they know that. every study that has been ever done on work requirements have showed that we have not figured out how toou make them work. by the way, most of the people in the medicaid program do work unless they have a disability or some other legal variants. that doesn't mean there isn't somebody out there who is shocking and jiving and on the program --d >> you can continue watching this program on our website c-span.org. back now to capitol hill as the senate returns from recess. live coverage on c-span2. am president. i wants to begin by saying -- i want to begin by saying happy anniversary. happy anniversary. 32 years ago today president clinton signed the national voter registration act into law. the so-called motor voter act --

that's what it became known as -- made common sense yet unprecedented strides to registering more eligible americans to vote. imagine that. taking advantage of the fact that motor vehicle agencies and other state and local government offices that interact with americans every single day can easily, efficiently, securely assist u.s. citizens with one of those most fundamental rights, registering to vote and participating in our elections. a little over three years after it was signed into law, on may 24, 1996 more precisely, i proudly completed my own training as a deputy registrar in los angeles county which qualified me to register voters in my own community.

nearly two decades later, i was sworn in as california's 30th secretary of state, becoming the chief elections officer to the most populous and most diverse state in the nation. just earlier this year, i was proud to become the ranking member of the senate rules and admini administrations committee with jurisdiction over federal elections. so it would be an understatement for me to say that i'm proud to bring my decades of election administration experience to the discussions and deliberations of this body. throughout my time in public service, if' seen person -- i've seen personally one of the single greatest ways to increase not just civic engagement more broadly but voter registration and voter participation more specifically is to meet

americans where they already are. and motor voter tried to do exactly that. rentalstering voters at state -- registering voters at state department of motor vehicles and other public agency, including state colleges and universities, military recruitment offices, and others. that's a good thing for our democracy. because we should all believe in that most basic of lessons that i believe we all lettered in high school civics class, that our democracy works best when as many eligible people participate. now, one other place that the national voter registration act can and should extend to is naturalization ceremonies. giving new, eligible united states citizens the information they need to register to vote should they want to.

now, if you've never had the opportunity to attend one before, i can tell you personally there are few experiences that give you more of that patriotic feeling than inside the four walls of a naturalization ceremony. if you've ever had doubts or questions about what it means to be an american, i encourage you to talk to, ask a newly naturalized citizen. when i served as california secretary of state, it was such an honor to speak at a number of these ceremonies. and part of the sacredness of the experience that i felt was standing up on the stain, looking out at -- stage, looking out at the audience and being told by the personnel how many countries were represented there. maybe it was dozens of people, maybe hundreds of people representing -- literally dozens or hundreds of countries.

so walking into the auditorium, walking into the convention center hall, there were immigrants from countries all oef the world -- all over the world. but upon taking that oath and leaving that ceremony, they were all united states citizens. and while some people get to that point of naturalization having been in the country for a couple of years, some after several decades, some coming from working class families, other from very wealthy families, some families that have been here just a few years, others that had been here maybe multiple generations, maybe some of these new citizens never had a chance to go to college or even high school. others were there with not just bachelor's and master's degrees but ph.d.'s, maybe multiple degrees. the one thing that was constant

for everybody is as united states citizens, we now had the right to vote. and in our elections, not only does every vote count, every vote counts equally. think about that. how beautiful is that? now, as i think about the people who go through the process, i can't help but also think about my parents because they went through the naturalization process. and when i see the dozens or hundreds of immigrants becoming citizens, i envision what their preparation was like because it was very similar, no doubt, to what my parents did. taking classes, studying, showing up at every important appointment, feeling all those -- filling out all those

forms. and on the day they finally take the oath of allegiance, they earn the full benefits of united states citizenship. and so it was an honor and a privilege to be able to address the audience as secretary of state and encourage them not just to get involved in community but to register to vote and exercise their new right to vote. and of course i would do it on a nonpartisan basis. but the statistics tell us that registration amongst naturalized citizens still l.a.ings behind other voters. during 2022 election, only 61% of naturalized citizens were registered to vote compared to 70% of native born americans. so the data tells us that we have a responsibility to do more

