[Pages S5989-S5995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026--Motion to 
                            Proceed--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2296, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 115, S. 2296, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The great Senator from Iowa.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale 
University now estimates that over 35,000 abducted Ukrainian kids are 
being held by Russia. The few who have been rescued tell horrific 
stories of Russian indoctrination, illegal militarization, and brutal 
punishment for refusing to give up their Ukrainian identity.
  Here are some stories from kids who were rescued, courtesy of an 
organization called Bring Kids Back Ukraine:
  ``The Russians said that my mother did not need me and that I would 
be given to a foster family in Russia,'' said 12-year-old Olekander 
from Mariupol.
  ``I wanted to escape through the backyard but was afraid they might 
shoot me. So I had to get in a truck with them. It was so scary,'' said 
13-year-old Artem from Kharkiv.
  Another story is from these six children: Vitaliy, Zhenia, Taya and 
Dayana and then, of course, two other girls who asked not to be named. 
They said, in September and October 2022, they came to the occupied 
Crimean Peninsula for what was called a rehabilitation program. They 
say they were mocked in the camp, humiliated based on their 
nationality. The Russians lock children like these folks who expressed 
pro-Ukrainian positions in a basement or an isolation cell. They 
forbade children to speak Ukrainian and, instead, forced them to listen 
to the Russian national anthem, learn Russian patriotic songs, and to 
do hard work.
  For at least 6 months, the Russians lied to children that their 
parents had allegedly abandoned them and, in general, that Ukraine no 
longer needed these children.
  Now, as the Trump administration moves forward to secure a peace, we 
must not forget the plight of these children. I appreciated very much 
First Lady Melania Trump's heartfelt letter urging Putin to release 
these kids, and I also heard that President Zelenskyy mentioned those 
letters and the children at a recent White House meeting.
  So children should not become bargaining chips in the geopolitical 
negotiations. Their safe return must be prioritized before any final 
peace agreement is reached.
  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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is beginning 
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2026. This annual Defense bill is one of the most important things we 
do each year, and I appreciate the hard work that Chairman Wicker and 
our colleagues on the

[[Page S5990]]

Armed Services Committee have done to put forward a strong bipartisan 
bill and get it ready for the floor.
  Mr. President, the last few years demonstrated that the world remains 
a dangerous place. And as new challenges have arisen, we also had 
troubling reports on the state of our military's readiness to meet 
those challenges. We have aging equipment, insufficient munitions, 
lagging recruitment, excessive bureaucracy that delays the delivery of 
new weapons. Our readiness and capabilities have not been heading in 
the right direction.
  We have begun to turn that situation around, most recently with a 
significant investment in our national security in the One Big 
Beautiful Bill. This year's NDAA, along with sustained investments in 
the years to come, will help us continue to reverse that trend so that 
we have a military capable of deterring and defeating today's threats 
and tomorrow's.
  This year's National Defense Authorization Act boosts America's 
shipbuilding, and that includes additional combat ships and submarines 
that are essential to delivering American power anywhere in the world. 
It strengthens the Air Force fleet, including authorizing funding for 
new fighter jets and delivery of the B-21, the next-generation long-
range strategic bomber that will soon make its home at South Dakota's 
own Ellsworth Air Force Base. And it supports the construction of the 
Golden Dome missile defense system to keep America's homeland safe from 
attack.
  We are also continuing efforts to bolster our munitions supply. It 
became clear in recent years our supply of munitions was not where it 
needed to be for a prolonged conflict. It puts robust requirements in 
place to ensure we are adequately stocked.
  This NDAA will also help us build up the capabilities that our 
military needs to fight the wars of the future. It supports improved 
drone capabilities along with defenses against the same, integrating 
artificial intelligence, and restoring a credible deterrent in cyber 
space.
  While capabilities are important, they are of little use without the 
people using and directing them, so this bill also supports the men and 
women serving our country. It provides them with the 3.8-percent pay 
raise and includes provisions to support military families who are also 
making sacrifices for our country's defense.
  Then there is recruitment, which this bill strongly emphasizes. In 
the last few years, our military was having a tough time recruiting 
individuals to serve. While some of those challenges have subsided 
since January, thanks to President Trump's leadership, this bill 
focuses on getting more Americans to consider serving our country in 
the military.
  This year's NDAA also takes some important steps to change the way 
business is done at the Pentagon. The NDAA clears away more than 100 
outdated bureaucratic hurdles in order to streamline the Department's 
acquisition processes, the most significant reform, literally, in 
generations. It encourages a wider array of companies to do business 
with the Pentagon, ensuring that our warfighters have the best 
equipment that American innovation can produce. And it helps eliminate 
bureaucratic redtape by empowering executives at the Department of 
Defense to make decisions at the speed of innovation. I appreciate 
Chairman Wicker's leadership on these overdue reforms which will help 
ensure America's military reaps all the benefits of American 
innovation.
  Mr. President, there is a lot more I could say about the content of 
this bill and what it does for our military. Before I close, I want to 
say a few words about the process this bill has had thus far and what 
will play out in the coming days. I have talked more than once this 
year about my commitment to regular order. I am proud that this year's 
NDAA is on the regular order track. The Armed Services Committee held a 
markup where Members had the opportunity to amend the bill. The bill 
passed out of the committee in a bipartisan vote of 26 to 1. Now it is 
here on the floor where Senators will once again have the opportunity 
for debate and amendment. At the end of this process, I am looking 
forward to the Senate passing this bill to strengthen America's 
military and safeguard our national security in the 21st century.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                       One Big Beautiful Bill Act

