[Pages S1322-S1333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY
MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``PROTECTION OF MARINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES''--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

China

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it has been a little over a month since
President Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United
States. One of his key promises on the campaign trail--and, really,
throughout his service in the White House--has been to confront the
threat of the Chinese Communist Party and to hold China accountable for
failing to play by the rules. The American people voted resoundingly
for that agenda this past November, delivering both the electoral vote
and the popular vote to President Trump, as well as Republican
majorities in both the House and the Senate. Now, the task at hand is
to actually begin to implement those promises to hold China to account.
Xi Jinping has made clear his plans to ``reincorporate'' Taiwan in
2027, just 2 years away. We don't know exactly what that entails, but
the threat is ominous.

[[Page S1323]]

Time is running short to make any potential conflict with China
undesirable from their standpoint--in other words, to reestablish
deterrence. But the good news is, we have a number of tools available
to us and a track record of success on confronting the threat of the
CCP during the Trump administration.
Back in 2018, I was proud to work with President Trump on modernizing
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, otherwise
known as CFIUS. This interagency committee reviews foreign direct
investment into the United States for potential national security
concerns.
The bill we ultimately passed and that was signed into law by
President Trump was called FIRRMA, the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act. In that law, we updated CFIUS to expand its scope
and process to ensure that we are more comprehensively reviewing any
investments that might allow influence by foreign entities for
nefarious purposes in the United States.
This bipartisan legislation was signed into law by President Trump as
part of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. FIRRMA was a
critical step toward derisking from China.
While this was a big win for Republicans and for President Trump, the
truth is we still have more work to do. The top of our to-do list now
is to address outbound investment flowing into China by American
investors.
At this very moment, American investors--some of these are
businesses; some of these are individuals. The investments they are
making are fueling China's military buildup and modernization by
funneling capital into potentially dual-use technology and military
capabilities that could eventually be used against the United States
and our allies.
According to the U.S.-China Economic Security and Review Commission's
2024 Report to Congress, U.S. investments in China's semiconductors,
quantum computing, and AI alone totaled about $2 billion in 2023.
In 2020, more than 90 percent of these investments were concentrated
in the semiconductor industry. And from 2015 to 2021, U.S. investors
made up 37 percent of China's global funding for artificial
intelligence.
Congress is acutely aware of the threat posed by China's rapid
capture of the autonomous vehicle market, advanced cellular
technologies, and semiconductor manufacturing. We have acted on these
issues before, and it is time to do so again.
I was proud to lead the CHIPS for America Act to help the United
States reestablish manufacturing for advanced semiconductors here in
America, where the percentage of advanced semiconductors that fuel
everything from our cell phones to the avionics in an F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter--only 12 percent of those were made here in the United States.
The rest of them were made in Asia, principally in Taiwan and South
Korea. But we are in the process of turning that around.
But there is another side to this coin. How can we expect to
outcompete or even catch up to Chinese companies if, unbeknownst to us,
American dollars are continuing to fuel their rise, economically and
militarily?
We are simply not being serious about confronting our greatest
strategic adversary if we continue to be blind to the investment of
billions of dollars in the very technologies that could be potentially
used to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
Now, we have an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to finish the job
we began with CFIUS reform just a few short years ago. We can do this
by passing legislation to address outbound investment into China. To
start with, we need greater transparency. We need some sort of
accountability so we know exactly what the facts are.
It is no secret to any of my colleagues that I have been working on
this issue for some time now. During the previous Congress, my
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act with provisions to
increase transparency around outbound investment passed by a vote of 91
to 6, demonstrating the high level of consensus in this Chamber on this
issue. But, unfortunately, this amendment was dropped from the National
Defense Authorization Act when it went to conference, and it didn't
make it into the final version that was sent to the President's desk
and ultimately signed into law.

Then, last year, we made progress along a bipartisan path and in a
bicameral manner, with Speaker Johnson and Congressman Michael McCaul,
who was then the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
working on the House's legislative provisions around outbound
investment. But, unfortunately, that didn't make it across the finish
line before the end of the year.
But there are reasons for optimism that this year will be the time we
get these provisions over the finish line. We have worked hard to work
with the House's version and to work with the Senate version that
passed overwhelmingly, previously, to make sure we marry those up and
we establish a bill that enjoys bipartisan, bicameral support.
I have been working with everyone, from the Speaker of the House to
the chairman of the Select Committee on the CCP, John Moolenaar, to
Congressman McCaul, as well as Tim Scott, chairman of the Banking
Committee here in the Senate. We have all made input into a piece of
legislation that will finally accomplish what we have been working on
for these last few years.
We know time is of the essence, and we are working hand in glove with
the Trump administration to ensure this legislation actually
accomplishes the goals that we set out for it.
I can't emphasize what a great opportunity this is and what a great
win it will be for all parties involved. Addressing U.S. outbound
investment in China will be a great opportunity for all of my
colleagues here in the House and the Senate to deliver a big win for
our country and for our national security.
It will be a home run for all Americans, who can feel safe that
American companies and investors are not helping China not only rebuild
its economy but also its military as well. And, of course, China
continues to be our greatest strategic adversary on the planet.
The only party that stands to lose from this legislation will be the
Chinese Communist Party, and it is high time that they be held
accountable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

S.J. Res. 11

Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to S.J.
Res. 11, which would repeal a policy that helps protect archeological
sites in the ocean when oil and gas development is planned in the area.
I want to be clear that this policy does not prevent any oil and gas
development. It simply requires that companies take a good look at the
ocean floor with sonar where they are planning to drill a well and see
what historic and prehistoric resources are there.
The Outer Continental Shelf, where these wells are typically drilled,
is home to one-of-a-kind cultural resources, from incredible historic
shipwrecks to old maritime infrastructure, even evidence of human
settlements on land that used to be on dry ground but is now on the sea
floor.
This policy is a small change, and it simply brings offshore oil and
gas up to the exact same standard that we already apply to offshore
wind projects. It is entirely reasonable to require energy developers
to identify archeological sites and other cultural resources on the
ocean floor, just as they do when they produce energy on land.
In fact, in my home State of New Mexico, energy companies routinely
work with Tribal representatives, State agencies, and other experts to
identify cultural resources in an area proposed for development and to
make a plan to limit the impact of development on those resources. It
is reasonable for us to expect the same of offshore energy developers.
This policy was supported by two federally recognized Tribes, the
Chickahominy and the Rappahannock. Passage of this resolution means not
only that this would be repealed but that any similar policy could
never be put back in place.
Our cultural resources are too valuable to let them go unprotected
just because they are on the ocean floor, and I would urge my
colleagues to oppose the resolution.

[[Page S1324]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Democratic whip.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 91

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the years, Federal funding for
medical and scientific research has helped split the atom, defeat
polio, create the internet, map the human genome, and so much more. No
nation has ever made such a significant investment in science and
medicine--none. And no nation's researchers have done more to approve
the quality of life, not only here but around the world.
But we are in a pivotal moment in history. All the progress we have
made--all the progress we hope to make--is in danger because of Donald
Trump and Elon Musk. That is right. These two men promised to bring
down the price of eggs and gasoline and make housing more affordable.
Well, none of that has happened. Instead, they are carrying out an
unprecedented and devastating campaign to cut research on cancer, ALS,
Alzheimer's, dementia, and infectious diseases.

