[Pages S2542-S2552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATION BY THE SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL IN THE CASE OF
DESMOND BELLARD V. RONALD WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and
notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 170, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 170) to authorize representation by
the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Desmond Bellard v.
Ronald Wyden, U.S. Senator.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a lawsuit filed in
the Oregon Supreme Court against Senator Wyden. That suit was brought
by an individual, Desmond Bellard, who is representing himself without
the assistance of an attorney and is attempting to use a civil action
known as quo warranto to remove Senator Wyden from office for alleged
State campaign finance violations in the 2022 election. This suit
challenges the Senator's right to be seated in the Senate, an issue
which the U.S. Constitution commits exclusively to the Senate.
This resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent
Senator Wyden named as a respondent in this suit in order to remove the
case to Federal court and seek its dismissal on the basis of the
constitutional commitment to the Senate of the power to seat and remove
its Members, the Speech or Debate Clause, and the lack of jurisdiction
under Oregon's quo warranto statute.
Mr. BUDD. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and that motions to reconsider be made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 170) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from New Hampshire.

Sudan

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, it wasn't that long ago that Sudan was
on a path to recovery after decades of violence and civil war.
Back in 2018, Sudanese citizens took to the streets to protest the
conditions in their country. This movement pushed Omar al-Bashir, who
was indicted by the ICC for a campaign of mass killing and rape, out of
power, and this set the country on a course for a better future. Sadly,
that future was disrupted when the military overthrew the civilian-led
Government of Sudan.
Then, 2 years ago, the Sudanese Armed Forces, led by General al-
Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces, led by General Hemedti, plunged
Sudan into war. In the 2 years since, over 150,000 people have died and
12 million more have been displaced.
You can see this poster reflects the results of what is happening in
Sudan. In just 2 years, 12 million more people have been displaced and
are in camps. This is actually one of the nicer camps.
With acute famine levels at historic highs, 30 million people are in
desperate need of humanitarian aid. You can see some of the Sudanese
people with their dishes lined up to get some assistance.
As so often happens during war, the impact has been especially
devastating to women and girls. During raids by the armed factions,
women and girls have been abducted and forced into sexual and domestic
slavery. One U.N. report found that gender-based violence skyrocketed
by 288 percent last year. Again, you can see the impact. According to
UNICEF, 221 children have been raped, including a case involving a 1-
year-old baby.
If this is true, we just can't ignore it as another horrific detail
of a distant conflict. The world is watching, and we must hold the
people who are perpetrating these acts accountable for their crimes.
The U.S. Government has determined that both the Sudanese Armed
Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have committed war crimes and
crimes against humanity during fighting in Sudan. And the Rapid Support
Forces have led a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
In January of 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department took a positive
step. It sanctioned the leader of the Rapid Support Forces and the
leader of the Sudanese Armed Forces for their armies' lethal attack on
civilians in Sudan. But more needs to be done.
Cease-fire after cease-fire has failed. Peace negotiations have
stalled, and outside countries--the UAE, Turkey, Iran, as well as
Russia and China--continue to send weapons to the factions. Why? Well,
because Russia doesn't want to give up its port access to the Red Sea,
China doesn't want to abandon the nearly $6 billion of investments it
has made in Sudan since 2005, and the UAE doesn't want to abandon
Sudan's wartime gold trade. According to mining industry sources and
research by Swissaid, nearly all of Sudan's gold trade flows through
the UAE.
The United States needs to stand up and say enough is enough.
For people who say ``Well, what difference does it make? That is
Africa. That is a long way away from the United States. Why does it
matter?'' well, because, sadly, what happens in Africa, what happens in
Sudan doesn't stay in Sudan. If you can't be outraged because of the
moral horror of what is happening there, you should be outraged because
the terrorism and the potential disease that can cross the borders of
Sudan can come to the United States, and we have seen that too often in
the past.
As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am
committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here
in Congress as well as folks in the Trump administration because we
must hold these groups accountable for their war crimes. We must
support them in ending the violence.
Right now, both sides in the war continue to bomb, to raid, to siege
schools, markets, and hospitals. The Sudanese Armed Forces are
intentionally denying humanitarian aid. They are blocking medicine and
other relief items. The Rapid Support Forces continue to lead an
ethnically charged campaign of violence in Darfur.
Sadly, so many of the foreign assistance programs that we had in
place have been ended or are under review.
The United States, the Trump administration, and Congress must create
a clear policy to address this conflict. We must resume foreign
assistance to the region and Sudan to limit further humanitarian
suffering. We must set aside our differences, bring an end to the
violence, and renew our commitment to setting Sudan back on the path to
a civilian-led democracy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Iowa.

National Donate Life Month

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this month of April is National Donate
Life Month. This month is the time to raise awareness about the
lifesaving importance of organ donation.
There are over 103,000 Americans on the national organ transplant
waiting

[[Page S2543]]

list. We should have confidence that our organ transplant system is
efficient and fair. Sadly, my oversight dating way back to 2005 has
uncovered decades of corruption and mismanagement in this donation
system. It has left vulnerable patients to die on waiting lists while
unused organs from generous American donors go to waste.
Speaking of waiting lists, I have been concerned about the reports of
those on the waitlist being skipped over. This furthers the distrust in
the organ donation system.
Through my bipartisan oversight and also the 2023 U.S. Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network law, the Federal Government is
making long-overdue changes so that we take care and clean this mess
up. The law improved the management and the oversight of our organ
transplant system and encouraged participation from competent and
transparent contractors.
To build onto those reforms, in March, the President signed a
continuing resolution that provided authority for the Department of
Health and Human Services to collect registration fees from organ
transplant member institutions. This ensures the 2023 law can be
implemented properly.
I encourage all Americans to consider being an organ donor and
understand the impact that it can have on saving lives.
Of course, in addition to oversight of the new legislation, I am
keeping my very close eye on how the Federal Government is implementing
these new laws to give more people the chance of lifesaving
transplants.
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. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
rollcall vote begin now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Meador Nomination

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Meador
nomination?
Mr. DAINES. Madam President, 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Moran), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Ex.]

YEAS--50

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--46

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

NOT VOTING--4

Boozman
Moran
Mullin
Sanders
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). Under the previous order, the
motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table, and the President
will immediately be notified of the Senate's actions.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to make a unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, actually, I am going to ask unanimous
consent that we go ahead and confirm General Caine as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I must say that I do so with mixed feelings.
On the one hand, we need a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
immediately, and there is overwhelming support on the Democratic side
and Republican side for this nomination.
On the other hand, passage of this confirmation would pretty much end
our week, and that would prevent us from getting a lot of work done
later on this afternoon and into tonight and tomorrow if we have to
stay until tomorrow to confirm this very important officer as Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So, in a way, we can have it either way, but, frankly, to stay here
and get some Congressional Review Act resolutions done so that we can
end a number of the pernicious regulations foisted off on the American
people and on our economy by the Biden administration--that has a lot
of appeal also.
So with that in mind and in an effort to accommodate Members on both
sides of the aisle who really believe we can finish our business today,
I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions filed yesterday on
Executive Calendar Nos. 75 and 74, making Gen. John Caine Chairman of
Joint Chiefs of Staff, ripen at 3 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I may have other unanimous consent
requests, but if I could be heard on this matter for another moment, I
would seek recognition for that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from
Alaska, who has now vacated the floor. I thought we had this more
synchronized.
But let me say this: There was a vote earlier this week in the Armed
Services Committee. It passed the Armed Services Committee with
overwhelming Democrat and Republican support--23 yeses and only 4 noes.
So there is really no reason to delay this any longer.
Frankly, there is so much going on around the world with the four
powers that constitute an axis of aggression to the United States that
we really should give the President the choice that has been endorsed
overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority of the Armed Services
Committee.
With that, having communicated better now with my dear colleague from
Alaska, I would yield to the junior Senator from the State of Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I certainly hope my Democratic
colleagues can let us move forward on this, or we are going to stay all
night until we get the President's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
confirmed.
Now, look, I know there was some concern about removing General
Brown, CQ Brown. I actually really like General CQ Brown. I thought he
did a good job. I publicly stated a number of times that he served his
country very well.
But here is the deal: The President of the United States is entitled
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he wants. You look at history,
senior military commanders on the Democrat's side, on the Republican's
side--if the President doesn't feel comfortable with them, he has the
right to remove them and move on. That is just our history. That has
happened with Democrats.
George W. Bush wasn't comfortable with Gen. Peter Pace. He is a
marine.