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me begin by reading a few headlines 
showing what Donald Trump's so-called golden age really looks like. 
These are headlines from the past few weeks from the Wall Street 
Journal:

       ``Factory Activity Shrinks for the Sixth Month''; ``Tariffs 
     Remain a Key Worry.''

  Hello.
  Or how about this headline also from the Wall Street Journal:

       ``Stagnant Job Market Is a Rising Risk for the U.S. 
     Economy.''

  Or how about from Bloomberg:
       ``Economists See Slow U.S. Growth, Stubborn Inflation Well 
     Into 2026.''

  Finally, from CBS News:

       Families are paying more for back-to-school supplies and 
     waiting longer to finish shopping, data shows.

  So I guess this is Donald Trump's idea of a golden age: Parents pay 
more for school supplies, a job market on the brink, more and more and 
more inflation that hurts people's pocketbooks every week, factories 
slowing to crawl month after month. That is certainly not what the 
American people have signed up for.
  This morning, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and 
other senior White House officials will hold ``briefing sessions'' with 
GOP members about how to rebrand the ``Big Ugly Bill'' in hopes they 
can make it play better with the American people. They are squirming. 
They know this bill is unpopular. So now what do they want to do? 
Change the name. Changing the name isn't going to open rural hospitals 
that are closing. Changing the name is not going to give healthcare to 
the millions who will lose it. Changing the name is not going to 
prevent healthcare premiums from going up and up and up.
  Donald Trump says he wants to change the name of this Big Beautiful 
Bill because, as it turns out, it is terrible. It is a terrible name 
for the biggest healthcare and nutrition cuts in history.
  Americans know damn well that these Medicaid and ACA cuts are not big 
and beautiful. They are hideous. They are cruel. They are destructive.
  The fact that Donald Trump says Medicaid cuts are big and beautiful 
shows just who he is and just what his values are. The American people 
are learning who he really is.
  The fact that Donald Trump thinks that Medicaid cuts are beautiful 
reveals to America who he cares about and who he doesn't give a damn 
about. And the average American he doesn't care a bit about. He cares 
about giving tax breaks to his billionaires, and he cuts healthcare to 
do it, and then he calls that beautiful. Well, maybe it is beautiful 
for a few billionaires. It sure ain't beautiful for tens of millions of 
Americans who are hurt by it.
  Let's be very clear, folks. The Republicans don't have a branding 
problem; they have a substance problem. What they did is horrible. They 
can call their bill whatever the hell they want; it is not going to 
change the fact that millions are going to lose healthcare, tens of 
millions are going to have their premiums go up, rural hospitals will 
close, and research funding that saves kids from cancer will be 
slashed.
  When hospitals close, when people get sick and die, they don't give a 
damn what Donald Trump's bill is called; they want the Republicans to 
stand up to Trump--Republicans here in the Senate--and reverse these 
cuts even though just about every one of them voted for them.
  If Republicans think that a bunch of branding briefing sessions can 
change the American people's views of what this bill is all about, they 
are colossally out of touch.
  I spent a month in August traveling from Niagara Falls to Glens 
Falls. I met with parents. I met with doctors. I met with nurses. I met 
with hospital