here. and so that is why today i'm asking my colleagues to pass the include new voters in the electorate act, also known as the invite act. my bill would use the powers of the national voter registration act to the uscif offices, designate them as voter registration agencies, giving our field staff not just the opportunity but the duty to help new eligible united states citizens register to vote. rather than just hand out a form, it would empower uscis personnel to actually assist new citizens in completing and returning their voter registration forms. i can predict what some of the counterargument might be. let me just say to everyone who regularly expresses concern

about noncitizens voting, i would suggest would better place to make sure citizens are regis registered than at a naturalization ceremony. with the flexibility to work with state and local agencies however they see fit, my bill would take those spaces that are so crucial to our democracy and turn them into catalysts for democratic participation. because the responsibilities that come with citizenship don't end upon taking the oath of citizenship. that's just the beginning. so i urge all of my colleagues, republican and democrat, to join me in supporting this commonsense bill to invest in and strengthen our democracy. notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill which is at desk. i further ask unanimous consent

that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, reserving the right to object. i want to thank my friend and colleague, the senior senator from the state of california, for his passion in pursuing what is itself a laudable goal, which is helping newly sworn in, newly naturalized u.s. citizens register to vote. but i've got no choice but to object to this unanimous consent request, this effort to pass it without further debate and without any debate today. i want to point out that this is a bill that hasn't gone through any of the regular processes. and it's therefore inappropriate for us to consider it at this point. the bill itself was just barely introduced. it hasn't had a hearing, hasn't

had a markup before the senate judiciary committee on which we both serve or otherwise. nor has there been any debate on this topic. now, no doubt it's important to make sure that our newly naturalized citizens have the opportunity to register to vote. but that puts the cart before the horse in many regards. if we haven't done our homework, we could cause problems. no one disputes the fact, at least no one disputes the fact now that there are in fact noncitizens voting in federal elections. no one disputes that there are already laws on the books making it a crime for noncitizens to vote in u.s. elections. u.s. federal elections are for u.s. citizens and no one else, and it's a crime to do otherwise. now, we've had some of these discussions over the last year, and in the months leading up to

the 2024 general election, there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims made to the effect that noncitizens don't vote. we know now that that is not true. there are a number of documented instances from this last general election alone in which that happened. and this reflects the fact that we often do a poor job of making sure that noncitizens don't vote. on the current voter registration form, the federal voter registration form, there's just a box, a little box that one checks for the applicant to indicate whether he or she is a u.s. citizen, provided that he or she checks that box and later signs the form for a driver's license, that person can then obtain voter registration in the same state in which he or she has applied for a driver's

license. and all we have to go on is that person's word as to citizenship. no one asks for documentary proof of citizenship. now, one might ask why? why does no one ask for this, especially if it's a known problem? well, this dates back to an interpretation of the 1993 natural voter registration act, the nvra, sometimes referred to as the motor voter law. there was a decision by the u.s. supreme court that interpreted provisions of the nvra as prohibiting the state officials administering that form, receiving that form from asking for any kind of proof of citizenship. now, that interpretation was, in my view, wrong. i agree with justice alito's dissent in that case saying that the statute contains no such requirement. there's nothing in there prohibiting states from doing that.

nonetheless, that stands. it remains on the books today, prohibiting state officials when receiving those forms from doing any verification, requesting any proof as to citizenship. that's why last year i introduced a bill called the save act that would amend the national voter registration act to make clear what i believe was already clear but the supreme court got wrong. allowing state officials to request proof of citizenship at the time these documents are submitted and setting requirements for that to happen. now, the save act identifies and establishes an out -- and outlines acceptable documentation for proving citizenship. and it requires the states to set up alternative verification processes for citizens who don't have the normal necessary

contemplated documentation, including for those instances, very, very common instances in which a woman marries and thereafter changes her name to a married name, not evident on any birth certificate she may have. when you contemplate the many dozens of women who support the save act in this chamber and in the other and who voted for it in the other chamber, who are part of the process of drafting this bill, they and i and the others who are involved in its drafting, we all went out of our way to make sure these documentation standards were not unduly onerous. in fact, in -- if anything, they are less onerous. take, for example, labor and