[[Page S2544]]

I happen to respect him a lot. He said: Hey, I am not comfortable. I am
moving to another Chairman.
President Obama fired two very senior, four-star generals inside of 2
years. One was General McChrystal, one of the most seasoned warriors,
you know, in a generation of warfighters, and he removed him.
So President Trump clearly had the authority to remove General Brown.
He has now put forward General Caine, who, by the way--everybody on the
Armed Services Committee thought he did a great job. He is going to get
a really big vote here. So why are we delaying it? I don't know. It
doesn't make any sense to me.
The President deserves his senior military adviser. That is what the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is--his senior military adviser. The
President needs to feel comfortable with that person. That person is
actually out of the chain of command. We have seen throughout history
that when the President doesn't feel comfortable, he can remove one
general and bring in another one. That is what has happened here.
We should confirm General Caine immediately. I think he is going to
do a really, really good job. As a matter of fact, I have interviewed,
sat down with, served under hundreds of flag officers. General Caine is
one of the most impressive I have ever met. So we need to get on with
it.
You know, there are these press stories about why President Trump
removed General Brown. I think it is just because he wanted to have a
general whom he trusts and feels comfortable with, and that is exactly
his right as the Commander in Chief.
So we should move on. General Caine is going to get a very, I think,
significant bipartisan vote. He should. And if the minority leader
wants to object, we will just grind it out all night and get it done.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I wonder if I could reclaim my time to ask
my distinguished friend from Alaska a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor, and he
can yield for a question.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend from
Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, yes, that is correct.
I would then ask my distinguished friend from Alaska: Isn't it a fact
that General Caine time and again has demonstrated his aptitude and
leadership abilities while actually deployed in combat zones, leading
servicemembers in Iraq and Syria, and while serving in various Special
Operations forces units and also in the intelligence community and that
he ran some of our most secretive programs for the security of
Americans?
Mr. SULLIVAN. My good friend from Mississippi, the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, by the way--a Senator who knows probably more
about the military than anyone else here--has it exactly right.
General Caine has this breadth of experience, not just as a fighter
pilot with thousands of hours, combat hours, in flight but has worked
very closely with our intel services and has very significant combat
experience in Iraq and Syria.
Very interestingly--and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee
knows this--he has private sector experience. You would say: Why does
that matter? It actually matters a lot because of our military and the
need to integrate our very powerful private sector.
So he brings a wealth of experience that, to be honest--in my 10
years in this position as a U.S. Senator on the Armed Services
Committee and my 30 years in the Marine Corps, I have never seen a
general that brings it all together. So I think he is going to be
outstanding and exceptional.
Mr. WICKER. If the gentleman would further yield?
I just wondered if the gentleman would yield to the distinguished
minority leader to ascertain how this matter is going to be resolved
differently if we wait until tomorrow. The gentleman has the floor.
Perhaps he would do so.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I would yield to the distinguished
minority leader. Maybe having him watch this distinguished debate
between me and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has
convinced him to bow to the inevitable, and that is the confirmation of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor. The
Senator from New York has not sought recognition.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, maybe the minority leader will explain
why he is objecting given that we just laid out very cogent, strong
reasons that we need to move forward on confirming the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff right now. It is a very dangerous world. Why
would we wait? I am curious on what the minority leader says.
I yield the floor if he has an answer.
Mr. SCHUMER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
Mr. SULLIVAN. This Senator yields the floor to answer that inquiry
that I asked about.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I just want the American people who are
watching this that care about our national security--the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee just had a colloquy here on the floor
talking about why we needed to move the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to get confirmed in the Senate here. And I and the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, respectfully, asked the question of the
minority leader, Democratic minority leader, why are you blocking this?
And you may have seen he just walked off the floor.
He didn't answer. I don't know if he has an answer. If he has an
answer, it sure would be good to hear what the answer is because we
need President Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed.
And I bet he gets strong bipartisan support, in terms of his
confirmation, because he is very qualified. And yet, without any
explanation, the minority leader of the U.S. Senate just said, ``I
object,'' and he walked off the floor.
I hope the press reports on that. Holy cow. That is kind of big news.
And if we have to be here all night, jamming down on them to get the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed because our country
needs it during a very dangerous time, a general who is immensely
qualified, then that is what we are going to do.
But it sure would be easier to just agree with us, start moving on
the vote, and get this highly qualified general confirmed as President
Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
But what you just witnessed, for anyone watching, the American people
watching, was a nondebate. My good friend from Mississippi and I were
describing why we need to move this forward. The minority leader of the
U.S. Senate, who has the power to do it, just said: ``I object.''
Normally, on the Senate floor when someone objects, they explain why.
But he didn't want to do it. He just walked off the floor. So that is
what we just witnessed. It is a little bit unusual, particularly when
it comes to a confirmation that is so important. There are very few
confirmations that the U.S. Senate does that are more important than
confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I guess the
Democrats are going to block it for now, and we will go all night to
make sure President Trump has his principal senior military adviser,
which he needs during these dangerous times.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S2545]]

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, just for the information of Senators, as
the unanimous consent request has been objected to, and we are not
allowed to vote at this point to give the President of the United
States a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I just wanted to inform
the Senate, based on conversations with the majority leader and his
staff, that there are two matters that we can and will proceed to later
on this afternoon and perhaps into the night.
The first would be the House version of Senator Scott of South
Carolina's Congressional Review Act resolution, H.J. Res. 61, providing
for congressional disapproval under section 8 of title 5, United States
Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency
relating to ``National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Rubber Tire Manufacturing.''
That is one matter that the objection has given us an opportunity to
proceed to.
The other would be Senator Curtis's Congressional Review Act, S.J.
Res. 31, a joint resolution providing for the Congressional disapproval
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Review of the
Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources As Area Sources Under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.''
As I said, during my unanimous consent request, proceeding to the
vote on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would give the
President the advice and counsel that our Commander in Chief needs
during a very dangerous time.
That said, I made the unanimous consent request with mixed feelings
because, frankly, there are two regulations--pernicious, onerous,
needless regulations--by the Environmental Protection Agency that need
to be wiped off the books.
So this will give us an opportunity to do that. It is 10 after 3 at
this point, and I am not sure when the distinguished majority leader
will schedule that, but Members should be advised that unless we are
able to get a unanimous consent request and give the President his
choice for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, those are items that can still
be the order of the day, and perhaps there are other votes tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I join my colleague in expressing some
frustration that we can't vote on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. It is the kind of stuff that drives people crazy back home for
an individual that is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Most people
back in my State of Oklahoma think this has already been done. But to
not be able to move on this, to literally have my Democratic colleagues
block it and say we are not going to allow the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff for our military to be able to be there, it is just
another one of those moments of Washington, DC, gridlock and
frustration, especially when this person moved out of committee with a
vote of 24 to 4.
That is overwhelming bipartisan support. There is just not
controversy about this nominee. But now suddenly to be able to have a
game, to be able to say we want to be able to stall this out and maybe
block this person until after Easter, so we don't have a Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff is frustrating for people to say: Come on,
just have the vote.
So I join my colleagues on the Republican side to say: What is the
problem? Everyone knows this person is going to be voted on and is
going to be approved because there is such wide bipartisan support, but
for my Democratic colleagues to say: Nope, we want to drag this out for
weeks, I just don't think it is the right thing to do. Clearly, they
disagree, but I don't think it is the right thing to do.