[[Page S5991]]

people. I met with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. People 
detest this Big Beautiful Bill. It is cruel.
  If you don't believe me, look at the data. Republicans, Donald Trump, 
look at the data. Look at what the American people think of this so-
called Big Beautiful Bill. Americans hate the Republican ``Big Ugly 
Bill.''
  Pew Research: 46 percent disapprove, 32 percent approve.
  Navigator: 52 percent unfavorable, 33 percent favorable about the 
``Big Ugly Bill.''
  CNN: 61 percent oppose, 39 percent approve.
  These are not just marginal differences. Overwhelmingly, just about 
every Democrat, two-thirds to three-quarters of Independents, and a 
large chunk of Republicans hate this bill. That is what the data shows. 
That is what the data shows.
  The Republican problem is not difficult to understand. Why Leader 
Thune, Speaker Johnson, the White House, and the Republican Senators 
are squirming and on their back foot is not difficult to understand. 
These numbers say it all. What they did is despised. The No. 1 
achievement that they are going home and they think they can brag 
about, people hate. That is why they are not having townhall meetings. 
That is why when Republican Senators and Congressmen go to their 
townhall meetings, they get booed--not because people are mean but 
because people are struggling to deal with the consequences of the Big 
Beautiful Bill.
  The American people know Donald Trump is dead wrong. That is why his 
numbers, his popularity, have declined significantly.
  Republicans can't magic-talk their way out of this ``Big Ugly Bill'' 
because the real-life impacts back home are inescapable and are 
devastating.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, now on avoiding a Republican shutdown, in less than a 
month, Republicans will face their greatest test under the Trump 
administration: whether or not they will work in a commonsense, 
bipartisan way to keep the government open and funded.
  The only way--the only way--to avoid a shutdown is to work in a 
bipartisan way with a bill that can get both Democratic and Republican 
votes in the Senate.
  As I have said for months, Democrats want to keep the government open 
in a bipartisan, commonsense way. That is why we supported bipartisan 
appropriations bills in July. But the ball now is in the Republicans' 
court--in Leader Thune's court, in Speaker Johnson's court.
  Republicans cannot expect Democrats to go along with a partisan bill 
that they concoct without any input, without any changes that America 
wants and the Democrats are fighting for. Republicans cannot expect 
Democrats to go along with a partisan bill. We are not going to bail 
Republicans out of their own chaos, out of their own failed policies.
  If Republicans choose a go-it-alone approach, if Republicans continue 
to pass legislation that raises costs and devastates the American 
people, if Republican Senators keep bowing down to Donald Trump even 
though they know what he is doing is unpopular and they know he is in a 
bubble, talking to rich people and nobody else, thinking he can 
bamboozle everybody else, they will be responsible if a shutdown 
happens.
  As everyone knows, the clock is ticking. We have fewer than 13 
legislative days to go. But so far, Republican leaders have been MIA. 
They just don't know what to do.
  At the start of the August recess, Leader Jeffries and I wrote to the 
Republican leaders, saying: Let's have a sitdown. Let's talk about how 
to keep the government open.
  We heard nothing--nothing.
  Leader Jeffries and I last week reached out again--again--to sit down 
to talk, to plan a strategy for keeping the government open. Again, 
crickets--nothing. We heard nothing from them, and time is short.
  So what are the Republicans going to do? I know they are struggling. 
I know they are divided in their caucuses, both in the House and the 
Senate. The House and Senate Republicans are divided, while we 
Democrats are unified. Leader Jeffries and I and our two caucuses are 
in lockstep that we want bipartisan negotiations and a bipartisan 
bill--a truly bipartisan bill.