Instead of making life better for Americans, they want to slash
research funding for the National Institutes of Health. If you have
never heard of this Agency, I hope you will Google it or take a look
and research to figure out who they are and what they do. It is the
premier medical research agency in the world.
If you or someone you love receives a dreaded diagnosis, you turn to
the doctor and ask: Is there a cure? A surgery? A medicine? I know I
have been there and asked those very questions.
There is a difference between the doctor saying, ``I'm sorry, there
is nothing we can do'' and ``I have got some good news; there has been
some research at NIH we should look into.''
You know all the miracle drugs you see on TV? You can't get away from
them, can you? And 99 percent of those drugs approved in the last 10
years were the product, in some way, of NIH research. NIH funding is
why people are beating cancer, why babies are being spared from
preventable diseases, why HIV is no longer a death sentence, why
progress is being made on dementia and other neurological diseases.
Since the start of this administration, we have seen the White House
unleash a lawless chaotic attack on everything from funding for farmers
to biomedical research. Planes are crashing, and they are cutting
aviation safety. Avian flu is on the rise and threatening to make that
leap to humans, and we are cutting public health experts. Elon Musk
dances across the stage with a chain saw; people laugh and cheer.
First, let me tell you this: There is nothing to cheer about when it
comes to medical research.
It was this bizarre memo from Office of Management and Budget that
illegally froze Federal grant funding. They even prohibited the
recipients of Federal grants and medical research from physically
meeting in the same place. Oh, you are going to hear arguments: We have
got to cut back on the waste and fraud and abuse. I am all for that.
But having researchers unable to even sit down and talk about the next
breakthrough, how can that possibly be good for our country?
These cuts that were announced by this administration were quickly
halted by a Federal judge in a Federal court. There was comment on the
floor earlier today that too many people are going to courts. Thank God
they went to courts to keep this policy from being implemented by this
administration.
But it seems, even though the court made a ruling, this
administration is still holding up funding in violation of the court's
order. As a result, NIH is delayed awarding approximately $1 billion in
grant funding, delaying research at institutions nationwide. Does the
delay hurt? Not unless you are the one sitting in that waiting room at
a doctor praying to God there is a breakthrough to save your child.
Listen to what is at stake for one of my constituents, Dr. Timothy
Koh, professor of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of
Illinois in Chicago. For 15 years, Dr. Koh has been researching why
people with diabetes develop wounds that do not heal, as well as
researching treatments to address these wounds.
While having steady Federal funding for his research through the
years, Dr. Koh was recently informed in the last few weeks that his NIH
grant application is on hold because of the Trump-Musk Federal funding
freeze. His current grant is scheduled to end on Friday of this week.
And if his grant is not renewed, he will have to lay off his lab staff
and will see major setbacks in the research he has been involved in.
Dr. Koh said:

It's going to potentially put an end to my research career
and we won't be able to develop these new therapies for
diabetic [patients].

Is diabetes research important? If it is someone in your family, it
is very important.
Make no mistake, under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to have
the power of the purse--that is what it reads. But over the decades,
bipartisan Members of Congress have worked in concert on a bipartisan
basis to do something about NIH funding. It was a little over 10 years
ago--Francis Collins, I consider to be an American hero and a saint. He
headed up the NIH. And I went out to see him, and I said: I can't
double your appropriation. I would do it if I could. What can I do to
help you?
He said: Give the NIH Agency 5 percent real growth every year, and I
will tell you this: Two things will happen. We will line up the
scoreboard with breakthroughs and cures for diseases in America; and,
secondly, my researchers will take heart because one of the things that
destroys their interest in pursuing a career is the uncertainty of
Federal funding.
Well, we went from $30 billion to $48 billion in 10 years because we
had a bipartisan team to do it. Patty Murray joined me on the
Democratic side. She has always been a champion of medical research;
and on the Republican side, Senator Blunt of Missouri was the leader.
He was the best. When he chaired a subcommittee on Appropriations that
funded this Agency, he was committed to the 5 percent. And then Lamar
Alexander of Tennessee--both of those gentlemen have retired. The four
of us put together an effort to raise the NIH funding from $30 billion
10 years ago to $48 billion--a dramatic, dramatic increase.
We did it because we all agreed this is not a partisan issue. It
should never be. We knew that NIH funding leads to new cures and
treatments for patients in need. It supports well-paying jobs
nationwide. And it cements our global leadership.
Illinois universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.2
billion in NIH funding a year, which supports 14,000 jobs in our State
and 3.5 billion in economic activity. But I will tell you, Mr.
President, virtually every State in the Nation can tell that story in
one form or another.
Each year, the State of Wyoming receives approximately $12 million in
NIH funding. Now, Wyoming is a small State, but they clearly have good
research facilities that merit NIH grants. This money supports 265 jobs
in Wyoming and $49 million dollars in economic activity. The top NIH
funded institution in Wyoming is the University of Wyoming.
With this NIH funding, researchers at the University of Wyoming have
recently conducted the following projects. See if any of these sound
close to home or close to your family:
No. 1, why Alzheimer's disease and dementia can worsen at specific
hours of the day.
No. 2, a project in Wyoming, links between menopause and
cardiovascular disease in women.
And developing a new noninvasive tool to help treat people suffering
from epilepsy, schizophrenia, anxiety, and autism.
They all sound like worthy projects to me.
Unfortunately, President Trump and Elon Musk aren't finished there.
They tried indiscriminately to slash how NIH pays for indirect costs.
Without funding, universities wouldn't be able to afford the technology
that allows them to conduct research. Cuts to indirect costs are,
simply, cuts to research, period.
The other day, we had a debate on the floor on this NIH. One of the
Republican Senators talked about the outrageous outlying indirect cost
in this country. Let's look at them. Let's review them.
But to stop all meetings of all medical researchers while we do this,
to stop the funding for all the grantees, to stop all of the medical
research because there might be 1 or 2 or 10

[[Page S1325]]

