.

5. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that creates a sick tax by charging

Medicaid enrollees living on low incomes new copayments; and

(2) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a

fair share in taxes.

6. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that locks kids out of the

Children's Health Insurance Program; and (2) would ensure big

corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

7. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that imposes waiting periods for

health care on kids enrolled in the Children's Health

Insurance Program; and (2) would ensure big corporations and

the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

8. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that imposes lifetime limits on

health care for kids enrolled in the Children's Health

Insurance Program; and (2) would ensure big corporations and

the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

9. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that will take nurses out of nursing

homes; and (2) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-

wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

10. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that defunds Planned Parenthood; and

(2) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a

fair share in taxes.

11. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that cuts Medicaid payments and

restricts access to abortion; and (2) would ensure big

corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

12. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that bans States from covering

gender-affirming care in Medicaid for all enrollees; and (2)

would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a

fair share in taxes.

13. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) would strike any provision that cuts Medicaid payments

rural hospitals need to stay open; and (2) would ensure big

corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

14. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that cuts Medicaid payments, forcing

States to cut K-12 education and public safety; and (2) would

ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair

share in taxes.

15. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that cuts Medicaid payments, forcing

States to cut home care seniors and kids with disabilities

need to live at home; and (2) would ensure big corporations

and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

16. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike section 71101; and (2) would ensure big

corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

17. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that strips Medicare coverage from

victims of human trafficking, refugees, and asylum seekers;

and (2) would ensure big corporations and the ultra-wealthy

pay a fair share in taxes.

18. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would

(1) strike any provision that strips Medicare coverage from

current enrollees; and (2) would ensure big corporations and

the ultra-wealthy pay a fair share in taxes.

Mr. President, international trade is critical to the resilience and functioning of global supply chains, with goods and services--including industrial inputs and manufacturing equipment being imported and exported along the way. The trade policies and trade actions of the U.S. Government impact the structure, operation, efficiency, and security of U.S. supply chains, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) plays a key role in developing and coordinating the implementation of those trade policies and actions. USTR can provide valuable input to the Supply Chain Resilience Working Group, and the committees with jurisdiction over trade--the Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and Means--can likewise provide valuable oversight. I look forward to working with my colleagues who sponsor this bill to bring those trade interests into the fold. In addition, I look forward to working to clarify the definition of ``ally or key international partner nation'' to ensure that this bill will focus on supporting more secure and resilient supply chains in the United States and reliable partner nations, while limiting our critical supply chains' exposure to foreign countries that may not be aligned with the economic or security interests of the United States. I thank my colleague Senator Cantwell for her work on this bill and her willingness to work with me on these issues.

Mr. President, child sexual abuse materials are a toxic plague on the internet. Congress should act as soon as possible to give law enforcement officials the resources they need to find and prosecute criminals responsible for exploiting children and spreading vile abuse materials online. In addition, Congress should act as soon as possible to provide robust resources that help prevent children from becoming victims in the first place.

However, instead of focusing on stopping online predators, S. 1829, the STOP CSAM Act, weakens the single strongest technology protecting children and families online: strong encryption. The bill explicitly allows courts to punish companies that offer strong encryption. It will make it easier to punish sites that use encryption to secure private conversations and personal devices. It will also encourage scanning of content on users' phones or computers, before information is sent over the internet, which has the same consequences as breaking encryption.

Weakening encryption is probably the best gift you could give to the predators and creeps who want to stalk and spy on children. Sexual predators will have a far easier time stealing and extorting photographs of children, tracking their phones, and spying on their private messages once encryption is breached. Doing so threatens the privacy and security of every single law-abiding American.

Last Congress, I made progress with the bill's sponsors to address some of these concerns. Indeed, I compromised on a version of this bill and had agreed to remove my hold to let that version pass by unanimous consent. It is unfortunate that the sponsors have chosen to abandon those efforts and instead advance a dangerous bill that makes internet users unsafe. However, I remain open to revisiting those conversations.

For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to take up or pass the STOP CSAM Act of 2025.

Mr. President, I want to make sure that the country and this institution knows that the leadership of our new colleague from the State of Delaware is making a difference already. She has been doing yeoman's work on this for quite some time.

In fact, in the other body, as it is called, the House of Representatives, she stood for the values that have been expressed here today and we so appreciate her leadership and I thank her, personally, for including me.

We are on the floor to mark an anniversary of what was essentially the end of women having power over healthcare decisions. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, many of my Democratic colleagues and I warned that it would be deadly for women. We were labeled liars and gaslighters and fearmongers. And, unfortunately, for the women of America, you don't have to take our word for it. Since the Dobbs ruling was handed down 3 years ago, 22 States have passed restrictive, near- or total abortion bans, and countless women have died as a direct result of those laws.

In Georgia, Amber Nicole Thurman died after she developed an infection during pregnancy and was denied lifesaving reproductive care under her State's new abortion law.

In Texas, Porsha Ngumezi, a mom of two, was expecting her third child when she suddenly developed complications and began miscarrying. She died after going to the ER where she was denied the care she needed, and she was left to bleed out all because her doctors were too scared to perform the necessary medical care under Texas's abortion law.

Josseli Barnica of Texas was pregnant, hoping to give her daughter another sibling, when she developed complications with her pregnancy. She rushed to the hospital where doctors left her to suffer for 40 hours without giving her the healthcare she needed. That was because it was illegal under Texas law. She died 3 days later after developing a preventable infection because she had been denied care.