  So what are the Republicans going to do? Do they want to continue 
their ``our way or the highway'' approach? Are they going to continue 
to go at it alone? Are we going to continue to hear nothing from them? 
Are the Republicans going to keep giving the finger to everyone in 
Washington who wants to seek a commonsense, bipartisan governance and 
solution? I hope not because that is the path that leads to a 
shutdown--a Republican shutdown, a Trump shutdown.
  Republicans can't just say they want to avoid a shutdown; they have 
to prove it. They need to sit down with us and work with us on 
something Democrats can support. And actions speak a lot louder than 
words. We need to see some action from Republican leaders showing they 
are serious about preventing a shutdown at the end of the month.
  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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for 9 long months, the Senate Democrats 
have waged an unprecedented effort to slow down the Senate and to delay 
the President from getting his team on the field. It has been an 
unprecedented blockade.
  President Trump was elected to get America back on track, and that 
means getting the team on the job. So what did Chuck Schumer, who just 
spoke here on the Senate floor, have to say? Well, he put out a press 
release in August, and he said that ``historically bad nominees''--his 
words--``deserve a historic level of scrutiny.'' You see, he has 
treated every nominee from President Trump as controversial, and he has 
treated every nominee as an existential threat to our Nation.
  If Senator Schumer and Senate Democrats have specific concerns with 
specific nominees, they should come down to the Senate floor and 
discuss them and share their concerns with the American people. That is 
not what is happening.
  Here are the facts: Senate Republicans have confirmed now 109 sub-
Cabinet nominees. Now, that is in addition to the Cabinet that we have 
confirmed and the judges that we have confirmed. Every single one of 
those 109 sub-Cabinet nominees has been filibustered by the Democrats. 
Yet only seven of them received more than 10 minutes of debate on the 
Senate floor.
  Now, you know, Mr. President, when they filibuster, that consumes 2 
hours on the Senate floor to debate the nominees. They have chosen to 
waste the time but not to discuss the credibility of any of these 
nominees or their qualities for service, what we will get. In fact, of 
the Democrats who filibustered all 109 sub-Cabinet nominees, the 
average Democrat debate was 2 minutes. Eighty-seven had zero Democrat 
debate, and only 7 went on for more than 10 minutes. In other words, 
Senate Democrats declined to come to the floor to discuss 75 percent of 
these sub-Cabinet nominees that ultimately were all confirmed by the 
U.S. Senate. This is in spite of the fact that each one of them 
required the 2 full hours of debate.

  On average--we have done all the math; we watched all the speeches--2 
minutes 12 seconds, by the Democrats, were consumed discussing each 
nominee, on average; 218 hours of debate time spent on the Senate 
floor, ignored by the Democrats, wasted time. We couldn't do 
legislation. We couldn't do other things because of this historic 
obstruction by the Democrats of what the American people voted for.
  For all the bluster and all the so-called historic scrutiny, the 
Democrats and Chuck Schumer, when it came to nominees, have been 
missing in action. These guys actually spent more time on the Senate 
floor debating and discussing wasteful Washington spending--such as 
using taxpayer dollars for electric vehicles in Africa--than they did 
on all 109 sub-Cabinet nominees combined. The Senate Democrats and 
Chuck Schumer froze the Senate floor

[[Page S5992]]