schools that ask for too much or hospitals--thankfully, the Illinois
Attorney General, along with 21 other States' leading attorneys
general, sued and secured a temporary reprieve for universities and
researchers.
Trump and Musk illegally froze Federal medical research funding. They
tried to illegally cut funding for medical research, and now they are
firing the medical researchers themselves.
Reports indicate that 1,200 NIH employees have been fired so far,
from experienced vaccine researchers to the next generation of
scientists to the Acting Director of the NIH's Alzheimer's and dementia
program.
Further, Trump and Musk have reportedly ended a popular trainee
program that brought 1,600 young scientists just out of college to the
NIH world-renowned campus in Maryland to get them started working in
labs and eventually running labs. They are our future when it comes to
medical research, and the Trump and Musk chain saw of chaos of budget
cuts has made them victims.
How does this make us a greater nation? How does this make us a
healthier nation? A better nation? It doesn't.
NIH research leads to new cures and treatments that extend, improve,
and save lives, which is why I am introducing this resolution today to
simply say to Senators of both sides of the aisle: Let's pledge our
support to make NIH an exception. Let us not let wanton cuts stop
something very valuable.
The resolution is straightforward. It says: The work of NIH should
not be subject to interruption, delay, or funding disruption in
violation of the law--in violation of the law. And it reaffirms that
the workforce at NIH is essential to sustaining medical progress.
Can we really debate that point? Do we think the best medical
research Agency in the world is being staffed by people who aren't the
best? This is not controversial. It shouldn't be. Americans get sick on
a bipartisan basis; shouldn't we support medical research on a
bipartisan basis?
For as long as I can stand and for as long as I can speak, I will
fight to protect NIH and medical research. I hope my Republican
colleagues wake up and join me before it is too late.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the consideration of S. Res. 93, submitted earlier today; further, that
the resolution be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Republican whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. The
American people voted to get spending under control.
Two in three Americans say that a major problem that we face today in
this country is government inefficiency. And I agree. Three in four
Americans support eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government
spending; and there is plenty of it.
We need to review how much money we spend. We need to see where it is
going. We need to see what is effective and what is not. This is common
sense. Families have to do it. States do it. Washington ought to do the
same thing.
Every family audits their own budgets, their own spending. Every CEO
audits their business operations.
President Trump and Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, and
it is something that the Federal Government has not done for a long
time.
Let me be clear. I am a doctor; I support so much of the good work
being done by the National Institutes of Health and through the
universities around the country. It is essential that America continues
to lead the world in medical innovation.
I am a strong supporter of continuing smart investment in our
National Institutes of Health. Americans deserve better care. Americans
deserve better prevention and, of course, better transparency.
So the total budget for the NIH is almost $48 billion. Hard-working
taxpayers deserve smart scrutiny and serious transparency over that
kind of money.
There is indisputable evidence that there is wasteful overspending of
administrative costs associated with medical research, and this is why
I am here saying this must stop. In 2024, Harvard University spent $135
million of government grant money on overhead costs. Clearly, we can do
better. They used hard-working taxpayer dollars to pay for heating
bills, electricity bills, for maintaining buildings. They used it to
cover payroll for people not involved in research. This is money that
should have been spent on advancing researching for cures.
Harvard's overhead costs related to the National Institutes of Health
research--69 percent of the money goes for overhead. That is taxpayer
money, Mr. President. That is one university, one year. Clearly, we can
do better--if you look at that all across the country.
Imagine all the new cures we could find if we just spent the money
efficiently. That is what is at stake today, and that is why I am here
on the floor of the Senate.
Democrats don't want to have a serious debate about wasteful
Washington spending. Instead they are wasting the Senate's time on
predictable distractions like this one. And, therefore, Mr. President,
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if standing in this Senate and asking
Republicans and Democrats to come together to preserve and build
medical research is a waste of time, what in the world are we doing
here?
If you were asked to take the Federal budget and put your priorities
in there, maybe No. 1 would be national defense. Well, I might make
that No. 1 as well; but I can tell you, No. 2 is medical research.
Because what happens when you reach a point where you cut off medical
research? These researchers leave the laboratories and say: Honey, I
don't know if I will have a job here next year. Let's start looking
someplace else.
That is not an unusual thing to occur. So the next generation of
researchers are being discouraged by the uncertainty of funding, and
this notion that we have to get spending under control--how much does
it cost to find a cure? What does it cost to have no cure? Let's get
down to the bottom line here. We are talking about how long people stay
in the hospital or whether they are alive at the end of the experience
or not.
Some of these medical treatments they have to turn to are extremely
expensive, unless you can find a cure at the front end of it. And you
don't find it by saying, Well, maybe next year we will spend some money
on medical research. That isn't the way it works. You want to have a
good doctor you can trust from year to year, not a new one every year
with a question mark.

The same thing is true with researchers. If you have the best
researchers, why in the world would you discourage them from their
continued work?
I listened to this comment about $48 billion. It is a lot of money,
for sure. That is taxpayers' money, and I take it very seriously. But
how much do you think it would cost if we didn't find these cures,
didn't find these drugs? What would it cost in human terms and the
experience of families who would give up hope because there is no place
to turn? That is the reality.
We all have friends--and I had one today--I won't get into the
details--who has just learned that he has pancreatic cancer. We don't
have a cure yet. If we could find one, do you know how that would
change the lives of so many people and their families? Is that worth
putting our research into, our tax dollars into, or is it, as the
Senator who objected to my resolution said, just wasting time here on
the floor?
Well, I am going to come back and waste time over and over again. I
am not giving up on this. I am not giving up on families who are
waiting for cures and research. I am not giving up on the researchers
who dedicate their lives to finding them.
Of course, if we have some overspending, whether it is at Harvard or
Illinois or even the University of Wyoming, let's clean it up. But is
it possible to clean that up without jeopardizing the basic mission of
the National Institutes of Health? I certainly hope so. To think that
we would have to close down the whole Agency because a handful of
schools are overcharging the Federal Government--and there is no

[[Page S1326]]

proof that they are--I think that is part of the reality.
This is an issue that is important to every single American whether
they know it or not. We can get spending under control and do it
thoughtfully but not at the expense of the best researchers in the
world and the expense of cures which would give families hope once and
for all.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Department of Government Efficency

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I would like to speak about DOGE.
The verdict is in: It has been a colossal failure. It has done
immense damage to many of our institutions and inflicted immense pain
on innocent people. Also, it is not going to be successful in its
stated goal of reducing spending and wasteful spending.
But before I go on, let me just say what all of us know. Every single
person in this U.S. Senate is all in when it comes to attacking waste,
fraud, and abuse. Every single one of us knows that we should kick the
tires on every program we have in the Federal Government and look to
see how we can make it be more efficient. And there may even be some
programs where we say: You know what, its purpose has been served; it
is time to move on.
So those of us who are being critical of DOGE are just looking at
what DOGE is doing but not at all quarrelling with the notion that
every one of us, Republican and Democrat and Independent, has a
responsibility to be the best stewards of taxpayer money that we can
be.
But here is my problem with DOGE: They are not looking in the right
places. There is so much rip-off that is going on. Let's just talk
about a couple of examples in our healthcare system. United Healthcare
is rigging the system on Medicare Advantage Programs. Our seniors--we
want them to have the healthcare they need. But they have set up these
billing systems where they have paid nurses and forced doctors
essentially to overanalyze and overprescribe and overstate what medical
conditions were. This was not to help the senior on a Medicare
Advantage Program; this was to pad their bottom line and make billions
of dollars.
Of course, I am referring to the series of articles that was in the
Wall Street Journal that documented the rip-offs and what I think were
corrupt practices by United Healthcare.
Where is DOGE? All that money is just wasted. It has gone into the
pockets of executives at United Healthcare. It has gone into
shareholder payouts and dividends, but it hasn't gone into improving
healthcare for seniors.
Another one: the pharmacy benefit managers. They are ripping us off
so badly. We had a bipartisan bill with enormous Republican support and
Democratic support to curb the rip-offs in the PBM industry. That was
in our final budget deal last year. It got derailed. Why? Elon Musk. He
was against it, and he gave the word that this has got to go down. The
thing blew up, and we don't have the PBM reform that both sides of the
aisle knew was necessary--something that was going to save hundreds of
billions of dollars for American taxpayers and allow us to reinvest in
healthcare and make things better.
So my first question with DOGE is, Why don't you look where the money
is, where the rip-offs are, instead of just sending out emails
overnight telling people they are fired whose performance has been
absolutely exemplary?
So that is the core question I have about DOGE. Why are you leaving
these practices that we know are really corrupt and a rip-off
untouched, unexamined, and allowing them to continue when it is
hammering taxpayers and citizens?
We have work to do on saving money, and we have places where it is
absolutely essential that we act. DOGE is blind to all of those, all of
those situations, and that is disgraceful, especially when you have
Elon Musk as the person who sabotaged our effort for PBM reform.
The second thing is, there is a basic question if you are going to go
about examining a program. You can ask hard questions. You can look
under the hood. How is it working? How is it not working? Where do we
have too many personnel? Where can we actually improve the practices
and the performance by some reforms?
DOGE is not doing that. It literally is not doing that. It has not
even taken a day, an hour, to come up with a plan on how to examine the
various programs they are engaging with. What they are doing is firing
people. People are waking up in the morning, and they are getting an
email that says: Due to your poor performance, you are gone.
Now, this is a situation that obviously is incredibly cruel. You are
working at the Department of Agriculture, you are working at the NIH,
you are working on a USAID program, and life is going on, and suddenly
you get this email out of the blue that clearly is a mass email but has
a very specific impact on you, your life, your livelihood, and your
hopes and dreams. That is just a savage, savage way to treat people who
have been working in our various governmental Agencies, and it has
enormous impact on our communities.
By the way, DOGE is picking on veterans. Literally thousands of
veterans have been fired. The VA has announced the dismissal of more
than 1,000 employees. That includes researchers working on cancer
treatments, opioid addictions, prosthetics, and burn pit exposure.
So the issue here was not ``How do we help them do that job better?
Where are there ways we can economize?'' The procedure is ``You are
gone; that is it.''
President Trump and Elon Musk fired around 350 employees at the
National Nuclear Security Administration. These are folks who safeguard
nuclear weapons. Now, it was so embarrassing that even Musk had to
acknowledge it was a mistake, and those people are now back on their
job.
But what it does I think very clearly is show how there is nothing
about a plan to execute a thoughtful way to save taxpayer money. It is
just shoot first and aim later. And 4,000 employees at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
By the way, this is incredibly important: These are all things that
affect red States and blue States. This has no political orientation on
one side or the other because the impacts of these are going to be felt
by the farmers in Indiana just as they are going to be felt by the
farmers in Vermont.
Another example that is really pretty cruel, and I just don't
understand this: We have farmers across the country that I have spoken
to--farmers in Vermont--who entered into contracts with the Federal
Government under the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. What
the deal was is the farmer agreed, say, to install solar panels or
create a buffer zone between cattle grazing in a streambed or change
the tillage practices to try to improve the soil.
I get it that President Trump and Mr. Musk are against the Inflation
Reduction Act, and they have a right to do everything they possibly can
to try to reverse that policy. So this is not about their right to use
Executive authority. But here is what I don't understand: How do you
stiff farmers who went out and borrowed money because they had a
contract, they agreed to do certain things around their farm, and then
they get an email saying: Just kidding. We, the Federal Government, are
not going to honor our contract.
I am thinking of one farm in my own town of Norwich, VT, where folks
did borrow the money and they did the work, and it was in anticipation
of the Federal Government keeping its part of the bargain and coming
through with the cash that it had agreed to, and they are told: No, we
are not doing it anymore.
I know that the Presiding Officer is like me when it comes to keeping
your word. You give your word; you keep your word. The folks you
represent, the folks I represent, that is what they do, that is what
they expect. But we have DOGE saying: Well, that doesn't apply to us
because we want to ``save money.'' That is just flat out disgraceful
and unacceptable.
FEMA. FEMA is absolutely essential to help folks respond to a
catastrophic event. We need reform in FEMA, and I