employment. anytime any american citizen starts a new job as an employee, he or she is required to fill out a form called the i-9. the i-9 form requires an american citizen to provide proof of citizenship, and if you're not an american citizen, then you have to provide proof of your work eligibility, providing proof of your visa and the documentation that goes along with that. now, just as it is true that married women who have changed their women to their married name, a married last name that is different than that found on their birth certificate, just as women every single day across this country are able to start a new job without that being an impediment, we made sure that the save act would leave things the same way. if anything, we made it easier in the context of casting this sacred, important vote and

registering to become eligible to cast such a vote. the legislation, the save act, also compels states to purge noncitizens from voter rolls and establishes federal penalties for intentionally registering noncitizens to vote in federal elections. over the last four years, many, many millions upon millions of illegal aliens have entered our country's borders, and of those, a nonzero -- ultimately unknown -- number of them were improperly registered to vote. no one disputes that this is happening. they don't now -- they did last summer. they don't now because the proof is there and it remains undisputed. trust in voting is as important as it's ever been. we must stop any avenue for

foreign election interference, and we need to pass the save act. voting is both a sacred right and an important responsibility that accompanies american citizenship. and allowing people -- people of other countries, people of other countries who are not citizens of our country, to violate the law and to access our elections and vote in our elections, contrary to law, is a grave blow to our security and our self-governance. the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed the save act a few weeks ago, and now it's our turn to pass the save act, and that we must do. in light of the foregoing, madam president, and in light of the fact that if we were to take a step light that contemplated and proposed by my friend and colleague -- and he is both; the senior senator from california -- without putting in place these additional safeguards that we need in the

save act, safeguards that are now more intrusive and if anything are less intrusive than those already in existence in everyday events like starting a new job, i must object and i hereby do object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. padilla: madam president, i tried to make the point clear. i respect where my colleague from the state of utah is coming from. i just fundamentally disagree. the national voter registration act, which this body passed on a bipartisan basis back in 1993, was designed to expand voter registration opportunities by making it easier for eligible americans to register when they interact with government agencies. plain and simple. that's all this bill seeks to do by designating uscis as a voter

registration entity under the nvra. and the point is simple, madam president. when anybody goes to apply for a driver's license or a state i.d., as you're filling out those forms, you do add name, date of birth, your address, your signing -- all that same information for a driver's license or an i.d. that you're put on the voter i.d. form or card when you're registering to vote. and, yes, you do sign as to the accuracy of the information, under penalty of perjury. so it is not judge jackson you know, check the -- so it's not just, you know, check the box under perjury. there have been cases when people are charged with false registration or improper registration. so the laws are working. the instances of ineligible voters voting are very, very

rare, but they happen. that means our laws are working. so we'll keep trying to work on the invite act, but i encourage my colleagues to think about not just the spirit of this proposal but the context of the success of the nvra over the last several decades. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, we need to remember a couple of things. first, when someone has gone through the process of immigrating to the united states, they've completed a journey, perhaps a lengthy odyssey of moving to the united states, applying for and ultimately obtaining u.s. citizen. they've provided a lot of documentation. they've done a lot of things to make that happen. and it would be an insult to those who are u.s. citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized citizens, to make it

easy for people to cheapen that, to undermine it, to dilute that by coming in and saying, you know, i'm filling out my driver's license application, and all i have to do here is check a box. check a box, sign my name saying, yea, i'm a u.s. citizen. well, you know, that's not an option in other areas where citizenship is required. it's absolutely not an option, for example, in applying for a passport, which is one of the documents that can be provided and often is provided when someone completes the process of filling out an i-9 and thereby establishing their work eligibility as a u.s. citizen. one of the forms that they can provide to establish that is a u.s. passport. regardless of which combination of u.s. identification they use, there are very good reasons why