30th Anniversary of Oklahoma City Bombing

Mr. President, next week, Oklahoma and the Nation will pause for a
moment, and we will remember, nationally, for a moment, on April 19 at
9:02 in the morning.
And some people will look around and go, ``Has it been 30 years?''
and other people will say: ``What happened 30 years ago?'' because it
depends on your generation of when you were born and how old you were
or if you were even alive in 1995, but if you were alive in 1995, you
remember where you were when the news came out that there was an
explosion at a Federal building in Oklahoma City.
It was the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. A man who was mad at
the government and determined he was going to cause an uprising of
people to take down the Federal Government pulled a Ryder truck in
front of a Federal building, loaded it with diesel fuel and with
ammonia nitrate, lit fuses, walked away, got in his car and drove away.
As he drove away, behind him, the explosion went off that killed 168
people, including 19 children who were in the daycare center on the
ground floor. And our Nation was forever changed.
We pause every year still in Oklahoma. We have never forgotten. Every
year, we think about those who were killed and those who survived and
those who were changed forever. We remember every single year, as we
will again this year on the 30th anniversary, and we will pause to
remember.
The people that are around us in Oklahoma are our neighbors, they are
our friends, but many of them are also survivors or family members of
survivors or family members of those who are lost. There are still
police officers and firefighters that have literally never been back to
that location because it is too painful to be able to return to a spot
where they carried out the bodies of their friends and neighbors.
There are individuals that their family was truly forever changed.
And now, 30 years later, they still get together and talk and visit,
catch up with each other. There are survivor networks that still engage
and still keep in contact with each other, remembering what happens
when out-of-control anger took the lives of 168 people.
On that sacred ground, there is still a quiet reflection pool. There
are 168 chairs there to remind people of the 168 lives. There is a
phenomenal museum that is next to it that people come to literally from
all over the world to study terrorism, domestic terrorism in
particular, and to be able to walk through what happened in the crime
scene and how it was so quickly resolved. We have law enforcement,
first responders, families and communities that come from everywhere
just to be able to learn and to reflect.
There are children that survived the daycare center that are now
adults. Let me give you two: Brandon and Rebecca Denny. Brandon was 3
years old, and he literally barely survived his injuries; in fact,
doctors gave him a 10 percent chance of survival, but he did. As an
adult, he works to still help and serve others.
Rebecca, she was rescued from the rubble at 2 years old. She now has
a family of her own. She speaks powerfully, still, about forgiveness
over bitterness.
They were some of those miracle babies that survived. Many of the
children around them did not.
This past week, it was really a remarkable moment that a lot of
people in this town probably missed, and I understand. There is a lot
of things going on right now. But on the south side of the Capitol,
there was a spot of dirt that was dug up there and a group of
Oklahomans, along with the Architect of the Capitol, buried a seedling
tree.
Now, that may not seem like a big deal on the Capitol grounds, but
there aren't many trees that are planted on the Capitol grounds. Many
of the trees that are on the grounds are 100 years old or some, 200.
This is a great historic place and a spot of reflection.
But in one spot there, we just planted a tree. And you may say: What
is the big deal about that tree? Well, if you are in Oklahoma, you
already know the rest of this story, but I would like to be able to
tell this body the rest of that story.
On April 19, 1995, when that truck bomb explosion took place, it took
168 lives. It destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Across
the street was

[[Page S2546]]

the Journal Record Building; it just demolished a big section of that
as well, blew out all the windows, destroyed it. In the parking lot
there in front of that building was an American elm tree. It was a
scrubby tree growing in a parking lot. If you have seen a tree in the
parking lot, you know it is not usually the healthiest looking thing,
but it was just growing there in the middle of the asphalt. But when
the explosion happened, it literally destroyed all those lives. But for
that tree, it blew literally every leaf off of that tree. But the force
of the impact and the heat of the impact was so strong, that it
literally turned the tree. The bark literally that usually has this
nice little stripe as it grows literally has a turning point in it and
around it, and everyone just assumed that tree is dead. No one paid
attention to it.
In the year of the cleanup and all of the recovery and what was
happening during that time period, no one paid attention to it, until
the next spring, that scrubby little tree in the asphalt started
sprouting. And people were shocked. It is alive. And suddenly it went
from being a scrubby tree in the parking lot that was just going to be
cleared out to being a sign of hope.
So we cleared the asphalt and everything else away from it. An
arborist came and began to fertilize it and to take care of it. That
scrubby little tree is now nicknamed ``The Survivor Tree'' now, and it
is the picture of Oklahoma after that bombing. We survived.
That scrubby little American elm tree is now enormous 30 years later.
Its branches and its leaves spread out over that site. It is the shaded
spot. And on the morning of April 19, there will be survivors and
families that will sit under its branches. And as we pause for 168
seconds and as we read the names of those who we lost, they will be
underneath that Survivor Tree thinking again of: We survived. We are
still here.
The term ``the Oklahoma standard'' was born during that time period
as neighbor helped neighbor and as we cared for each other and the
people who came to our home from all over the world, literally.
If you walk into my office, you will see a picture of the Survivor
Tree that is there. How does that seedling that we just planted and
that Survivor Tree connect? Well, that seedling is a daughter of that
Survivor Tree. A seed was literally picked up off the ground under that
Survivor Tree, was planted and grown, and now it is about 3 feet tall.
That seedling, that daughter, we just planted 30 years later at the
U.S. Capitol so that this Nation will never forget the out-of-control
anger that turned to violence and hatred.
It is our prayer from Oklahoma that, as people walk down the path
outside, that they would stop and read the plaque beside that little
seedling tree. That in the decades ahead, it will grow to be a giant
American elm, just like its parent, the Survivor Tree, and that people
would remember the lives that were lost, those who survived, and those
who were changed forever.

That is our hope. That is why that tree was planted on the Capitol
lawn this week.
My simple request for my colleagues: April 19, it is a Saturday--when
it comes, at 9:02 central time, would you just pause with us for just a
moment and remember? Join us because we will absolutely never forget.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Tribute to Jay Ramras