[[Page S1327]]

want to work with colleagues in order to do that. But when that
disaster comes--you know, a fire in Hawaii or California, floods in
Vermont or North Carolina, hurricanes down south, or drought--the
response from FEMA is essential because the local community doesn't
have the infrastructure in place to provide that immediate emergency
assistance that folks need for saving lives and keeping themselves
together during that immediate storm event.
We are hearing that DOGE and the President want to just abolish FEMA.
We have to be there for one another when it is our community that is
affected by a catastrophic event where our citizens, the folks we
represent, to whom we have a real duty--it is no fault of their own--
they are on the receiving end of Mother Nature. It has always been the
tradition in the Senate that we help one another on that. That is not a
partisan deal. DOGE is hammering us on that.
The people who get hurt--it is the everyday people whom we represent
that are working hard, who are struggling each month to pay their
bills. They are anxious about the safety of their kids, they are
anxious about inflation, they are anxious about meeting the challenges
of daily life, and they want to make a contribution to strengthening
their community as well as their family, and they are getting hammered.
I mentioned, too, that among them are the 6,000 veterans who have
been fired by DOGE across the Federal workforce. I mean, that just
astonishes me. How do we say to a veteran who showed up to serve us and
protect our country and to whom we claim we have great respect and
allegiance--how do we send them an email that says ``You are fired,''
with no explanation, no sitdown, no face-to-face, just contempt for the
value of what they contribute and how hard they are working? I do not
understand that. I just don't.
Even in a tough business environment where some of our employers have
to make tough decisions because they just know their business can't
handle the workforce they have and they may have to make, against their
desires, some reductions in force, our employers will sit down with
folks face to face: Here is what we can do. Let's work out a plan. We
know you need healthcare.
DOGE just dispenses with that when it has no plan. So the cruelty--
the cruelty of this is so abhorrent to me.
We as a society, really, despite whatever our differences are, have
to have some mutual respect, and is it so essential to people that they
have meaningful work. If we are going to make adjustments, we have to
have a plan to include them, where DOGE says: We don't have to do that.
This isn't just about Elon Musk being a multibillionaire. No matter
what happens, it is not really going to affect him. It is about Elon
Musk treating people with what I think is the utmost cruelty. You are
gone--you are gone--such disrespect for people who work hard at the VA,
work hard in the NIH, work hard in the Department of Agriculture, work
hard in the Department of the Treasury. So that element of this, we
should all be shocked at.
You know, I can give a few examples of people in Vermont, but I know
I am like every single Member of the U.S. Senate: We can give examples
of people in the States we represent.
Our Small Business Administration Office has been a real help to
Vermonters--very effective. One employee there got a performance review
that--this is shortly after the performance review:

In a very short period of time, you established yourself as
an invaluable asset.

That was the performance review. The next day, February 7, she was
fired because the email said:

Your performance has not been adequate to justify further
employment at the Agency.

So arbitrary, so unfair, so Elon Musk-like. We have a scientist at
the Department of Agriculture, Caitlin Morgan. She studies sustainable
agriculture and food systems at the ag services Food Systems Research
Center. She was fired despite glowing performance reviews.
So what we have with DOGE is an assertion that they are seeking to
cut waste, fraud, and abuse. Who is to argue? There is not a person
here that wants to vote in favor of waste, fraud, and abuse, but the
reality is they do have a plan. It is not to look at each Agency and
then make adjustments so that the Agency, at the end of the operation,
will be fit for purpose and better able to do its job.
They have a very simple plan: Kill the headcount, reduce the
headcount, fire people. That is it. That is the plan.
So we are going to be left with a decimated FEMA, a decimated
Department of Agriculture, a decimated National Institutes of Health,
and then who is going to put it back together? This brings me back to
the cruelty of a guy like Musk. He doesn't have to worry about that.
That is not his concern. Tesla is doing fine. SpaceX is doing fine. You
know, things are great for him.
But they won't be great--not just for the people whose jobs have been
savagely terminated, it will be bad for the cancer research that
scientists are doing. It will be bad for our Vermont farmers who now
find themselves deeply in debt because the Federal Government stiffed
them. It will be bad for our FEMA response to the next community in our
country that gets hit hard by a natural disaster.
So we have got to wake up here and be honest about what is going on
with DOGE. We do agree--we do agree, I believe, Republicans and
Democrats--that we have got to kick the tires on programs in
government, and it is everything from food programs to commodity
programs to the Defense Department. And we may have some fierce debates
about what the priorities are and what we think is important and what
we don't think is important, but that has got to be an on-the-level
debate.
What Musk has done is just said: Hey, leave it to me. Let me send out
a bunch of emails. Let me fire a lot of people in a lot of Agencies.
Let's move fast and break things, and it will come back together.
It doesn't work that way. You know, you destroy the foundation of
your house just like you destroy the foundation of a government program
like FEMA or the National Institutes of Health, it just doesn't come
back overnight because the organizations that we are trying to build,
institutions that are essential to the well-being of our own country,
those often take generations to create. It takes the commitment, the
service, the dedication, and hard work of Americans of all kinds in all
States.
This guy Musk is just destroying it all and cavalier about it and
contemptuous to the rest of America about what he is doing. We can pay
the price.
It is wrong what they are doing and how they are doing it. My view is
that we do, in fact, have an opportunity here because both sides are
quite willing to come to the table and ask these questions: How can we
do it better?
But you know, if we came to the table and we asked how can we do it
better, we would be looking at the long-term function: How do we have
FEMA work better; how do we have our NIH work better; how do we assess
grants better; how do we help our Small Business Administration be more
effective in helping our young entrepreneurs? We would be asking those
questions.
The other thing we would be doing--and I believe this because I have
such respect for all of my colleagues here--we care about how it
affects the people. We might have to make some tough decisions because
this program could be cut; this one might have to be expanded. But we
wouldn't just send off an email telling people to get lost. We wouldn't
just be sending off an email to a farmer who just went to the bank and
got a loan based on the credit of the United States of America
promising to contribute a grant.