for 210 hours from doing the important public business as a result of 
their unprecedented blockade.
  It is time for the Senate to return to normalcy, to regular order, 
and that is because there are still 145 nominees on the Executive 
Calendar that we have right here on our desk waiting to be confirmed. 
These are people who have gone through the hearing process, have been 
voted out of committees, and are stuck here in the Senate limbo of 
waiting to see what is going to happen with their confirmation. They 
are waiting to help in the fight to get America back on track and to do 
the people's business, and the Democrats are obstructing every step 
along the way.
  It seems like the Democrats just want to sabotage our effort to get 
America back on track. Otherwise, why are they standing in the way of 
the progress of our Nation? We know these nominees are all qualified--
the 145 I have just referred to--because committees have actually 
reported them out to the Senate. They have had background checks from 
the FBI; their ethics reports have all been confirmed; and they have 
actually been approved by the Senate committees, the committees whose 
job it is to scrutinize. That is why half of the 145 that we are still 
waiting to come to the Senate floor, they have earned bipartisan 
support coming out of committees. They are ready to go, ready to get 
put to work.
  So the minority leader needs to stop pretending that he is leading 
some kind of grand investigation because he is not. It is time for him 
to admit that this has nothing to do with the qualifications of the 
nominees. His objections have everything to do with his obsession with 
President Trump. That is what we are dealing with here.
  Many of these bipartisan nominees have been waiting for months to get 
put to work. They have been nominated. They have put their lives on 
hold. They are ready to go. Yet the Democrats, through their 
sabotaging, have slowed the process to a crawl, and there is absolutely 
no reason for this.
  Look, this latest Schumer shutdown of this confirmation process, it 
really does leave critical jobs unfilled; it does weaken our economy; 
it does undermine our international diplomacy; and it jeopardizes our 
safety.
  The Senate, in the past, didn't operate this way, and we need to 
change things to get America back on track and get the Senate back on 
track. You know, 98 percent of George W. Bush's--President Bush's--
nominees and Bill Clinton's nominees, they were confirmed by voice vote 
or unanimous consent. They had gone through the committee process; they 
were sent to the Senate and then worked through the process pretty 
quickly.
  During President Trump's second term, the number that went by voice 
vote or unanimous consent--here we are, 9 months in--zero. Absolutely 
zero. Why? Because of what the Democrats are doing in an unprecedented 
way. They seem to be obstructing for obstruction's sake.
  Today, 45 of the 145 nominees stuck on the calendar are, 
interestingly, for positions that never before in the history of the 
Senate have actually had to come up for a rollcall vote. They always 
went by voice vote or unanimous consent. So I would ask the Senate 
minority leader, if he were on the floor, to tell me why the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration--I mean, that 
is the position--why that needed to be filibustered. Why did he and the 
Democrats filibuster the Chief Counsel for Advocacy for the Small 
Business Administration? What was so critical about that position or so 
wrong with the nominee that the Democrats would decide it was worthy of 
spending 2 hours of Senate floor business to filibuster this nominee 
who got confirmed anyway and in the past has never had a vote on that? 
It has always gone by unanimous consent or by voice vote. Confirming 
positions like this used to only take seconds. Now it can take days, 
and it is because of the obstruction by the Democrats.
  The Senate has a role of advice and consent. That is why we have the 
committee process. That is why we go through it. But what we are 
dealing with is stalling and delaying. There are still more than 800 
positions that still need to come through the Senate. Some have not 
been named yet; the President has not made nominations because the 
President has over 1,100 nominations to make to fill out the government 
and the people that do the job of the people. But without a change to 
try to get through that next 800, that would take years, over 1,000 
hours on the Senate floor. And that is if the Senate did nothing else 
because every time they filibuster one, those are 2 wasted hours, and 
they end up spending 2 minutes of debate in total. And 81 percent of 
them nominated who got approved, the Democrats spent zero time on the 
floor even talking about.
  Look, under this Schumer confirmation shutdown, it is impossible for 
the U.S. Senate to pass legislation--we can't do it; the floor is 
iced--legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act that 
we are getting to today, we are considering it this week; funding bills 
that we need to do the appropriations bills that Schumer never even 
brought to the floor when he was the leader. We want to get those 
passed, doing the people's business.
  The Senate and our Nation cannot continue to be run this way and 
controlled this way and function this way. If Democrats won't stop 
abusing the rules of the Senate, Republicans are prepared to change the 
rules. Later today, Senate Republicans are going to discuss how to 
update these rules to restore the Senate's longtime practice, a 
practice of confirming nominees in a reasonable fashion. Now, we are 
not talking about Cabinet Secretaries or Supreme Court Justices. We are 
talking about restoring the norms of the Senate for the hundreds of 
routine, qualified nominees who come through the committee process, go 
through the scrutiny, and then come to the Senate floor to be put to 
work.
  I would say, enough with the Democrat obstruction, enough with this 
phony scrutiny, and enough with another Schumer shutdown. The American 
people elected President Trump and they elected Republicans to get 
America back on track, and that is what we continue and will continue 
to do.
  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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, people voted for Donald Trump for all 
kinds of reasons, but the main reason was that they thought he would 
bring down the price of goods, groceries, food, housing, gas. Whatever 
his other faults, he was good for your money, people thought.
  But it has been almost 8 months now, and the persistent economic 
uncertainty and pessimism are no longer a temporary blip. It is now 
abundantly clear: Trump is not making anything cheaper; in fact, he is 
purposefully making everything more expensive--healthcare, groceries, 
toys, cars, housing, electricity, computers, clothes, booze, video 
games.
  Whether you are shopping at your local grocery store or Walmart, 
prices are continuing to go up, and that reality is catching up with 
the President. He is underwater with the public on his handling of the 
economy with a 57-percent disapproval rating, according to the latest 
polling.
  Now, Democrats learned this lesson over the last few years. Saying 
the economy is great or not as bad as it could have been while people 
struggle to afford basic necessities is not a winning strategy. So 
Trump is ruining the economy on purpose, but are people better off in 
other ways? Is the country better off in other ways?
  The answer is no.
  A month ago, Trump federalized the local police department in 
Washington, DC, and deployed thousands of National Guardsmen and 
Federal agents because of a so-called ``crime emergency.''
  What does that look like? It looks like masked men with no 
identification walking up to people on the street, arresting them, and 
disappearing them into unmarked vehicles. Up until a few months ago, 
that would have sounded like a chilling scene possible only in a