Despite Federal law that requires providers to give women reproductive care in emergency medical situations, these States are letting women die anyway. Every single one of these deaths was preventable if Republican lawmakers hadn't put abortion bans in place that threaten doctors and hospitals with jail time and other legal actions if they provide necessary reproductive care.

Many of the women hurt by these abortion bans are already mothers or women hoping to start a family, but because they are being denied necessary care, those that don't die are often being left with complications that take away their ability to have kids in the future.

In Tennessee, Breanna Cecil had to travel out of State, all the way to Chicago, to get an abortion after a complication with her pregnancy. But before returning to Tennessee, she developed a recurring infection that resulted in invasive surgery that left her infertile. Breanna says that her State's strict abortion law ``took away her fertility.''

So I am going to end very briefly by fast forwarding to 2025. Republicans don't seem to have learned any lessons. They don't seem phased by the pain and suffering their laws are causing

women and mothers across the land. Instead, they are doubling down on their efforts to restrict access to reproductive care for even more women; this time, through a backdoor abortion ban in the reconciliation budget bill. This legislation contains a provision that would strip funding from Planned Parenthood clinics that perform abortion services.

Mr. President, Planned Parenthood does not receive a single dime--not a dime--of Federal funding for abortion care. These clinics do receive funding to provide essential care, like STD and cancer screenings and annual exams--often, for women of color or women living in low-income communities to have access to this care.

All of this will be ripped away under the Republicans' ``Big Bad Budget Bill,'' alongside the 16 million people they plan on kicking off their health insurance with their Medicaid and affordable care cuts.

Before Roe was overturned, I warned repeatedly that the loss of privacy--the loss of the right to make your most private decisions free of government intrusion--would have a domino effect. Unfortunately, that has become the reality. The overturn of Roe has not stopped an abortion.

Since the Dobbs ruling, Republican lawmakers and conservative judges have also taken aim at the use of IVF and contraception. A headline out of Ohio, less than 1 week ago, reads:

Republican lawmakers in Ohio to propose total abortion and

IVF ban.

The endgame for Republicans here is a politician in every single exam room and bedroom in America; a politician between you and your doctor, between you and your spouse.

The overturn of Roe has stripped women in America of the right to make their own healthcare decisions. It has stripped women of control over their own bodies and has stripped women of their basic constitutional rights.

Mr. President, ever since I chaired the first-ever congressional hearing on access to abortion medication, back in 1990, I felt that this was a fundamental right that women were entitled to. I am just as committed today to battling against these draconian laws as long as it takes to secure women the ability to make their own healthcare decisions.

I see a number of my colleagues on the floor who have been eloquent speakers for women's healthcare. I want to close by thanking my colleague from Delaware, again, for championing all of us to be here at this time to make sure that we made a difference and spoke out. We very much appreciate your leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Rodney Scott to lead the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. In my view, this is yet another appalling nomination from the Trump administration.

As a senior Federal official, agents in Mr. Scott's direct chain of command tried to cover up their culpability in the beating death of a man in their custody with his help. His record, in my view, is disqualifying for someone seeking one of the most important law enforcement posts in the Nation.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has extraordinary discretion to conduct searches of Americans' belongings and phones and to interrogate American citizens at border crossings and to seize illicit goods. The Agency has more than 60,000 employees. Leading this Agency requires someone whose judgment and character are unquestioned. Mr. Scott does not meet that bar.

In 2010, Mr. Scott led the San Diego sector of the Border Patrol, a position that included oversight of a unit that tampered with evidence after agents beat and tased Mr. Anastasio Hern ndez-Rojas while in their custody. He died of those injuries soon after.

This unit taped over recordings of the incident and served an illegal subpoena on the hospital for the man's medical records and then refused to share them with local law enforcement. This is according to allegations filed with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States and by police investigators.

The actions were so egregious that the Human Rights Commission concluded a few weeks ago that the U.S. Government violated Mr. Rojas's family's right of access to justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Critical Incident Team's and DHS Inspector General's reports about the incident, first obtained by the Project on Government Oversight, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Mr. Scott admitted before the Finance Committee that he signed the illegal subpoena and expressed no remorse for his actions. He appears so unfazed by these allegations of brazen lawlessness that it seems inevitable he will sanction similar abuses of power if he is confirmed to lead Customs and Border Protection.

Since Donald Trump took office, on far too many occasions, CBP has shown contempt for the constitutional rights of Americans. For example, in Texas, a 10-year-old U.S. citizen was left in Mexico with her family after being stopped by CBP on her way to a doctor's appointment for brain cancer treatment.

In Washington, CBP detained a family of six, including a pregnant mother who was still breastfeeding her baby, a U.S. citizen. CBP held them in a windowless cell for 24 days. They had no access to due process or ability to contest their detention.

In Arizona, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen with intellectual disabilities, who has difficulty speaking, writing, and reading, was arrested by CBP and charged with illegal entry, despite being an American. CBP kept him detained for 10 days.

There are countless gut-wrenching stories like this. Courts have already raised concerns about CBP's inability to uphold the Constitution.

I am of the view that America needs strong enforcement at the border to protect our people against criminals and drug traffickers, but that does not have to come at the expense of violating Americans' constitutional rights.

Our country does not need a border Agency that indiscriminately violates the rights of Americans or one that feels like it is above due process and above the law. That doesn't make our country safer. It only leads to corruption, more wrongful arrests, and more wrongful deaths.

Americans do not need to choose between security and our rights. We can have both, just as Ben Franklin said many years ago. I fear that confirming Mr. Scott would make our country less secure and less free. For that reason, I strongly oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.