We would be considering that. DOGE isn't. In my view, we should all
be outraged at the cruelty with which DOGE is operating. It is cruel to
the institutions that are important for each of our States, and it is
cruel to the people who have been doing this work in good faith for so
long.
We have got to speak up and acknowledge that DOGE is destructive. We
can embrace the effort to address waste, fraud, and abuse. We can
embrace the opportunity to streamline and save money, make things work
better, but we can never abandon our commitment to the people of this
country who work so hard. We can

[[Page S1328]]

never abandon, in a cavalier way, the veterans to whom we have an
immense debt of obligation.
Mr. President, DOGE is pretty dumb and pretty cruel and pretty
destructive the way that it has operated under Elon Musk.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Energy

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of President
Trump's energy dominance agenda and to oppose my colleagues who want to
keep America literally in the Dark Ages when it comes to producing
energy. This, the greatest energy-producing country, is being asked to
take a step back.
Our energy is cleaner. We produce it cleaner. We transport it
cleaner. And yet the Biden agenda had us deferring to other countries
that produce energy dirtier, transport it to countries that are paying
for it so the Russians, for example, can spend money to fight a war
that we are on the other side of.
These are matters that President Trump is addressing and has
committed to the American people, pursuant to his Executive order on
January 20 of this year--the first day he took office--to make it a
priority. As we all know, during President Trump's campaign, he chose
to make exporting energy dominance and energy independence a hallmark
of his campaign.
He did it because he knows about the connection between energy
independence and bringing down inflation. When you go to the grocery
store, we see products all over the shelves that have been brought
there by trucks--trucks that are paying a lot for gasoline and diesel
fuel.
You see frozen food refrigerators lining the aisles that are plugged
into electricity that comes from oil, gas, coal, wind, and solar. And
the more expensive it is, the more expensive the products are that we
buy in those stores.
The same is true in any retail store around this country. Over the
last 4 years, the Biden administration worked overtime to stick it to
the energy industry at every turn while my colleagues here cheered them
on and helped them. On day one, President Biden placed a moratorium on
public land energy development that never truly went away until January
20, 2025, when President Trump was sworn into office and signed an
Executive order.
Wyoming and the West have fallen victim to the previous
administration's regulatory regime designed specifically to kill the
industry. Then, once he kills it, he goes overseas and asks countries
like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to fill in the difference. These are
countries that cannot produce energy as cleanly as we can and do, and
yet he would rather get the energy from them to placate the radical
environmental community in this country--that very same community that
knows that we can do it cleaner here.

During the Biden administration, the BLM declined to offer up lands
for oil and gas leasing. And when they did, they ignored the spirit of
the law and offered the fewest acres possible.
In September 2023, the BLM collected a measly and insulting $27,000
from an oil and gas lease sale in Wyoming. Compare that to the
September 2021 lease sale that netted over $1.3 million.
The people of Wyoming are elated that President Trump, on day one,
committed to fixing the sins of the previous administration by
declaring a national energy emergency.
You know, I was in Seoul, South Korea, last spring. And one day, we
had clear air. The next day, it was so dirty that you couldn't see, Mr.
President, from where I am standing to where you are sitting. And I
said: What went wrong over 24 hours? And they told me the wind shifted
and was coming in from China. China's dirty air was blowing in because
China is producing dirty energy.
And yet we would rather defer to them when we know we can produce it
cleaner. In my State of Wyoming, the Dry Fork energy plant is the
cleanest coal-producing energy ever produced anywhere. In fact, it is
so clean that when they began emitting from that plant, they didn't
want to tell the U.S. EPA how clean they could do it for fear that the
EPA would apply that same standard to all of America's legacy coal
plants--none of which could afford to retrofit to the modern technology
of Gillette's coal-fired powerplant.
In Wyoming, we have abundant oil, gas, uranium, coal, and more. Under
the order, Wyoming's public lands can return to Congress the intended
goal of multiple use, which includes responsible resource extraction.
If you go back to FLPMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
which passed in the 1970s, it mandates multiple use of public lands--
not single use, not preservation or conservation alone, not oil and gas
alone, not recreation alone. It is all of these multiple uses.
Energy production is the backbone of my State and many other Western
States. We are proud to power the Nation and to support a President who
supports us.
With the rise of artificial intelligence and a thriving data center
industry, our Nation will need all the energy it can get. I was out in
California during October and went to AI companies--large, medium, and
small--and they all told me the same thing: that the bottleneck for
America in being the world leader in AI is energy.
We are going to need way more energy than we have needed in the past,
and in order to make artificial intelligence work for us and to be
dominant in this technology, we need more energy, not less. And we know
we can do it cleaner than other countries.
If my colleagues succeed in passing their resolution that is under
consideration, we are setting the stage for failure. We are setting up
our economy and future generations for failure. Voting to approve the
resolution is a vote for an unstable energy supply, higher energy
costs, and more.
I urge my colleagues to vote no against the resolution that is
brought by my colleague Senator Heinrich from New Mexico. I urge my
colleagues to stand with President Trump and to oppose this resolution.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Finland

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to describe an amazing journey that
I took this weekend that was a powerful journey connected to my
Virginia National Guard and also to issues that are very, very
prominent right now in the world.
We finished voting on the Senate floor a little bit before 5 a.m. on
Friday, on the reconciliation bill, and, a few hours later, I went to
Dulles Airport and flew to Finland, landed in Helsinki at about 1:30 on
Saturday, went back to the airport at 1:30 on Monday--spent 48 hours on
the ground with one of our newest NATO allies to work together with
them on a number of issues.
The reason for the visit over the weekend was to see my Virginia
National Guard. The Virginia Guard, as in most States, are active
participants in the State Partnership Program that was established back
in the 1990s, where a State's Guard unit connects with the military of
an allied country and engages in joint training exercises. Once Finland
decided to join NATO, Virginia--which already has a partner in the
State Partnership Program--reached out and said to Finland: We would
like to work together with you as well.
My Governor, Governor Youngkin, helped preside over the signing of
this partnership program in 2024, and the Virginia Guard--about 50
members of the Guard--were engaged in the first training exercises in
Finland.
As Governor of Virginia, I used to be the commander in chief of the
Virginia Guard. I have been very close to them, and I wanted to go see
my Virginians training in snowy birch forests in southern Finland this
weekend, and I was able to do that.
My Guard unit is training with the Karelia Brigade, which is one of
the three brigades of the Finnish Army. It has got a long history of
very heroic service. And on Sunday, it was a delight to drive 2\1/2\
hours outside of Helsinki and visit with my 50 Virginians and to hear
the Finnish Army brag about them: Your Guard are well-trained. They are
great marksman, even shooting Finnish rifles, which are

[[Page S1329]]

different than the rifles they use every day and doing it in
temperatures that are far colder than Virginians normally have to
experience on training exercises.
In addition to my time with the Virginia Guard. I spent time in
Finland with our own Embassy team; with representatives from EUCOM, the
European Command of the U.S. Army; with the President of Finland,
President Stubb, who is a pretty amazing guy, who attended Furman
University on a golf scholarship and manages to drop the word ``y'all''
into a lot of sentences in a pretty thick Finnish accent. I spent time
with the Foreign Minister and the Permanent Defense Secretary, and also
visited the Helsinki Shipyard, which is about to start working in
tandem with the United States and Canada to build icebreakers, which is
something we desperately need.
So it was a great trip--too short but really powerful--and I returned
last night having interacted with my Virginians and knowing a lot more.
There was a sobering element to it, too, and that is really why I
wanted to come and speak. To be in Finland, a nation that had to fight
two wars against Russia in the late 1930s, early 1940s, to maintain its
independence, and to be there with those leaders on the third
anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was sobering and thought
provoking.
Finland knows Russia and Russian leadership better than just about
anybody because of these hundreds of miles of border between the two
nations. And that memory of fighting two wars against Russia to
maintain Finnish independence is still a very present-day and palpable
memory for the Finns, even though those wars happened in the late 1930s
and early 1940s.
And you can be sure that our friends, our allies, those we are
training together with, had some pretty strong thoughts about Russia's
invasion of Ukraine and the commemoration of the third anniversary. I
was very disappointed and I think many were yesterday that the U.N.
considered competing resolutions on the third anniversary of the
Russian invasion of Ukraine.