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday here in the U.S. Senate,
and it is time for a great tradition--I think one of the greatest
traditions in the history of the U.S. Senate. It is called ``The
Alaskan of the Week'' speech, which I try to give most Thursdays. It
has been a while. For the pages, this is the highlight of the week.
Even our friends in the media like this speech because it usually
signals the end of the work week, but not right now. You saw the
minority leader's objection without any explanation on why on
confirming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, so we might be here for a
lot longer.
So I wanted to highlight what is going on in Alaska, as I usually do
during my ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech and just give a snapshot of
what is happening back home.
It is still pretty cold, still have a fair amount of snow. Anchorage
just got a bunch of snow that lasted a couple of days. The 53rd
Iditarod just concluded in Nome with a stunning first-time win by
Alaskan Jessie Holmes and his 10-dog sled team.
The Iron Dog Race, that is a snow machine race, longest, toughest
snow machine race in the world, was won by--that is done in kind of
tandem--Robby Schachle and Bradley George, their second victory of the
Iron Dog snow machine race.
Things are starting to thaw, as I mentioned. It is beginning of the
summer tourism season, right around the corner. The first cruise ship
will dock in Southeast Alaska in less than 2 weeks, and thousands of
tourists from all over the world will come to our great State.
Anyone watching in the Gallery, we would love to have you. Come to
Alaska.
For many of these tourists, this is going to be the trip of a
lifetime. For Alaskans, this is where we live every day. And our
Alaskan of the Week does something that is very unusual: He is beloved
by Alaskans and tourists--not an easy task--and this person is my
friend Jay Ramras.
Like many Alaskans, Jay is a jack-of-all-trades. He owns restaurants
and beautiful hotels. He has had a successful political career. He is a
prolific philanthropist. He loves history. And more importantly, he
loves Alaska and especially his great hometown of Fairbanks--by the
way, my wife's hometown.
Now, I love to talk about our Alaskan of the Week. There are so many.
We have talked about hundreds over the course of many years here on the
Senate floor.
Jay was born in Fairbanks in 1964. His father Dan moved to Fairbanks
from Brooklyn, NY, in 1948. And as Jay says: There has been a Ramras in
Interior Alaska going on 80 years.
And Jay's entrepreneurial resume, which is legendary in Alaska, began
in 1986 at the tender age of 22 years old when he started a chicken
wing restaurant, expanding his business footprint to other eateries
across Fairbanks and, eventually, purchasing the iconic Fairbanks
landmark called Pike's Landing.
For anyone going to Fairbanks, you have got to stay at Pike's
Landing.
It was this purchase that led Jay to uncovering some really
incredible chapters of Alaskan history--as I said, Jay is a real
history buff--and he credits this to his bachelor of arts degree in
American history, but it all started with Pike's.
So let's talk about Pike's. Pike's Landing was established after
World War II when Lloyd Pike claimed land along the Chena River--the
Chena River runs right through Fairbanks--under the Homestead Act.
In 1959--by the way, the same year Alaska became the 49th State--Pike
opened the original Pike's Landing. Throughout the years, Pike's
Landing cemented itself as a landmark in the Fairbanks community.
When Jay purchased Pike's Landing in 2000, he found himself wondering
about the history of the property and the man who established the
landmark location of Pike's. The original owner had sort of disappeared
from history. So Jay asked around, collecting oral histories from
Fairbanks old-timers who had seen the growth of Pike's Landing over the
decades.

Jay found that Pike's Landing had long faced congestion at the boat
launch due to its prime location right there, as I said, on the Chena
River. That was a problem Lloyd Pike solved by building a public launch
to clear up some of the demand in terms of getting boats on the river.
The original boat launch was washed away when the Chena River
flooded--huge flood by the way--in 1968. But decades later, Jay found
himself building another boat launch, unknowingly, right at the same
spot. As he said: If I hadn't already been born, I would have believed
in reincarnation. I would have thought I had been reincarnated as Lloyd
Pike because he put his boat launch right where Lloyd Pike lived. Since
then, Jay has been working with Fairbanks North Star Borough Historic
Preservation Commission to put Pike's Landing on the National Register
of Historic Places. I have no doubt that is going to happen. ``It was
so important to me that we rescue Lloyd Pike from obscurity,'' Jay
said.
But this wasn't the only historical figure that Jay has connected
himself

[[Page S2547]]

and the community of Fairbanks to. As Jay was in the process of
building an aviation-themed extension of his hotel, he felt it needed a
real airplane mounted in front to honor the lodge's proximity to the
Fairbanks International Airport. While searching, he stumbled on a
refurbished Cessna 140 on Craigslist. After purchasing this plane, Jay
discovered it had been owned by none other than Noel Wien.
The Presiding Officer is a pilot. Maybe he knows who Noel Wien is.
For those who don't, Noel Wien is considered the father of Alaska
aviation--the first pilot to successfully fly from Anchorage to
Fairbanks in 1924. Wien went on to found Wien Airlines, a commercial
airline that operated in Alaska for nearly 60 years.
As the Presiding Officer knows, these were some intrepid pilots. That
was 100 years ago he did that first flight--open-air cockpit, really
cold.
Jay's interest in history, once again, piqued, and he dug into that
period and discovered some great photographs of Noel Wien, Wien
Airlines, and had a great celebration last year in July of 2024,
celebrating the 100th anniversary of that historic flight in Alaska.
Really, that was a historic flight for America. My wife Julie and I
were there. Senator Murkowski was there. Our Governor was there. By the
way, the Wien family was there, including Leslie Wien Hajdukovich, my
former regional director. It was a great classic Jay Ramras event.
Hundreds of people came out to celebrate a huge moment in Alaska
history, Alaska aviation history--I would say, American aviation
history.
In addition to preserving this incredible chapter in Fairbanks'
history, Jay has invested in Fairbanks' future. Let me tell you about a
few of his other endeavors. Each summer, Jay hosts the Yukon 800 boat
race, the longest, toughest, roughest speedboat race in the world. It
starts at Pike's, up to the Chena, gets out on the mighty Yukon--huge
race.
Just as I mentioned, he just recently hosted the fourth Iditarod
start at Pike's. Normally, the Iditarod starts down in Anchorage. That
is the toughest, longest, greatest race in the world, the Iditarod. It
occasionally starts in Fairbanks, but it did this year at Pike's. And
as I mentioned, he regularly sponsors the Iron Dog snow machine race
that, yes, is the toughest, longest, roughest snow machine race in the
world.
Jay also had a successful political career, serving three terms in
the Alaska House of Representatives. And he is a great philanthropist
in Fairbanks--a key player in Fairbanks Food Bank and doing so many
other things in terms of philanthropy.
On top of all this, Jay says his greatest legacy, he believes, will
be something he recently did--which I think is just fantastic--the
creation of a new synagogue in Fairbanks, the northernmost Chabad in
the United States.
It began with a call from Rabbi Greenberg in Anchorage. He is a great
friend of mine, one of the leaders of our Jewish community throughout
the State. He asked Jay if he could host a young orthodox rabbi and his
wife for a short visit. Of course, Jay, a very generous man, agreed.
``I think it would be around a two-week summer stay.'' Then they came
again for a second visit, this time in January when it is 45 below zero
in Fairbanks. It gets really cold in Fairbanks. And they still
returned.
The young couple, Rabbi Heshy Wolf and his wife Chani have now chosen
to make Fairbanks their permanent home.
Jay, generous as ever, purchased a small church with his own money.
The previous congregation at the church had outgrown the place. They
refurbished it, transforming it into the Fairbanks Jewish Center. The
original congregation stayed on rent-free until they found a new home,
a new church. Just a few weeks ago, five rabbis gathered in Fairbanks
for the first time in over 120 years and hosted this new synagogue, the
northernmost synagogue, I believe, in America, in Fairbanks.

Jay, thank you. What a life of accomplishment. What a legacy, not
just for Fairbanks, but for all of Alaska. For every different
community--sports community, Jewish community, historical community--
you have done it all. And now, Jay, you have been awarded one of the
most prestigious awards anyone can achieve in their life, Alaskan of
the Week.