we have those laws in place, to make sure that when someone starts a job, they're either a u.s. citizen or they have a visa with some type of work authorization in it. it makes zero citizens that for something as significant and important to the very foundations of our constitutional republic as the right to vote that we could just so lightly cast aside the need to verify citizenship. when we go out of our way in other contexts, like starting a new job, to make sure that they prove it. so, sure, yeah, my friend and colleague point out, when people fill out that driver's license application, they do have to check that box and they do have to sign their name. but why make it so that someone could lie? especially when read against the backdrop of a supreme court ruling 12 years ago concluding, wrongly in my view, but

concluding nonetheless and that decision is on the books, that not only do they not have to prove citizenship but no state agency may even inquiry, even if they have reasons to doubt if the person has admitted something or otherwise. they can't ask. even if there's been a waive in that state or in that area or across the country of noncitizens registering to vote, and that state wants to make a decision, you know, we really ought to provide some degree of documentation. they're not allowed to do any of that. so this is filling that gap, and it's important to do that. to that end, madam president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 22, the save arctic which is is he desk. i further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there

objection? mr. padilla: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: thank you, madam president. i reserve the right to object -- not for the first time on this proposed save act, not even for the second time on this proposed save act. this is an item that my colleague has brought up repeatedly here before the senate. so i won't repeat the arguments and explanations that i've made in prior objections to the save act but to suggest that it is a solution in search of a problem. audit after audit, review after visa view, investigation after investigation has demonstrated that the instances of ineligible immigrants voting in elections is exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare. which again means our current

laws are working. and to suggest that birth certificates be required for certain tasks when it's already secure -- i make it a habit of -- i don't make it a habit of walking arped with my birth certificate in my pocket. half the american public doesn't have a current valid passport. not everyone travels abroad on a regular basis. so they're unnecessary. our current laws are working, and therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, with great respect to my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior senator from california, he suggested that the save act, which merely requires some type of proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote in

u.s. elections, the save act is itself a solution in search of a problem. my friend also suggests that no document or proof of citizenship is or should be made necessary, even considering the supreme court's ruling that states are not even allowed to request such documentation, where they may deem it necessary; he suggests that this is the case because, as he puts it, the occurrence of noncitizens voting in u.s. elections is not only rare but it's ex-seatingly, ex-seating -- exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as you puts it. i don't know exactly what that means, but i do know that taken to its logical conclusion, that same logical leap could and would lead us to all kinds of outcomes that we would never dream of.

there are all sorts of things that may be rare by some standard or another. sure, it's true that most of the people voting in u.s. elections are not noncitizens. and in fact i would say that they would be a small, small, small minority of those casting votes, because most people here in the united states, most people voting in u.s. elections are in fact u.s. citizens. taken to its logical conclusion, that would suggest that there's no need for tsa, which actually i'd be fine with for all sorts of reasons. but taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean there's no fneed for you to identify yourself when you go through tsa because instances of terrorism are exceedingly rare or instances of boarding an airplane in another's name are exceedingly rare.

it would also suggest that because instances of people starting a job, beginning employment in the united states as an american citizen or as a noncitizen pretending to be an american citizen are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it, and therefore we should require no documentary evidence of u.s. citizen on the one hand or work eligibility with a visa on the other hand. i could go on and on, but it is not an answer to the need for the save act, to the demand that 80-plus percent of the citizens shouldn't vote in elections. nottance answer to that -- nottance answer to that to suggest that because noncitizen voting is rare we need to the require any proof of citizenship ever.

why? well, there are so many reasons why, but here's the simplest one. we make that easy, more people would do it. some elections are decided by large margins. others are decided by, to use his worded, exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small margins. we would be doing ourselves and the american people and the american republic and the u.s. constitution a grave, graving disservice -- grave, grave disservice, madam president, if we didn't take that risk very seriously. foreign election interference and meddling in our system is a real threat. we need to take it seriously. it's tragic and unfortunate, in fact it's shameful that we haven't passed the save act. this isn't the end of this issue. i'll be back, we'll get this passed. but between now and whenever we

do get it passed, the american people are taking on a risk because of this body's unwillingness to act. and it's not this body, let's face it. it's members of this body on one side of the aisle and not on the other who are willing to incur this risk. that tragically is a sacrifice they're willing to make. we tragically are a sacrifice they're willing to make. let's not let them continue to make it. let's pass the save act. thank you, madam president.