One was a Ukrainian resolution that talked about Russia as the
invader, Russia as the instigator of the war. That resolution passed
the General Assembly, but in a shocking move, the United States voted
against it because of the language placing the blame for the war on
Russia.
There had been previous resolutions after the invasion and on the
second anniversary and the first anniversary saying that this war was
started by Russia. The United States led those resolutions. But now the
United States, through our President, through our Secretary of Defense,
through the U.N.--we don't have a permanent U.N. Ambassador now--
through the U.N. representative at the U.N. was unwilling to sign on to
and vote for a resolution that talked about Russia as being responsible
for the war.
So we opposed the Ukrainian resolution. Who voted with us to oppose
this resolution? Russia opposed, North Korea opposed, Nicaragua
opposed, and another 15 nations opposed. About 60 nations abstained,
including China. China wouldn't vote no. China abstained, and 90-plus
nations voted yes. The resolution passed, but it passed with the United
States unwilling to sign on to the proposition that Russia started this
war and should not have done so.
There was also a U.S. resolution that was tendered to the U.N.
General Assembly. That U.S. resolution did not mention anyone being
responsible for the war but called for a cease-fire and peace,
obviously. The U.S. resolution was subject to an amendment that was
offered by the UK and other nations inserting the language that Russia
was responsible for the war and should not have done so. That amendment
passed, and because it passed, the United States ended up not even
being willing to vote yes on its own resolution and instead abstained.
These Finnish colleagues who are friends and allies were pretty
candid about their disappointment in the United States for not being
willing to state a truth--that this war was instigated by Russia--and
they deeply want to be partners with the United States on defense;
hence their accession to NATO; hence their agreement to the State
Partnership Program with Virginia. But they are puzzled with an
American leadership--from the President, to the Secretary of Defense,
to the U.N.--that is unwilling to state that Russia started this war.
I came home last night. It was a long flight made too long because of
a cancelation. I got back a little bit later than I originally planned.
But I had a lot of time to think. What I thought about was basically
this: We need to learn some lessons.
We need to remember the lessons of 1938. Neville Chamberlain, the
Prime Minister of England, went to Munich, thinking he could find an
end to war and deliver what he called ``peace'' in our time. He
negotiated with the German Government and came back to England and
said: There is now peace in our time--which anyone in politics would
love to be able to say. But we all know that Munich Agreement was a
disaster. It was negotiated between England and Germany, but many of
the other nations that were later invaded by Germany weren't there, and
it wasn't a peace agreement, and they suffered.
But did England at least protect itself from suffering by signing a
deal and proclaiming peace in our time? No. England was attacked as
well after the Germans had attacked Belgium and France and Poland and
other nations.
So an illusory ``peace in our time'' deal was just that--it was
illusory. You can't appease a bully. They will bully you and others
unless you stand up to them.
We could remember 1975. In 1975, the Helsinki Accords, right in the
community where I was visiting, were signed--the Soviet Union was a
signatory, along with the United States and Canada and European
nations--to guarantee certain principles, including the guarantee of
the inviolability of national sovereignty and that no nation should be
able to invade the sovereignty of others. We need to remember that. We
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords this summer. We
need to remember those principles and who has violated them and who has
not.
Let's remember 1995. In 1995, as an aftermath of the Helsinki
Accords, we helped form the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-
Operation in Europe. It is the one organization that includes all
European nations, including Russia. NATO doesn't include them all; the
OSCE does. The OSCE was committed to the principles of the Helsinki
Accords protecting national sovereignty, and we need to remember who
has violated those principles and who hasn't.
We should remember 2020, 5 years ago this week in 2020--the Doha
accord. President Trump negotiated a ``peace'' accord with the
Taliban--a peace accord with the Taliban. Afghanistan was not allowed
to be at the table. The Government of Afghanistan that had been our
partner, in whom we had invested hundreds of billions of dollars, was
not allowed to be at the table. So, yes, there was a ``peace'' deal.
There was peace in our time, but the peace proved to be illusory and
catastrophic months later when the United States removed troops
pursuant to the Doha accord.
The absence of inclusion of the Afghan Government led to a
demoralization and a collapse. The inspector general that analyzed the
end of our military participation in Afghanistan had plenty of blame to
assign--blame to the Biden administration but also blame to a
President, President Trump, who negotiated a deal without including the
party that was most affected.
I thought of the Doha accord when I saw the news of negotiations in
Riyadh between the United States and Russia to end the war in Ukraine
and noticed Ukraine was not at the table. A peace deal about a nation's
sovereignty where you are not allowing that nation to be at the table
is doomed to failure.
We need to remember those lessons in connection with any discussion
about the future of Ukraine.
Mr. President, you don't even need to completely remember history;
just remember what your mom or dad told you. I know I had this call,
and I think most people will remember this. You are getting bullied at
school, and you go home and complain to your parents. What do your
parents tell you about bullies? If you give in to them, they will keep
bullying you and others. If

[[Page S1330]]

you stand up to them, they are more likely--not guaranteed but more
likely to stop bullying.
The United States should have been willing yesterday in the U.N. to
stand up to a bully. The United States should have been willing to say
that this was an illegal war unjustly initiated by Russia. If you are
unwilling to state a truth, you begin in a very weak position.
So my thought in coming home from visiting my own troops, who are
sacrificing and risking to train for an action that they know they may
one day be called on to support--else they wouldn't be conducting
training in a snowy birch forest in southern Finland in February of
2025--they are there because they are willing to sacrifice. It takes
sacrifice to protect democracy.

Our Nation is coming up on the 250th anniversary of our democracy--
and not only our democracy but our leadership role in democracies
around the globe. The world needs us to continue to stand strong. Our
friends like Finland are hoping and praying that we continue to stand
strong. It is my belief that in the heart of the American people is a
desire to continue to stand strong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 724

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, we are dealing with a crisis that all
hundred Members of this body understand has taken the lives of hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of people, and that is the scourge of
fentanyl.
One of the things we have been doing as a result of that is
temporarily scheduling fentanyl analogs, these horrific substances that
are manufactured in order to pour onto our streets. Such a small amount
of this drug--it literally could be the size of one pill--as they say,
one pill can kill. It is very important to me that we see the temporary
scheduling of this continue until the Senate finds a more wholesome
response to this crisis. We must rise to meet this crisis in a
wholesome way, in way that meets the gravity of the crisis and does not
just continue to do the things we have done over and over again.
So as we are working in a bipartisan way in the Senate Judiciary
Committee with the understanding that the temporary scheduling may
expire in the coming weeks--in order to remove that pressure and allow
us to work in a bipartisan fashion, I have come to the floor today to
ask for unanimous consent that we continue that temporary scheduling
while we work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that we give the
most fulsome response possible to this crisis.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of S. 724, the Temporary Extension of Fentanyl-Related
Substances Scheduling Act, which is at the desk; I further ask
unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for years,
one more time, Congress has refused to make a definitive, permanent
decision. It has failed to make schedule I classification of fentanyl-
related substances permanent.
Law enforcement needs permanence. It needs a definitive change to
combat the opioid crisis and go after the criminals flooding
communities with deadly drugs.
Congress's inaction only emboldens China, drug cartels, and other
criminals who exploit our communities, and that should not happen.
We need a lasting solution. There is no reason to do any temporary
extension. We have the bipartisan votes to make the schedule I
classification permanent.
This Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of
Judiciary Chairman Grassley and Senator Heinrich, is marking up the
Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act.
This legislation permanently classifies fentanyl-related substances as
schedule I controlled substances.
Let's be clear. The HALT Fentanyl Act is not controversial. For two
consecutive Congresses, it passed the House of Representatives with
strong bipartisan support. There are enough votes to pass HALT in the
Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor this Congress. My
Democratic colleague's legislation delays that permanency. Schedule I
classification will once more be in jeopardy when the next deadline
comes around. Law enforcement cannot continue to have this uncertainty.
That is why, after my objection, I will ask unanimous consent to pass
the HALT Fentanyl Act. This legislation has already passed the House of
Representatives and has bipartisan support in the Senate. I hope all my
Democratic colleagues will join in supporting the bill.
We have a responsibility to provide law enforcement the tools they
need to address the scourge of deadly drugs in our communities. Failure
to act puts Americans in harm's way.
For those reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 27