China

Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to discuss a recent op-
ed in the New York Times just a few days ago. It kind of made a stir. A
lot of people thought it was a really good op-ed. I didn't.
I wanted to come to the floor and talk about this op-ed because it is
making the rounds. It is by the columnist Thomas Freidman, and it is on
national security, economic security, and trade issues relating to
China.
Now, I normally enjoy, respect--don't always agree with--the
seriousness of Mr. Freidman's writings. He has written a lot of books,
a lot of columns, especially on the Middle East, where he has a lot of
insights, no doubt about it.
But when I read this latest column called ``I Just Saw the Future. It
Was Not in America,'' I couldn't believe how shockingly naive Mr.
Freidman was in writing this. So I just wrote a response. I just
started writing after reading this thing. My goodness, this is very
naive. Then I submitted that to the New York Times. They said: Hey,
sorry, it is too long.
Maybe they didn't like it. Maybe they didn't think it was that good.
I said: I can just read it on the Senate floor because I think this is
a big debate, our relationship with China, how we view it, how he views
it, how others view it, how President Trump views it, and it needs to
be debated.
That is what I want to do the next couple of minutes, talk about the
Freidman piece and, in my view, why it is so naive and misses so many
things and, particularly, gives Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist
Party a giant pass in terms of their history and what they have done to
the international trading system.
First, the Freidman article kind of condescendingly mocks, to be
honest, a lot of us. He quotes some Senators, U.S. Senators, and says,
you know, these Senators ``need to get out more'' when it comes to
China. That is a quote in the article.
Well, in my career, I have actually gotten out to China a lot, I mean
in terms of working on the Chinese issues. I served on the National
Supreme Court Council Staff under Condoleezza Rice and served as her
Assistant Secretary of State in charge of economics, trade, energy, and
finance. Again, under Secretary Rice, I was the Commissioner in charge
of natural resources and energy in Alaska. I went to China then.
In all these positions, I met with Chinese leaders, traveled to China
a fair amount. And, of course, China national security issues really
bookended my entire 30-year Marine Corps career. My first deployment in
the Marines was to the Taiwan Strait during what is now referred to as
the ``Third Taiwan Strait Crisis,'' in 1995 and 1996. My last billet in
the Marine Corps was chief of staff to the Marine Forces Pacific
Commander at Indo-Pacific PACOM. It was all about China and Taiwan. As
a Senator, I continued to focus on these issues, traveling to Asia
frequently.
The lessons I learned when it comes to China are very different from
those in the Thomas Freidman piece. As someone who has actually gotten
out a fair amount to China, as Mr. Friedman tells us Senators we need
to do, let's go into some of these lessons. For a smart guy, they sure
were kind of naive to me.
First, Thomas Freidman talks about the need for an agreement between
the United States and China. But the big worry is that President Trump
would not ``stick by'' any agreement with China. That is what he says.
Now, he says this without even hinting at one of the Chinese
Communist leadership's most consistent, salient, and frustrating
traits, and this is it. They, the Chinese Communist leadership, almost
never abides by their agreements with the United States--and I mean
never. Big agreements, small agreements, it doesn't matter. They never
abide by their agreements. I have seen this throughout my career.
In 2003, I was actually in this meeting right there. That is
President George W. Bush and the Vice Premier of China, Madame Wu Yi in
the Oval Office. I was a young staffer right there next to the
President. And President Bush pressed her, Madame Wu Yi, on this theft
of intellectual property that China does. He pressed her hard.

[[Page S2548]]

``Madam Wu Yi, you have to stop stealing our IPR.'' That senior Chinese
official, 2003, looked at the President of the United States and
solemnly and sincerely said: Mr. President, we will stop this. You have
my word.
Well, we all know what happened. For decades, they lied about that.
The last report USTR did on China's theft of intellectual property
rights from the United States was $600 billion a year. Madam Wu Yi lied
to President Bush in the Oval Office, no doubt about that.
I was also part of Secretary Rice's senior leadership at the State
Department, taking part in the twice-yearly Cabinet-level meetings
launched by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao, called the
Strategic Economic Dialogue. SED, it was called. That is more Bush-
China. They never kept any of their SED commitments ever. I saw this.
This is what I refer to as ``promise fatigue''--promise fatigue. The
United States makes an agreement with China, and they never keep it--
never keep it. You know who has made an art form out of promise fatigue
and not keeping their promise? This guy, Xi Jinping. You remember this
in the Rose Garden with President Obama--in the Rose Garden 2015.
President Xi Jinping looked at Barack Obama, looked at the American
people and said: We are not going to do any more cyber theft, and we
are not going to militarize the islands of the South China Sea. That is
what Xi Jinping told President Obama.
Guess what. That was a huge lie. They were already doing it.
Remember these? President Trump and then President Biden--Xi Jinping
made commitments to both President Trump and President Biden: We are
going to stop the importation of fentanyl into Mexico and the United
States. Xi Jinping said that to President Trump and to President Biden.
Guess what. He never kept that agreement--ever.
Of course, during the Trump administration--in the first term--the
phase one China deal was signed with all this fanfare in the East Room
of the White House--I was actually there when that happened--and they
never kept any of those commitments.
So no matter what, when it comes to China, they just don't keep their
word. They don't keep their word. And yet Tom Friedman's article
focuses on President Trump's reliability?
As Joe Biden would say, ``Come on, man.''
These are the guys who cheat and aren't reliable at all, and we all
know it.
Second, Friedman highlights what he sees as a great opportunity with
China as it relates to our economic relations. Yet he never mentions
the overriding goal of this guy, Xi Jinping. What is that overriding
goal? He never mentions it once. That is to make sure the Chinese
Communist Party stays in power and expands its power base at home and
abroad through any means necessary, including coercion and violence.
This is the goal that we all know drives his decision making.
Like many in the Senate, I frequently attend classified briefings on
China. We just had the INDOPACOM Commander testify today, Admiral
Paparo, who, by the way, is doing a great job. Make no mistake--it is
in all the Intel briefings--this guy, Xi Jinping, is preparing for war
in the Taiwan Strait. Look at him there; he is in his fatigues. His
aggressive efforts might extend beyond that.
What am I talking about?
The Chinese military just completed another massive military exercise
to not only blockade Taiwan but to stop any reinforcements from coming
into Taiwan. Then they conducted offensive military exercises off the
shores of our allies the Philippines and Australia. Their navy went all
the way around Australia just a couple of weeks ago.
Friedman naively references Chinese Communist Party talking points:
``healthy interdependencies'' and ``win-win.'' These guys always use
that ``win-win'' and ``We will rise together.'' Yet he ignores the
military menace of the CCP abroad and its genocidal tendencies at home.
But, hey, that is OK.
Mr. Friedman says: Hey, there are a lot of smart people in China who
can help us with AI.
Sorry. I am a little more worried about that.
Then he notes:

[Beijing] does not want a trade war.

No, in fact, they are actually preparing for a real war, and that is
a fact for anyone who knows about China.
Finally, the entire thrust of Friedman's piece builds on and
reinforces one of the biggest strategic blunders that the United States
has made with regard to China and our China strategy, over the past
four decades, and that is outsourcing much of our national security to
corporate America.
Friedman argues that we should concentrate on letting both of our
private sectors, in China and the United States, work together, and if
we do that, ``Americans, working in partnership with benevolent Chinese
capital and technology, will prosper just like the Chinese benefited
from American capital and technology in the last four decades.''
And Tom Friedman has the nerve to call President Trump's thinking
``magical.''
Well, this is really magical from Tom Friedman. First off, the
Chinese communist system doesn't really have a private sector. Again,
anyone who gets out to China knows this. Everybody in China,
ultimately, works for the CCP, for Xi Jinping, for the Chinese
Communist Party.
Just as importantly, as we have so painfully learned over the past
four decades, the U.S. private sector, especially Wall Street and some
of the big corporate CEOs, are very poor guardians of America's
national security and economic interests when it comes to China. The
U.S. Government finally, during President Trump's first term, started
to say: Whoa. Wait. Stop. We can't outsource our national security to
corporate America. We, the U.S. Government, need to safeguard our own
interests, and that is what we are trying to do.
I will say--and we just saw it a couple of years ago--the annual
American CEO confab in Beijing with Xi Jinping, in the People's Hall,
which, in my view, has become a national embarrassment, with Xi
triumphantly leading the sycophantic-looking American CEOs behind him,
does nothing to dispel the concern that this remains a strategic
weakness in our national security relative to China.
As we speak, CCP--the Chinese Communist Party--propaganda is flooding
the world to fan the flames of a narrative that Friedman seems to
embrace, and it is this: Their narrative is that President Trump has
broken the World War II liberal international trading system.
This charge is ridiculous, and it gives a pass to the real culprit.
The Chinese Communist Party broke the system a long time ago, and that
has been their intention all along.
In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State and future World Bank
president Bob Zoellick delivered his well-received speech, called the
``Responsible Stakeholder'' speech. It noted that, more than any other
country, China has benefited from the international economic order set
up by the United States after World War II, and it was now time for
China to safeguard and embrace and become a responsible stakeholder in
this system to help it endure.
I was in meetings with senior Chinese officials, not long after this
speech, and they deceivingly used the term ``responsible stakeholder''
much to the American policymakers' delight. But the CCP leaders clearly
had other plans: to unleash policies that continued their rampant
intellectual property theft of American businesses; to never keep their
promises and commitments that they make to Americans; forcing U.S.
companies to hand over proprietary technology in order to gain access
to China's market; aggressively subsidizing important industries, like
steel, where they flooded global markets and destroyed the American
heartland; blocking U.S. exports from having fair and reciprocal access
to China's market; and unleashing economic coercion on our allies, like
Australia, Korea, and Japan, when they dared to question CCP orthodoxy.
The Trump administration's policies are a course correction to all of
this. But make no mistake, it was the Chinese Communist Party and its
policies that took a wrecking ball to the international trading system.
Yet, like so many other aspects of Friedman's piece, he gives the CCP
and Xi a pass on this most consequential point.