the senate will be doing some things this week. we're going to vote this week to do away with the biden california mandate which was by the by demonstration to impose vehicle mandate across this country through the california air act waiver. so we're going to be having that vote later this week. the impact of that particular rule would be devastating across our economy, and now california by taking that action and other

1718 states have essentially which it got its electrical vehicle mandate i could vehicle mandate that will be in place almost across the entire country. and so we'll take action to undo that an obviously the democrats would make a lot of noise about that but the truth of the matter is this has nothing to do with legislative filibuster. this is congress, united states senate submitting to the body to question were not the government accountability office, the gao, ought to be able to determine for us what it is and isn't a rule. the administration says it's a rule, gao has said it's not, and the united states senate will be heard from on this issue tomorrow and do something that will avoid again i think what a lot of people across this country think will be a catastrophic outcome and that is an easy mandate that would be imposed across the united states -- ev we've already repealed fisher to the congressional

review act 14 burdensome biden regulations and that is what we will do with that issue with the biden california mandate sometime later this week, probably tomorrow. but the other good news this week is the democrats allowed us to get on had to start the debate the genius act so we're very excited about the opportunity to actually do something that will be incredibly meaningful to people across this country, to consumers, issuers and to ensure there is a general regulatory framework in place and the leaders on that event senator hagerty and senator lummis. what a turn to them and allow them to make comments about the genius bill and then will go to store barraza, store capital and then open up to your questions. >> thank you leader thune. i would like to see everyone i look for to making history hopefully this week as we continue to make progress on the genius act. what does it do?

it's very important to understand this. we are modernizing the payment system and america. we're going to put americans at the forefront of innovation rather than having america behind as the caboose. this is a dramatic new technology innovation happening in america. what is it pushed off shore. i want to see it happening here. the implications of this are incredible in terms of protecting consumers. today it's an unregulated market. what we'll do is make certain windows stablecoins are backed by u.s. dollars and that those dollars are backed up by cash, short-term u.s. treasury is compromise quality instruments. so these instruments can be used for digital trade all over the world. this was her u.s. dollar dominance, or dance or position as reserve currency were rather than see the retreat and decline we might otherwise expressly guessing it will do this it will stimulate demand for the united states treasuries. in fact, projections are by the end of this decade stablecoin issuers in the united states will be the number one holders of u.s. treasuries in the world.

think about that, a benign stablecoin issuer, , ccp or othr sovereign nations. there's a lot to like about this bill. appreciate the bipartisan support we've received moving onto it and look forward again to making history with my colleagues later this week. thank you. >> this has been a long time coming and a lot of negotiations have gone on to get this bill to this point where we have a strong bipartisan vote last night. we look forward to sending this bill to the house. so the u.s. can establish itself as the country that has adopted the most advanced forward thinking digital asset policy in the world. it's something president trump supports. it it's something that we are dedicated to because the digital asset industry is already embedded in our country and worldwide, and when you do something that preserves the

dual banking system, that recognizes the u.s. dollar through our u.s. treasuries as the important global asset that they are and continue to be as senator hagerty says, the impetus for our being the global world reserve currency. this week going base a digital asset company joins the s&p 500, the first digital asset company to join the s&p 500. digital assets are here to stay. among the 20 largest holders in the world of euros treasuries is a stablecoin. these are embedded assets that we haven't regularly that we haven't welcome into our country until the genius act. i want to thank senator hagerty for his tireless work on this. i want to thank senator thune for giving us another chance at getting this to cloture. and it is a great advanced forward not only for the u.s.