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, because of my objection, I ask unanimous
consent to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act to permanently classify fentanyl-
related substances as schedule I controlled substances. The bill also
removes barriers that impede the ability of researchers to conduct
studies on these substances.
The HALT Fentanyl Act has already passed the House of Representatives
with overwhelming bipartisan support. It has support from Democrat and
Republican Senators now.
This is the bill the Senate should be voting on today, not just a
temporary extension that creates greater uncertainty in our effort to
address the opioid crisis but, again, one which establishes permanence,
something which gives certainty to law enforcement to combat this, as I
said earlier, scourge of illegal fentanyl.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 27 and that
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that
the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. In reserving the right to object, this is why I am down
here today--really, literally, at this point--and I want to jump here.
I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me. I truly appreciate
that, but this gets me excited because this is the point that I want to
illustrate.
My colleague is far smarter than I on medical issues. I could not
have passed organic chem at Stanford. I am sure he passed it with
flying colors. Of my colleague, who is truly one of my more favorite
colleagues in this place because of how rational and pragmatic he is on
approaching real crises like this, I am begging and hoping he will
listen to me, and I am begging this body to listen to me.
We have had a fentanyl crisis in this country of monumental
proportions. It is one of the greatest killers in America. Fentanyl and
fentanyl analogues have literally been responsible for lowering the
life expectancy for Americans. It is one of the greatest crises we have
seen to human life in America in my lifetime. There is so much data-
driven evidence and evidence-based answers to this, of how we can
approach this crisis, but yet the only bill that we seek to do is a
bill that does what we have already done on a temporary basis. I
support classwide scheduling for fentanyl analogues, but here we have
this bill, the HALT bill, that my colleague pointed out did pass in a
bipartisan way and now is in the Judiciary Committee.
The reason I am down here is not to drag my dear friend down here
because he is a busy man, and I wanted to go over to him before this
conversation started to apologize, but I needed to make this point on
the floor in this kind of standoff.
He is asking us to pass the HALT bill, which would give classwide
scheduling to fentanyl analogues, which we have already done. For
years, it has been temporarily scheduled, and what

[[Page S1331]]

has happened to opioid deaths in America when we have used this that
law enforcement has called for, ``Schedule. Schedule. Give us these
tools''? Well, we have had these tools, and deaths in the Presiding
Officer's State, deaths in my colleagues' States, and deaths in my
State have continued to go up.
Now, here is the beauty of the conversation we are having and why we
should be passing the temporary one to let us go back to work, and I
know this because I know his heart and I know your heart. There are
evidence-based, bipartisan amendments to that HALT Act that are widely
supported. My colleague's partner Senator from his State, in committee,
said: I don't understand why we are not putting the test strips on
this. Why? Because kids who are using fentanyl right now don't know
that they are using this fentanyl analogue. Kids in your State and my
State think they are taking Adderall, not realizing that this has those
toxic things that can kill.
Here we were in committee, with a bipartisan test strip bill, and my
colleague's partner Senator said: This makes sense to me. And the one
excuse they were using for not doing a bipartisan bill to give us more
of a response than doing what we are already doing and wiping our hands
and saying, ``We did great things,'' was saying, ``We didn't have
time'' because of this artificial deadline.
So I am down here to say: Wait a minute. Let's do the temporary
extension and take time to do bipartisan bills.
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Republican
witnesses who came to our hearing. We just had a painful hearing of law
enforcement leaders and other Republican witnesses who told us the
scourges of fentanyl that we all know. Those people all said that this
can't be all Congress does; that the HALT bill cannot be our only
response because the whole bill permanently schedules what we have
already scheduled temporarily.
I believe in the 99 Members here who know that our response to this
crisis cannot be what we have already been doing for the last 5 years
when there are bipartisan bills that we could be putting on this bill
to show America that we are not going to just puff ourselves up and
make permanent something that was already done in a temporary way.
Let me read some of this pleading from Republican witnesses.
Republican witness Jaime Puerta, a courageous parent who lost his
child to an overdose, testified:

It is imperative that we educate our children on the
dangers of any kind of drug use due to the lethality that can
come with any kind of experimentation or self-medication . .
. we must have specific fentanyl education introduced to . .
. our schools as soon as possible; otherwise, more children
will . . . die.

That doesn't even cost money.
We could be doing things through the Department of Education in
supporting education campaigns. Bipartisan support for that idea--is it
on the HALT bill? No. Let me go on.
Republican witness Sheriff Donald Barnes highlighted the successes of
a multifaceted strategy to address both supply and demand for illicit
drugs. These are the bullet points he said that we should do, imploring
Congress: Don't just do what you have already done. Do something more.
Give law enforcement officers naloxone to reduce overdoses; education
for fifth and sixth graders; ensure the continuity of care and
successful reintegration of people who are returning to the community
from the scourge of these drugs.
Witness after witness--from law enforcement to scientists to
doctors--have offered up bipartisan supportive ideas so that our
response to one of the biggest scourges of our country isn't just to do
what we have been doing for the last half decade or more.

I have got bipartisan bills on the committee, and my colleagues from
Texas have bipartisan bills on the committee, and the only excuse that
people gave for us not to have more consideration was: Oh, well, the
deadline is coming up in a few weeks for temporary passage. But I
realize we have passed temporary scheduling by unanimous consent
before. It is not hard to do.
I beg of my colleagues--I beg of my colleague who is here and others:
We have a moving bill that has to go back to the House because we have
already added a managers' package to it. I promise you, if we add truly
bipartisan things that give a more fulsome approach--a more
comprehensive approach--to stop our children from dying, it will pass
in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives because it was a
bipartisan year. I am in agony over the deaths in New Jersey. I have
met with parents who have looked at me and said: What are you going to
do?
Let me read to you the words from one of these parents.
Susan Ousterman, who is a courageous mother who lost her son to an
overdose--I beg of my colleagues listen to this--said:

I urge you to stop crafting policies based on stigma, false
narratives, and political loyalty, and most of all, stop
using our dead children to justify these failed approaches.
Harsher penalties for drugs, like those for the HALT Fentanyl
Act, do not deter drug use. They only push people into
riskier behaviors, increase the likelihood that someone will
die rather than call for help, and make our communities less
safe. How many more Americans must die before we finally
admit that the War on Drugs was a failure?