[[Page S2549]]

U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle, including those who don't
even get out much, according to Mr. Friedman, have recognized this
truth. It would be good progress if an insightful observer of the
international system, like Thomas Friedman is, would do so as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Trump Administration

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I was sitting with the CEO of one of
America's biggest and most influential companies last month, and I
asked him a simple question: What could President Trump do that would
be a bridge too far for you? What attack on democracy or the rule of
law could Trump make that would cause you to speak up?
His answer was pretty simple, and it was pretty confident. He said:
If Trump were to ignore a Supreme Court ruling, that would cross the
line.
He was reflecting a familiar theme: that until President Trump thumbs
his nose definitively at a Court ruling, then his attacks on democracy
are troubling but not lethal. It is normal politics up until that
dramatic confrontation between the executive branch and the judicial
branch, for which the Constitution, as we know, really has no
prescribed remedy.
For many Americans, they may breathe a sigh of relief that America's
most influential private sector leaders would rise up to defend
democracy; that if this confrontation that we worry about would come to
pass, combined with a massive public mobilization, we could be saved.
But I didn't breathe a sigh of relief. It was the opposite.
I am deeply worried that we have really spent little time studying
the paths that democracies take when they collapse. Most of the time,
there is not a singular moment when the Executive dramatically seizes
power. There is not normally a brazen attempt to burn down the
Parliament building. No, instead, democracies die when gradually, often
quietly and methodically, over time, the structures that hold the
Executive accountable for corruption, for thievery, for wrongdoing are
dismantled--dismantled so that citizens can no longer hold the
Executive accountable; dismantled so that the political opposition
never has enough room to maneuver meaningfully.
There are still elections. The Executive doesn't try to stuff the
ballot box. Occasionally, at lower levels, the opposition still wins.
But what happens is that those structures of accountability are either
so degraded or so completely co-opted by the regime that the truth is
just buried, and the political opposition loses the basic tools that it
needs to win.
In every democracy that stops being a democracy, then, there is a
familiar story. There are four institutions that the regime attacks and
that it attacks relentlessly until those structures of accountability
are so disintegrated that, even though elections continue to happen,
the same party or the same person wins power election after election.
Those four institutions are the press, the legal profession,
universities, and the business community. If you degrade or co-opt
these four institutions, you never need to have a high-stakes fight
with the top court in your country. You don't need to burn the
Reichstag down. You can still have elections, but only one party will
win.
So that is why this CEO's assurance, frankly, sent a chill down my
spine--because our democracy isn't at risk of dying; it is dying. As we
speak, we are watching it die. It is not too late to save it.
Let me say that again. It is not too late to save our democracy. But
we can't continue to close our eyes and think that our democracy can
survive a coordinated assault on those four key institutions of
accountability. Democrats and Republicans need to see what is happening
before our eyes, rise up, and defend the independence of journalists,
of lawyers, of universities, and of the private sector.
So I want to spend a minute or two to walk you through what President
Trump is doing and how it, frankly, chillingly, mirrors the tactics
that other leaders have used to transition real democracy into pretend,
fake democracy.
It always starts with journalists, from Hungary to Belarus, to
Venezuela--countries that have elections but elections where one party
just keeps on winning. These are places where journalists are subject
to a nonstop harassment campaign from the regime, such that people just
stop doing journalism or journalists stop telling the full truth.
Last month, for instance, Turkish President Erdogan locked up 11
journalists simply because they were covering protests against
Erdogan's jailing of the top opposition leaders.
Now, Trump has not started jailing journalists, but the pace of
harassment in the first 60 days of his second term is alarming.
He has denied access to government buildings, including the White
House, to journalists who don't use preapproved language from the White
House. He is preferencing credentials to partisan journalists who
simply parrot his party line. His FCC has begun to deliberately harass
media companies that are owned by political opponents of the President.
But Trump's campaign to destroy independent journalism has a darker
and more menacing side because Trump isn't just trying to intimidate
journalists so that they will be afraid to tell the truth; he is also
trying to destroy the concept of truth itself. Again, this is a key
facet of leaders who are elected who are trying to transition
democracies away and into something very different.
How do you destroy truth? Well, that is why the Secretary of Defense
looks into the camera and tells the American public that the text
messages that everybody read, filled with classified information and
war plans, did not include classified information and war plans.
The White House wants you to believe that one plus one does not equal
two any longer; that you should doubt even the clear things that you
see with your eyes; that nothing is real; that nothing is true; that if
you are a supporter of the regime and I tell you once plus one equals
three, then one plus one equals three. Those weren't war plans. Those
weren't classified items.
That is also why the official position of the White House on key
issues like tariffs changes every hour, because if the ground truth
just changes constantly, then there is no truth at all.
Journalists are made to look foolish by reporting a true thing at 9
a.m. that becomes untrue at 10 a.m. Journalism loses its credibility
when the facts being distributed by the White House change all the
time.
Trump says the tariffs are permanent.
Journalists report that the President says the tariffs are permanent.
An hour later, Trump says: I never said they are permanent. They are
not permanent. I am cutting deals.
They write that he is cutting deals.
An hour later, they are suspended--no more tariffs.
When the truth changes constantly, it is hard to believe that there
is anything true any longer.
Second, universities are always--always--a target of would-be
autocrats. Again, in Turkiye, the government has terminated thousands
of professors just because they criticized the government. In Hungary,
one of the nation's most prestigious universities was forced to move
out of the country because President Orban attacked it so ceaselessly
for fomenting protests against his government.
Universities, over the long history of democracy, have been the place
where protests--especially youth protests--begin. They are a thorn in
the side of leadership. The famous Tiananmen Square protests in China
were, of course, started by university students.
So it is no surprise that if you want to crush democracy, you need to
crush the independence of universities. That is why Trump's decision to
target universities that permit criticism of President Trump is so
bone-chilling. He pretends like he is standing up to anti-Semitism on
campuses, but what he is really trying to do is make clear that
protests against his policies on campuses will result in Federal
funding being cut off.
Columbia University was forced to agree to a stunning list of free
speech concessions in order to gain assurances from President Trump
that their Federal funding would continue. They had to agree to allow
campus police to arrest protesters. They had to essentially agree to
receivership, Federal receivership, over an academic department