senate in that it is the first bill that's come out of the banking committee in eight years, but it is our first effort to integrate our country into what will be a faster and cheaper means by which individuals and small businesses and others can engage in business all over the world. thank you. >> welcome thanks to senator hagerty and senator lummis for the incredible leadership on this incredible issue. i want to talk about this democrat delusional dream of eliminating the -- the want to force-feed every american who drives, make them drive an electric vehicle. the senate is going to get rid of this biden era electric vehicle california mandate. it's expansive and expensive, economically devastating for all of the country. right now electric vehicles are

about 7% of the market in america. sales are declining and yet what they put in place what they're trying to put in place is absolutely impractical. they want 35% of all the vehicles sold starting next year to be electric. they want 100% in the year 2035 to be electric. the fines are terribly high, $20,000 per vehicle if you don't sell those vehicles to people that the biden administration wants to make people buy. if people don't want to buy them come to bed. they still get fined. so the house of representatives all the republicans +35 democrats including democrats from california voted to end that made it. that's what the city is going to do as well. we see democrats in the senate clinging to this last pillar of the green new deal. that's a deal that lost an in elections in november and republicans have won the house, senate and the whitest and we will eliminate this california electric vehicle mandate.

>> hi everybody. as jarrett environment and public works committee i am the one leading the california congressional review act. i think that when you talk about lack of choice we talk about a mandate in california that spreads to 17 of the states. the onerous quality of this, of this rule is just beyond description not just the penalties, forcing certain states and certain consumers to purchase a vehicle they may not want or that they can't find. it really eliminates what a fake our country was built on which is individual choice and making the decision for yourself. we are i think the one thing that's interesting about this mandate is the biden administration, the california asked for this waiver in may 2023. of 2023. it was not granted until the very end of, of, of december

december 2024. you know why? because they know the american people reject this handedly and it would've really cost them in states like michigan and other places to have an easy vehicle mandate in front of the american people -- ev vehicle. >> the hell to, the administration under administrator zeldin come submitted as a rule. as a rule submitted to this. it is within about his uncredentialed act we will deal with it tomorrow. >> questions. [inaudible question] >> well, my come nobody of course is above the law. and i have full confidence that the court system, come judicial system in this country will handle the issue in an appropriate way. >> leader thune, as you know --

[inaudible] s&p downgrading credit. primarily because they don't have confidence that -- [inaudible] is it time for more realistic -- [inaudible question] well, think a steady go we just heard from the speaker lunch is he's come up with a bill that doesn't have deficit or death. hopefully will be able to deliver on that but the one thing you have to have if you want to do with deficits and it is dynamic to come. have to go and have gotten that's growing and expanding and allow the tax policies included that the reconciliation bill under consideration of house ultimately will come to the senate, do just that.

they are pro-growth policies that create growth growth that the better growth, better paying jobs. when people are paying taxes and tax records go up. you need the pro-growth policies many of which are in there and then but it is a warning shot that we need to get serious about spending. that's why a lot of our colleagues have made it clear in order for bill to get through the house and senate to the president's desk asked to make a meaningful dent in the article spending recent over the past all years. -- out of control -- the biden administration made two reconciliation bills. they had $3 trillion in spending and debt and i were trying to undo some of that damage but we have to get this thing a place where we're slowing the rate of growth in spending and bending the curve down, getting growth in the economy and before long you can start see this thing start to come back into balance. it's not can happen overnight. it's going to take courage. it's going to take principled

leadership. and a willingness of republicans are busy because you're not when you get help from democrats to do the hard work when it comes to reducing spending. >> tell me response to democrats say this boat is going to go nuclear and -- [inaudible] >> correct, and a deal. that hasn't changed and that won't change. the only people that have attempted to get rid of legislative filibuster of the democrats. every single one of them up there that poppy often spouting off has voted voted literally to give it is a legislative filibuster. this is novel and narrow issue that deals with the government accountability office was not the attribute determines what is or whether what isn't or wher the administration and the congress to make that decision. this administration has set its will. we believe that qualifies under the cra as senator capito have said and we are going to move forward and do away with a

mandate that essentially is intended by the democrats to get rid of the internal combustion engine. it's that simple. they want an easy mandate nationwide. the try to do it through california and this has nothing to do with the legislative filibuster. this is a rule and everything quickly be doing tomorrow will be towards this one more. [inaudible question] what changes need to happen in order to -- >> i think about the issue in the senate will be as mentioned earlier, does it have sufficient spending reforms to get us on a more sustainable fiscal path? ..

test.