[[Page S5993]]

Third World country, but now it is happening here in our cities, in our 
communities.
  Now, whether you supported or hated the previous administration's 
immigration policies is not the point anymore. What possible 
justification is there for masked men showing up and abducting people 
without a trace?
  Anyone who has encountered law enforcement in DC or Arkansas or 
Honolulu knows that officers are typically trained to identify 
themselves by face and badge as a standard practice.
  So why should Federal agents be any different? Worse, the fact that 
you now only need a black T-shirt and a face mask to look like an ICE 
agent means that there are a bunch of vigilantes running around 
impersonating law enforcement and terrorizing communities.
  This is exactly the kind of tyranny and government overreach that the 
people on the right worried about for many, many years, except they 
thought it would happen under a Democratic administration. They worried 
about socialism. They worried about the government impeding free 
markets. They worried about power concentrating in the executive 
branch.
  All of that is happening now under Donald Trump.
  We have the U.S. Government taking a 10-percent stake in a private 
company, picking winners and losers in one of the most important 
industries for America's future. We have the leader of the free world 
forming a secret police of sorts to kidnap people and send them to 
foreign gulags. We have the President of the United States making $5 
billion in one day by launching a new crypto product on the side. We 
have an entire administration more focused on tormenting private 
institutions into submission--universities, law firms, media 
companies--than delivering public services and making people's lives 
better.
  Here is the thing. All of this is part of the same project. There is 
this tendency, particularly among liberal pundits, to wave off parts of 
Trump's agenda as distractions. He may be decimating American foreign 
assistance and starving kids around the world, but that is a 
distraction. He may be sending armed troops and masked men into 
American cities without justification, but we are supposed to treat 
that as another distraction, but we don't need to outsmart ourselves 
here.
  We can acknowledge that two things are true at once: Donald Trump is 
trashing the economy and creating shortages of everything--shortages of 
everything--electricity, food, workers, healthcare.
  He is singlehandedly ruining people's personal finances and the 
American economy on purpose because he believes in shortages. He wants 
there to be not enough workers, not enough healthcare, not enough 
electrons, not enough food. He believes in shortages. This is his 
economic philosophy. And his illegal actions and brazen takeovers of 
the media and the private sector institutions and American cities are 
the stuff of authoritarians throughout history and across the planet.
  These things are not intention. They work together. They are the same 
thing. They are the same project.
  So the question for us, and especially my Republican colleagues, is: 
When is it going to be too much?
  We have blown past redline after redline these past 8 months. And it 
begs the question: Is there any line that we won't cross? Because if 
not, we all know how this ends.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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 remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2699 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I want to address a serious 
matter of public safety facing our country. Although our government has 
many responsibilities, the foremost responsibility of any government is 
the protection and safety of its citizens. By many measures, as elected 
leaders, we are falling short.
  Recent polling indicates that crime in large cities is a major 
concern of 81 percent of Americans. We can debate crime trends and 
statistics until we are blue in the face. But at the end of the day, if 
81 percent of Americans don't feel safe, we are not doing our job.
  For hundreds of years, we have known that swift and certain 
punishment for criminal acts is a basis of deterrence and order. And in 
a country such as ours based on the rule of law, this kind of 
deterrence requires officials to prosecute criminals.
  Communities around our country are in desperate need of U.S. 
attorneys to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. We have 10 
highly qualified nominees on the Senate floor right now waiting for 
confirmation. There is no reason that we shouldn't get them to work for 
the American people today.
  Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues have engaged in blanket 
obstruction of all nominees in their misguided attempt to derail the 
Trump administration. This sweeping obstruction shockingly includes 
even highly qualified U.S. attorneys that are supported by Democratic 
Senators.
  The actions of Senate Democrats are putting the public in harm's way. 
There is simply no other way to say it.
  On May 22, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee announced a 
hold on nominations for U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of 
Florida. Since then, the Senate minority leader and Senate Democrats 
have expanded the hold to apply to all 93 U.S. attorneys. This blockade 
of public officials is unprecedented and untenable.
  As the ranking member explained just last Congress, obstructing the 
confirmation of U.S. attorneys is ``dangerous'' and ``undermines public 
safety across the entire Nation.'' He correctly noted:

       You can't prosecute the case if you don't have the U.S. 
     Attorney there to lead the effort, coordinate the effort with 
     other branches of government.