I am a former mayor. I oversaw a police department that had to answer
the calls with children dying on floors. They had these law enforcement
tools. They would tell me more needs to be done. The HALT Fentanyl Act
will get passed. Fentanyl analogues will never again be unscheduled in
our country. That is not the challenge right now to save lives. The
challenge to save lives in America right now is, What are we going to
do more than is being done right now? Fentanyl analogues are scheduled
right now, and if the only thing we can do--the only bill that is
moving through here--is to just do what we have been doing, shame on
us.
I am asking this body to give time. Extend the temporary scheduling
so that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, like Senator Kennedy, who
said: I want more time to look at this. This seems rational; this seems
logical; it seems like something we should do. Then, when bipartisan
Senators step up like that and say, ``I want to work with the man or
the woman across the aisle,'' we will have the time to do it.
So, God, I am sorry that my friend who is truly a great American
leader and one of the smarter people in here--I am sorry that he
objected to my bill, but I will stand up in our committee meeting on
Thursday and make this same plea; that we don't just pass the HALT
Fentanyl Act but that we actually put things in it that aren't partisan
ideas. They are the ones that law enforcement is calling for. They are
the ones that scientists are calling for. They are the ones that
doctors are calling for--bipartisan bills.
Dear God, the parents of dead children are calling for us to step up
and do more than the same old thing we have been doing around the War
on Drugs since I was a kid myself.
With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's passion.
Everybody watching me right now knows somebody who has died from a
fentanyl overdose. You cannot minimize the impact of this on everyday
families, but what is presented to us is a false choice and I would say
the wrong choice.
I think my colleague is saying, unless we pass his amendment to put
this temporarily on hold--and, once more, refuse to make a decision to
make this permanent--that somehow things will not get better.
Let me repeat what I said in my earlier remarks: This Thursday, the
Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of Judiciary Chairman
Grassley, a Republican, and Senator Heinrich, a Democrat, is marking up
the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl
Act. This Thursday is when it is going to be marked up.
Now, this is a moving piece of legislation. If you want to do
something more than this legislation does, you should have 2 months ago
started working with that committee. Don't stop now. Call people
tonight, and say: Listen. On Thursday, we are going to be marking this
up. Will you consider my amendment? Make the case that was so
impassionately given that we have got to do more than what we are
doing.
I agree. So the way to do it--because this has not yet been marked up
this

[[Page S1332]]

can still be modified. By the way, this is not the end of what we are
going to do to address the issue of fentanyl. It does allow law
enforcement to say: Listen, this isn't temporary. We now can kind of go
to the bank, if you will. This is the law going forward. But if my
esteemed colleague wants to make this more than it is now, that is the
opportunity on Thursday. The process matters. Going Thursday, on a
bipartisan basis and getting that buy-in, sitting down with a Senator
who is undecided and working through it with that Senator and getting
him or getting her to a yes, is part of that process. Delaying once
more--delaying once more the permanence? Then we will say a year from
now, once more, we will make it temporary, and we will make it
temporary.
There is something about deadlines. Deadlines sharpen a man's mind.
If there is a deadline Thursday to get this on and then, when it is
brought to the floor, there is a deadline to amend it on the floor, now
is the time to act, but now is not the time to delay.
I appreciate my colleague's passion, and I look forward to working
with him. Neither of us ever wants to go to a family member, to a
friend, to a fellow American and have to comfort them over the issue of
another death from opioids. I just think that this is an important step
and that, if there is more to be added, then let's add it, but let's
not complain because it hasn't already been added.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I just want to clarify because my
colleague pounded on the desk, and that was hard for me to watch. I am
not here because we haven't been trying to get a bipartisan consensus
on this and calling and doing all the work. I have watched this now for
three Congresses. Number 2, I am here not because I am trying to stop
the HALT Act. I am here because I heard two Republicans in our
committee say the only reason we can't consider bipartisan approaches,
even if they are good ideas, is because of the urgency of this moment.
All I am saying is--this is, obviously, a fait accompli--I just don't
want my colleague to walk away thinking this is some kind of stunt.
This is my attempt to take away an argument for us to do the work on
Thursday. Clearly, it has been objected to. I am going to go back and
try my hardest on Thursday to do something more.
The one prediction--I don't want to call it a ``prediction.'' But my
colleague says we have a lot more time. I have watched now for at least
three Congresses that I have worked on trying to get a larger approach
to meet the fentanyl crisis; and in three Congresses, this body has
failed to rise to the challenge.
I am dying to be here when my colleague tells me: I told you so--and
I give him permission to do that--that this body would do something
beyond just scheduling. Because, as I have read, law enforcement,
scientists, doctors, and parents are not just asking for the HALT
Fentanyl Act; they are asking for us to do more to save lives.
Now, I have only been here 12 years, but I know the window is open to
get things done when something is a must-pass bill to move. This is an
opportunity to put some things on to show the larger public that we are
not going to do what we always do.
I am really worried when this window closes, there will be a lot of
people thumping their chests and saying: We have dealt with the
fentanyl crisis, and all these other ideas won't have vehicles to go
through.
I will not stop working until this body does more than just
scheduling what has already been scheduled. People on both sides of the
aisle are demanding us to do more. And we don't need to go left; we
don't need to go right. We need to do the commonsense, evidence-based
approaches that are being supported and called for. In fact, some of
the commonsense amendments are already bipartisan supported by
Senators. So I am grateful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

S.J. Res. 11

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a resolution under the--we call it
a CRA, to rescind one of President Biden's regulations.
In 1938, we drilled the first well in the ``Gulf of America,'' which
some people still call the Gulf of Mexico.
Since then, 87 years have passed, and we have drilled about 6,000
wells in the gulf. We have laid hundreds of thousands of miles of
pipelines.
The oil and gas companies who did this have surveyed, they have x
rayed every square inch of the seabed in the gulf. They have surveyed,
they have x rayed 311,652 square nautical miles in the gulf. Put Texas
and California together, that is the geographical area that has been
surveyed by the oil and gas industry.
Why did they do that? For safety reasons. So before they put a
platform in the gulf, they knew where they were putting it. And, No. 2,
to preserve history, because we have--or had a lot of shipwrecks in the
gulf, from which we can learn about the past.
In fact, as a result of this effort by the oil and gas industry to x
ray the entire gulf, we have discovered 4,000 shipwrecks.
In the waning days of the Biden administration, September of 2024,
the Department of the Interior, under the Biden administration, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management--we call it BOEM--promulgated a
midnight regulation. This is what the regulation said: You have to
survey it again. Even though the entire gulf has been surveyed, you
have to do it again, oil and gas industry. If you want to drill a well,
or if you want to lay some pipeline, you have got to x ray it again.
Why? Because the government says so.
This is going to add anywhere from--I don't know--$20,000 up to,
potentially, $1 million to the cost of drilling a well, to x ray after
an x ray has already been done. That, of course, is going to increase
the cost of the well, which is going to increase the cost of the oil
and gas from the well, which is going to be passed on to the consumer,
which is going to raise the price of energy, which is going to
contribute to inflation in America.
You want to know why we had such outrageous inflation under President
Biden? Because of regulations like this. And there are hundreds more
that increased prices needlessly. That is why under President Biden,
the average person's electricity bill in America went up 20 percent
under President Biden.
We don't need this regulation. I do not know--well, let me put it
another way. I am not saying that the person at the Department of the
Interior who came up with this idea is the dumbest person in the world.
I am not saying that. But I am saying that the person at BOEM who came
up with this idea better worry that the dumbest person in the world
doesn't die because he is in the running.
My CRA would kill this rule dead as Woodrow Wilson, and I hope my
colleagues will vote for it.
I yield back all time on Calendar No. 15, S.J. Res. 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third
time.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.

Vote on S.J. Res. 11

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Tuberville).
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody

[[Page S1333]]

Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Wicker
Young

NAYS--44

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Cramer
Tuberville

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) was agreed to, as follows:

S.J. Res. 11

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management relating to ``Protection of Marine
Archaeological Resources'' (89 Fed. Reg. 71160 (September 3,
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________