[[Page S2550]]

that houses professors who are critical of Trump and his policies.
Effectively, the President of the United States got to pick the person
who will oversee the Columbia Department of Middle East, South Asian
and African Studies as well as the Center for Palestine Studies. That
is extraordinary. That is not what happens in a healthy democracy--the
leader of the country micromanaging academic departments at major
universities to ensure that academic work aligns with the regime.
Now, having successfully forced Columbia to bend the knee and quell
dissent on their campus, Trump is targeting other universities. Some of
them will sign similar agreements giving President Trump power over
those campuses. But, frankly, all Trump has to do is make an example of
a handful of universities, and others will simply comply and obey in
advance.
Why? As an academic president, when you have Federal dollars that
employ people at your university, would you permit a major protest
against a Trump policy if you know that is going to jeopardize Federal
funds? Maybe you allow it because you don't want to brazenly stand in
the way of free speech, but you just make sure that it is not too big a
protest or it is not too critical. You police speech to be on the right
side of the regime. That is what happens in all of these fake
democracies, and that is what is happening here.
But controlling speech on campuses is not enough. Controlling and
intimidating journalists is not enough. You have to go after the
lawyers too.
Now, maybe there is not a lot of love for lawyers in this country,
but lawyers are the ones who bring the lawsuits to stop the thievery
and the illegality. Lawyers are compelled by their oath to stand up for
the Constitution.
Putin arrested Navalny's lawyers right on the eve of Navalny's trial.
In Venezuela, Maduro routinely harasses and detains lawyers--human
rights lawyers--because he knows those are the ones who will hold him
accountable.
In Tunisia, the regime stormed the offices of the bar administration
to intimidate the legal profession into silence.
Here in America, Trump is engaged in a shameless campaign of
extortion against any major law firm that has taken a position against
Trump or Trump's interests. What he is doing is extraordinary, and it
is mind-blowing to me that it is just being ignored by my Republican
colleagues. He is going firm by firm--and not to every firm, just to
the firms that have represented Democrats or brought cases against
him--and he is telling them that if they don't fall in line and stop
doing work to oppose him, their clients will lose access to Federal
work.
That is extortion. This body, Republicans and Democrats, should stand
up against it. But it is working. Several law firms have signed deals
with Trump that obligate them to support--guess what--causes aligned
with Donald Trump.
Paul Weiss was targeted by an Executive order and struck a deal. But
so did Skadden. They struck a deal with Trump before they had even been
targeted. Already, collectively, these firms have pledged--think about
this--about a quarter of a billion dollars of pro bono work to file
cases in coordination with the President of the United States'
political interests.

Just like what happened with the universities, there is a lot of
extra compliance that is happening. I know for a fact that firms that
have already signed these agreements with Trump have gone above and
beyond the terms of the agreements to quiet their criticism of the
government. No doubt, every single major law firm will think twice
before bringing an action against an illegal or corrupt action of the
President in fear of Trump retaliating against their business.
That is the point. The point is to try to crush dissent. The point is
to try to stand in the way of anybody who is going to hold Trump
accountable by using the power--the official power granted to him by
the people of the United States--to try to signal retaliation against
anyone who dares oppose him.
But collective action can be a powerful tool. Together, the
collective might of our universities and our law firms is significant.
So they could choose to band together and decide to sign no agreements
with Trump, to refuse to let the President of the United States dictate
the terms of their speech, their business, their defense of the rule of
law.
I don't want to make the victim the perpetrator. This is all Trump's
fault, what he is doing to extort political loyalty from universities
and law firms. But instead of there being collective action on behalf
of these industries, the opposite is happening.
In the legal profession, when Paul Weiss was being targeted, the
other big firms didn't rise to their defense; they started making calls
to Paul Weiss clients and lawyers, using Trump's assault as a means to
poach business or partners. That is shameful, acting like ravenous
vultures, putting your profits first instead of your country's
interests or the interests of the legal profession, which pledges
before a court to stand up for the rule of law. Instead, these big
firms are aiding and abetting the destruction of the rule of law by
doing Trump's work for him, making targeted firms even more vulnerable
by working behind the scenes to strip them bare for parts.
There are good, patriotic lawyers at many of these high-priced firms
who know that this is wrong and they should speak up. Some of them
already have.
Now, finally, Trump is coming for the rest of the private sector.
Listen, I have no idea what the Trump tariff policy is. The constantly
shifting positions of the last week are an embarrassment. It is
complete incompetent malpractice. It has jeopardized jobs and
retirement savings and college funds all across this country.
But the tariffs are complicated and convoluted and hard to
understand, likely because they aren't actually economic or trade
policy; they are a political tool--this one designed to force every
major company to come before Trump to plead for tariff relief in
exchange for giving Trump the company's political loyalty--no different
than what is happening in the legal profession or in America's
universities.
A tariff can be written very easily to favor one industry over
another or one company over another, and the confusing nature of the
tariff regime is a means for Trump to require every major company in
the country to come on bended knee to him to get the relief they need.
And that loyalty pledge could be anything--the purchase of some Trump
crypto coin, public support for Trump's economic policies, donations to
his political campaign. But having watched what Trump has done one by
one to universities and law firms, why would we assume the tariffs
aren't just simply a tool to do the same thing to big companies?
What I am trying to say here is that you don't need a battle royal
between the President and the Supreme Court for democracy to die. If
journalists are constantly looking over their shoulders and unable to
report on the truth; if protest is suppressed, even moderately, at
universities; if lawyers start giving cover instead of uncovering
corruption and illegality in the regime; if companies start being
mouthpieces for the regime as a price of doing business--if all that
happens, then we are not a real democracy anymore; we are a fake
democracy. Elections still happen, like in Turkiye, like in Hungary,
like in Venezuela, but the rules are going to be tilted, and dissent
will be suppressed so much that the same side--Trump's side--wins over
and over and over.
This should matter not just to Democrats, not just to members of the
minority party; this should matter to Republicans as well. We swear an
oath to uphold the Constitution, and it is time for us to see the game
that is being played.
The good news is that the rules have not been fully rigged yet. There
is still time--not loads of it, but there is still time for this body
to set a tone that causes the kind of massive public outrage necessary
to stop this campaign of destruction in its tracks. But that requires
those of us who believe that the threat to democracy is urgent to act
like it. That means saying to our Republican colleagues that we are not
going to act like business as usual, that we are not going to proceed
to legislation unless we have agreement, Republicans and Democrats, to
stop this assault on free speech and dissent. It requires the minority
party to say that right now.

[[Page S2551]]

Only if we come together are we going to have a chance to save
ourselves from the fate that has befallen so many other countries that
have slowly, too quietly, seen their countries transition from real
democracy to fake democracy.
I yield the floor.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The majority leader.

Order of Procedure

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, with respect to the cloture motions on
Executive Calendar Nos. 74 and 75, the mandatory quorum calls be waived
and they ripen at 1 a.m., Friday, April 11; further if cloture is
invoked on Calendar No. 74, all post-cloture time be expired and the
Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, if cloture is
invoked on Calendar No. 75, all postcloture time be expired and the
Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, if confirmed,
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, what you see depends on where you sit.
Last Friday, it was announced that the BRIC Program, or the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, run by FEMA would
end, and money which had been allocated would be pulled back from the
States which were receiving it.
Now, most families across the country have not heard of the BRIC
Program, but if you were to explain what it does, they would say,
oftentimes, that they need it. I can tell you folks in Louisiana do.
Louisiana has benefited the most per capita in the BRIC's latest
round of funding, and I would argue that this actually saves tax
dollars for the rest of the country because the BRIC Program helps
prevent against flooding, flooding that may occur after a big rain
event or after a hurricane. And in Louisiana and in many parts of our
country, this is an inevitable part of life.
But the best way to recover from a flood is to never flood at all.
The old saying:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Another:

A stitch in time saves nine.