  I completely agree with these points made by my friend Senator 
Durbin.
  My Democratic colleagues claim that their obstruction is justified 
because at the end of the Biden administration, a freshman Senator at 
that time placed a hold on a handful of U.S. attorneys.
  Although only five U.S. attorneys were ultimately blocked by that 
hold, I even opposed the decision by my freshman colleague. That 
limited hold was wrong then, and this blanket hold is even more wrong 
at this point. Five U.S. attorneys held by a freshman Senator at the 
end of an administration is a far cry from the current widespread 
obstruction. The strategy today is orchestrated by Senate Democrat 
leadership and is occurring at the beginning of an administration and 
impacts all 93 U.S. attorneys.
  Last Congress, the Democratic whip said that requiring a rollcall 
vote for all U.S. Senators is ``unsustainable'' because ``without 
Senate-confirmed leadership of U.S. Attorneys, public safety will 
suffer across the United States.'' He was entirely correct. Confirming 
each U.S. attorney by a rollcall would consume more than 230 hours of 
valuable floor time in the Senate.
  So what has changed now? Why are the same Democrats who decried the 
obstruction--pardon me. So what has changed? Why are the same Democrats 
who decried the obstruction of U.S. attorneys last year engaging in 
that very same conduct today? The answer is that they don't like the 
President of the United States. I understand disagreement with the 
President. People know that I have had my disagreements with President 
Trump. I certainly had no shortage of objections also to the conduct of 
President Biden. But elections have consequences and the President's 
ability to select these U.S. attorneys is a direct reflection of the 
electoral mandate of November 2024, a mandate that no Republican

[[Page S5994]]