[inaudible] [inaudible] had an enormous amount input, it's been on the streets since october. we have every imagine, man's and from the democrats, i was pleased to see 16 joining us last night. i am optimistic we will get there. i'm more than happy to work with

them and going and with an optimistic. this. >> a couple of years have a market structure. it is undetermined whether they join so we pursue strategy that would allow both cross the finish line and a choice for all

the payments born in the 90s and 80s. the technology. this will structures. >> members have been very open

and better understand it. >> i think the fact that it is joining the s&p 500 the members of congress industry is maturing. we found a is here in the senate to educate them about additional assets is the opportunity we pat to legislate from the bottom morning about it in real time the tremendous difference

between will going which is a huge different lesson than but going for crypto currency. there are people who have crypto currencies with but going. it's slow but people are recognizing the involvement of this asset so welcome, everybody. [laughter] >> there seems to be a lot of confusion about whether this might involve an issue or a person. on the best additional payment, it's a payment currency production.

there's a lot of questions going around we have done a good job. >> wanted thank you for joining me today so this morning president trump came to the capital to push for their one big beautiful bill. it's not beautiful, it's likely. it's nothing short of one big grip on the american people. >> she's very nice. i like her. trump can meet with house republicans as many times this he likes but doesn't change the facts. this bill fills jobs and helps

the rich. the plan is simple, billionaires went, american families lose they want to favor billion our tax cuts and clean energy projects throughout the country. under trump, chinese governments are outpaces the united states on clean energy. literally feeding our leadership to chinese. it's cheaper and better and going to hurt our children so many ways. this ideological obsession a hard right have against the country. we will show it and the test giveaways budget postal would

add 52 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years despite being the party of fiscal responsibility administration, and republicans look at trillion dollars the debt. top ten% of americans cap% of the benefit. lately back down. long island and campaign and said he wants the help.

and they stand strong and said they would do everything they can and let's see where they are. leave it at that. donald trump created this faster when he but this in his first term the arsonist housing to put out the fire when he says he wants to change in democrats will fight the legislation. >> donald trump promised croissant they want. he's pushing house republicans

to pour more gasoline on our national debt and deficit, and costs for borrowing all the american people. the lack of responsibility and the house reconciliation bill by downgrading national but for the first time in over years because public and proposal would add so much to the national that it increases the bit by over jobs will fall like a hundred thousand show 90% of americans are worried about the recession because of this most expensive bill in american history. it does 13 million americans because he gets rid of tax cuts that make it affordable is the way medicaid works for our wait

times in emergency rooms will go up. take away from children and seniors and tickly access to healthcare for those of the donald life take those resources and give those, wealthiest in our society. the poorest fifth of americans will lose $1000 next year and the top 1% will get at least 400,000. all of these amount to one thing. reconciliation the publicans are trying to send of her from house are a bad deal for working families. it's not right just and it's

not. >> i'm here on behalf of the nearly 14 billion americans healthcare is on the chopping block right now. republicans are advancing a plaintiff tickly care millions of families so big corporations, many of which jack drugs first place on have to pay their fair share. that is the deal. over just how many americans they are willing to take off the insurance.

and no time for paperwork. the marketplace tax rural hospitals that depend on medicaid their doors open. all of these are on the chopping block corporations can become more global. we are watching them lie about what their new does and hide their constituents and try to tell people not to believe there lying eyes. the writing on the wall.

he said don't that's around on medicaid. anyone to do right by wisconsin and i welcome the sudden epiphany. i hope president trump for wants is iron grip to help not hurt americans not got medicaid. these tests are legacy and he owns that. the issue is not going away quietly the night. we will continue raising alarms and telling the stories of the real people getting the rug pulled out from under them.

macro publicans have a real problem. they are trying to cut 880 billing dollars out of medicaid and there's not enough waste, fraud and abuse to cut 880 billing for medicaid, not even close. so they are coming after people's healthcare. civil. they will find many ways to talk about this. they will talk about work requirements but they are really about work requirements we seen this in georgia. our covenant a program called pathways to coverage. got over 500,000 people in healthcare coverage cap. a lot of those folks be covered right now.