The same principle applies to flood resilience and mitigation
infrastructure. When we invest in levies and floodwalls, communities
are protected when the storm hits, and the Federal Government saves
billions in a recovery effort that never has to be done.
If you go down to South Louisiana, for example, you will see homes
elevated by the BRIC Program that were not previously elevated. Now
that they are elevated, that family is secure should the floodwaters
come.
Now, you can say: Wait a second. That is just Louisiana. There is a
parish in Louisiana in which the flood control structures prevented
10,000 homes from being flooded in the last hurricane--talk about an
ounce of prevention because those programs, those families, they would
have received Federal help. Turns out no Federal help was needed
because we were able to build resilience. We were able to keep those
homes from flooding in the first place. This is the type of work that
we need to do. And if we do it, then never is a National Flood
Insurance Program claim filed.
The family saves; the taxpayer saves. Investing now saves money down
the line.
That is why back in 2018, during President Trump's first term,
Congress established the BRIC Program to invest in those flood
protections needed to prevent future flooding. And through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, another billion dollars was
added to that program. This is because the BRIC Program is an effective
tool, the type of tool that my communities in my State and communities
elsewhere in the country depend upon.
Now, apparently, though, the BRIC Program is in danger. And it is
being endangered, I gather, because of the effort to eliminate
government waste. Now, there is a lot of government waste, and I am all
for eliminating that waste. If there is fraud, we should eliminate it.
If there is waste, we should eliminate it.
But preventing homes from flooding, that if they do flood will cost
the Federal taxpayer billions of dollars, that is not waste; that is
good planning. That is what we should all be doing in every aspect of
our life: planning ahead, planning proactively. The waste is that, if
we don't do this program and the inevitable flood occurs, then we have
to go in and rescue communities. That is waste because we could have
prevented that from happening in the first place by implementing
programs such as the BRIC Program.
I would ask FEMA to reconsider the impact of cuts to the BRIC Program
and to reconsider canceling the BRIC applications that are already
placed.
They should. This is a congressionally authorized piece of
legislation--authorized and congressionally appropriated. Congress has
said that this program will exist. We passed BRIC into law. We provided
funds for it. To do anything other than to use that money to protect
families from flooding, to protect the Federal taxpayer from having to
put out billions to rescue communities which have flooded, is to thwart
the will of Congress. And that is why Congress passed it in the first
Trump term, and that is why President Trump supported it. It improves
efficiency, not decreases it.
I can tell you, people in South Louisiana--whether it is Terrebonne,
Lafourche, Ascension Parishes, and places you wouldn't expect to flood
like Livingston Parish--that overwhelmingly--that supported President
Trump 95 percent of the time, they would overwhelmingly support this
sort of flood mitigation.
Here are some examples of the money that is already going out:
Roughly, $40 million to the city of Central; $36 million to Ascension
Parish. In Central, they were trying to reduce flooding after the great
floods of 2016 in Louisiana, trying to keep that from happening again.
The $36 million to Ascension Parish is to fortify electrical
infrastructure. Hurricane comes along; electricity goes out. Of course,
no electricity, the whole community is incapacitated.
Twenty million dollars to Lafourche Parish to strengthen 16 miles of
power lines; $10 million to the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to provide
evacuation routes during flooding. Evacuation routes during flooding,
that is something that we should make sure we are building so that you
don't have to helicopter people out or you don't have to get them out
by boat.
So these are examples of BRIC Programs that are a stitch in time that
will save nine.
Now, of course, it is important to my State. I will point out that
Louisiana was the third largest recipient of BRIC Program funding
recently and the largest on a per capita base. And without BRIC
funding, none of these projects would happen--whether it is East Baton
Rouge Parish, Ascension Parish, Lafourche, or the Coushatta Tribe.
Lafourche Parish President Archie Chaisson had a $25 million
application for grid-hardening so that the people of Lafourche would be
able to get back on their feet quicker after a hurricane. I can tell
you, I went down to Lafourche Parish after the last hurricane, and all
the power poles had just toppled over. It is almost as if you were
playing dominoes. They weren't touching, but they all toppled just like
that. And there were crews from around the country that had been--
electrical crews that had been mobilized to come and reinstall those.
If you hardened the grid, that doesn't happen. If you harden the
grid, those tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to
get those electricity poles back up does not have to be spent. This
money is an investment in a more resilient future that doesn't require
the investment of private and public capital to restart communities.
This is not waste.

[[Page S2552]]

In fact, if you went to Archie Chaisson's parish, I can tell you,
those folks would tell you they are against government waste. They
would also tell you that this is not waste. This is something which
will save their homes, save lives, and save communities.
Now, we can ask ourselves if FEMA were to move forward with the plan
to cut BRIC, what would be the alternative? Flooding costs up to almost
$500 billion in damage every year throughout the United States, not
just Louisiana. Again, $500 billion in damage that we have to pay after
the fact versus investing a few million now to prevent.
Now, the darker the color, the more the recent flooding. So you can
say, although I have been speaking about Louisiana, you can see that,
across our Nation, floods have been destroying homes and neighborhoods;
downing power lines; harming businesses; in some cases, taking lives.
Just since the start of 2025, at least eight Americans in these four
States in dark red have died as a result of storms hitting their
communities. In the last 3 months, 37 States have experienced flooding.
These are the States that are in red. It goes all the way from Maine
to Minnesota, to Michigan, to Montana--you don't think of Montana being
a flood State--Idaho. All of these States in red have had flooding in
the last 3 months.
And you see, it is not just the coastline in which there is a coastal
surge like Louisiana or Florida. It is also what is called riverine.
``Riverine'' meaning you have a valley, a river down the middle, the
river rises, and people on the lower part of that valley--I think that
would be the situation in Kentucky--are going to flood.
These are all places that could benefit from a resiliency program,
from a BRIC Program. We know it works. We know it saves money.
And just to bring this home to my State, this is Livingston Parish,
LA, just after the great flood of 2016. Look at that. These are homes
in areas that had never flooded before. And in some incredible, once-
in-500-years flood event, they were all flooded. Livingston Parish,
2016--we call it the Great Flood. It affected not just this parish but
all those in what we call the capital region--Tangipahoa Parish, going
up to Monroe, LA--it was almost a statewide event.
Now, if we built resiliency, this doesn't happen. If you look at
this, can you image the Federal response?
They were so honored then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump came
down and spent time in Livingston Parish after this flood to call
attention to it because he felt as if President Obama was not paying
attention. President Trump came with Vice President nominee Pence,
spent time there, brought hope to the people, and that is when, in
2018--I am sure part of his motivation was to sign into law what has
ultimately become the BRIC Program.
These people testify with their flooding how lives are changed when
you don't have resiliency.
I just want to say one more thing because I would talk to these
people. I am privileged to represent them. Each of these homes has a
story. There was a wedding dress that a mother had, saving for her
daughter, that was ruined in a flood. There were wedding pictures from
a grandparent, parents, and daughters--multigeneration--and an album to
save for generations totally lost in a flood. There were, in this
flood, neighbors who went out and died, not recognizing the place they
were stepping wasn't the side of a road but rather a ditch, and they
went down, got swept away in this flood. I can go through each house
and imagine a story that could have been prevented if there had been
resiliency built into this community before this flood.
The purpose of the BRIC grants is to build that resiliency so that we
don't have stories to tell which are tragic or sad but rather stories
where people continue on with their life as if--well, as if the flood
never occurred.
Local leaders advocating implementing using these dollars are
advocating for the people they represent. So am I. Right now,
representing those people calls for me to ask that any effort to stop
BRIC grant funding is halted, that the will of Congress, that the law
that Congress passed, that the funding Congress put into the program,
that be honored--by law, it should be honored--and that the money which
is out there stays there and the applications which have been placed be
accepted, processed, and fulfilled.
If rules need to be changed because the Biden administration did
things which are silly to have done, then change those rules. But to
end a program--to end a program--which has the ability to prevent this
sort of disaster, not just in my State but across the Nation, we should
not end that program. To do so is to inflict harm both upon the rule of
law and upon these communities.
Let's keep BRIC in place.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________