President has had since Reagan had that same mandate in 1984.
  For months, I repeatedly tried to engage my Democratic colleagues to 
end this obstruction. If some kind of equal measure is necessary, I 
even offered a compromise where we hold five rollcall votes to 
compensate for the five nominees returned to the President at the end 
of the Biden administration. To my disappointment, my Democratic 
colleagues haven't taken me up on that offer; although, I have had some 
very satisfying discussions with them in the late hours. I hope that we 
get a relenting of that. And whatever it takes, I am going to 
participate in that process. I think that I am finding the same sort of 
participation on the other side.
  But in the meantime, I remind my Democratic colleagues of the ranking 
member's own warning last Congress when he admonished the Senate needs 
to ``put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of 
politics.''
  Currently, there are 10 U.S. attorney nominees that have been 
reported favorably out of the committee by a voice vote. These are not 
controversial nominees. Three of them carry blue slips returned by 
Democratic Senators. Several of them are in districts where recent 
tragic crimes have taken place.
  Instead of languishing on the Senate floor as pawns of partisan 
obstruction, these nominees should be in their districts investigating 
crimes, prosecuting criminals, and keeping the American people safe.
  Take the nomination of Daniel Rosen to the District of Minnesota as 
one example. Mr. Rosen was reported out of committee by voice vote. He 
has the support of his home State Senators Klobuchar and Smith, both 
Democrats. He is a qualified nominee.
  Just last week in Minnesota, a shooter entered a service at 
Annunciation Catholic Church, murdering 2 little children and injuring 
18 others. This horrific crime shocked our Nation, and the full force 
of our government should be mobilized in response. But what are 
Democrats doing instead? They are blocking the confirmation of Mr. 
Rosen to be the chief Federal law enforcement officer in Minnesota--not 
because of any objection to his qualifications but as an act of 
partisanship.
  Enough is enough. My priority is the safety of the American people, 
and that priority should be shared by all Members of this body. I know 
that even Democrats--I shouldn't say ``even Democrats.'' I know 
Democrats also want that same public safety. But this business of not 
having U.S. attorneys is standing in the way.
  I will now ask unanimous consent to confirm the 10 U.S. attorneys who 
have been reported out of committee. I hope that my Democrat colleagues 
will relent from their partisan obstruction and allow these nominees to 
get to work. Debate and disagreement about policies are to be expected, 
but it should never come at the expense of public safety.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 
XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations en bloc: David Waterman of Iowa, No. 176; No. 183, Ron 
Parsons, South Dakota; No. 257, David Metcalf, Pennsylvania; No. 258, 
Bart Davis, Idaho; No. 316, Kurt Alme, Montana; No. 317, Nicholas 
Chase, North Dakota; No. 318, Lesley Murphy, Nebraska; No. 319, Daniel 
Rosen, Minnesota; No. 320, Erik Siebert, Virginia; and No. 321, Kurt 
Wall of Louisiana; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc 
without intervening action or debate, that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to explain where we are but 
with a positive note in my message.
  Let me start by saying my friendship and respect for the Senator from 
Iowa should be a matter of record, and I think we share the same 
feelings for one another. We have had the distinction and honor of 
serving together for many years, and there are reform packages that 
have passed with our joint effort that I am very proud of as part of my 
legislative career.
  This particular issue sounds like a boring housekeeping issue, but it 
is much more than that.
  Every President has the right to nominate people to serve as U.S. 
attorneys across the United States. These U.S. attorneys represent that 
President's Department of Justice and make critical prosecutorial 
decisions to keep their people safe and to execute the laws of the 
land.
  There are some 90 different U.S. attorneys. To say that it has become 
routine in the past is an understatement.
  Under President Trump's first term in office, those 4 years, the 
Senate confirmed U.S. attorneys for President Trump in his first term--
all 85 by voice vote, unanimous consent--all 85 U.S. attorneys.
  Then things changed. President Trump stepped aside and was defeated 
in the election and replaced by President Joseph Biden. Early in the 
Biden administration, several Republican Senators began an 
unprecedented campaign of obstruction.
  In April 2021, the junior Senator from Arkansas announced that he 
would block nominees from any State represented by Democrats on the 
Judiciary Committee. I was chairman of the committee at the time, and 
it meant that some dozen Democrats could not have U.S. attorneys 
approved on the floor of the Senate because one Republican junior 
Senator said: I will block them all. I will block them all, he said.
  That Senator finally lifted his hold in December of 2021, but in 
February of 2022, he again blocked all U.S. attorney nominees for 
months. Talk about obstruction--we were living with it.
  In June of 2023, the junior Senator from the State of Ohio, a 
Republican, announced that he would place a blanket hold on ``all 
Department of Justice nominees,'' including U.S. attorneys, to ``grind 
[the Justice Department] to a halt''--he said that, ``grind the 
[Justice Department] to a halt''--under President Biden.
  On eight separate occasions, I came to the floor in 2023 and 2024 
asking for consent to confirm the pending nominees for U.S. attorney. 
Each time, my efforts were blocked by that junior Senator from Ohio and 
several Senators who are on the floor today. They stopped me. It was 
obstruction in the classic sense.
  Due to this Republican obstruction, President Biden was only able to 
fill 68 of the 93 U.S. attorney positions with Senate-confirmed 
nominees. So that junior Senator from Ohio stopped the process--stopped 
the process.
  I appreciate that Senator Grassley said today and said at the time 
that he did not agree with the strategy and that he would not try to 
defend it today, and he didn't, but we can't have one set of rules when 
we have a Republican President and another set of rules when there is a 
Democrat President.
  We also now face the Trump administration making an end run around 
the Senate's advice and consent duty. In several blue States, the Trump 
administration has taken on an illegal and unprecedented approach to 
filling U.S. attorney vacancies with extreme and unqualified nominees 
while making no attempt to consult with Democratic Senators.
  I said earlier in a Judiciary Committee meeting that although I 
disagreed with President Trump in his first term and second term, I was 
able to work with the White House and filled every vacancy in Illinois. 
We compromised. I accepted some nominees that would not have been my 
choice; they accepted some nominees from me that wouldn't have been 
their choice. It was the nature of political compromise, and it worked.
  Any path forward cannot result in Republican Senators having their 
U.S. attorneys nominated and confirmed and Democratic Senators having 
outrageous picks installed in their States in legally dubious ways.
  I look forward to working with the Senator from Iowa, who is the 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a fair and bipartisan 
solution to a problem that was created by both parties but most 
recently by the Senate Republicans and has been made worse by the Trump 
administration.
  I want to close in saying, before I object, I am not giving up the 
conversation--meaningful conversation--that is underway. I am hopeful 
we can find a bipartisan approach that serves the

[[Page S5995]]

needs of the Nation when it comes to justice but also respects the 
integrity of the U.S. Senate.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am sorry for the objection.
  I would agree with continuing to work to see if we can find a 
solution on this. Public safety is such an important issue. U.S. 
attorneys are central to such public safety, and we should get them 
approved. I hope we can get something worked out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________