instead, a whopping 7000 people. that's it. 7000 people these efforts are asking people to certify their hours month after month after month. it is a good job there healthcare and as a result, workforce growth with it is a drag on our economy. i think about a traveling nurse and ironically in healthcare and one day she got sick to make a long story short, he had a series of strokes needed to see

a urologist but didn't have medical care struggling trying to get her life vac together. another one, a traveling nurse georgia and doesn't make the work requirements and needs healthcare so that she get back to work. the data is very clear on this and i issued a report on this last week. they are giving leaners impacts. we must raise our voices. it's not just the physical document, it is a moral. show me the budget and i will show you who matters in the

doesn't. this budget just the republican party and they are in moral repair so we will continue to raise ordinary people so that they can get back to work. >> thank you, senator warner. [inaudible] >> number one, it's going nuclear overruling the parliamentary. and, what goes around comes around. think what they are doing is outrageous and i think that this

is typical of the justice department trying to intimidate anybody but that they are elected official, judge or anybody else. the bottom line is donald trump is engaged corruption with so many of these but i wanted to be ago conquered. it was voted on the first time in my colleagues made was not federal on donald trump and his family. >> the committee will come to order. today we will hear from nominated pursuit to serve as mission of the internal revenue service. congratulations on your nomination and thank you for your willingness to serve in government again.

the irs is responsible for the american taxpayers understand and meet their tax responsibility and force along with sigourney and fairness to all. oversee tax administration for the federal government and ensure compliance while balancing services for efficiency figures there's not been officially balanced and the virus suffered from many problems missteps. perhaps that is why they are rated as one of the favorable. notwithstanding nearly all americans must interact. we hear time and again to improve taxpayer services and boost employee morale and modernize updated. the last administration

dedicated billions of dollars of expert funding, but actual improvement ran short. this is in no small part to to the emphasis on increased funding enforcement work funding for customer service and further the irs diverted resources and attention to unnecessary side projects such as the irs invented is to create the unauthorized program. the trump administration rightly calling for a re-examination as part of this for full the irs. while critics argue tax collections back opposite has proven to be true. concerns tax began this year the

individual income tax and payroll tax receipts for $120 billion higher this year than last year. statistically in line congressional budget office in january of 2025. efficiency improvement does not require billions of dollars in butter prioritization. modernization and unable more efficient reducing annual funding needs with an irs on the spending path and renewed focus toward an efficient taxpayers it is now time for the next irs prioritize taxpayers. my conversations assured me once confirmed he will focus on improving taxpayer services and forcing tax loss with fairness for all and ensuring our allocated.

president trump congressman of people. he's very clear will make himself available to all irs employees, no matter their minority. he wants to implement a top-down culture change at the agency. this will benefit american taxpayers to often feel be irs flow rather than brand. he knows from years of experience of the house that could be a successful sure he must be a valuable partner and efforts to ensure tax legislation is implement a administered is intended to be. i am confident he will be transparent and responsive anthony american people. before concluding, be remiss if i did not thank him for his time spent as acting commissioner.

we want him to return to the job he was confirmed to do as we turn to hear from harassment american taxpayers want to change at the home of the irs. well-suited to leave the irs time. thank you for your willingness to return to government and i look forward to working with you. >> thank you very much. along with senator bennet i serve on the elect religions and as a result of this position, i have access to a tremendous array of secret enormous challenges of the country and i have able to make the today.

the tool he can used to help himself and hurt the enemy. one of his supporters numbers. this morning i assume we will hear a lot about enhancing fairness or cheraw. there's no evidence the nominee.

it was a bullet skate by with a nationwide dell tech. in the tax industry commit tax

on. and like the energy of the credits promoters civil or criminal, and that of the and they saw in his nation about

answer. no reply. it looks everybody. and these events are troubling. in the article about white river is called people and they don't exist. and they must have blown up. and the assurances of the truck next that's being legitimate.

and the senate campaign. still have outstanding debts two and a half years. the vast majority of the promoters, including those that white river and they went directly into their pockets when he pay them back that's not the only money they need to address.

congress created a program called the employee retention tax credit. and they receded and into a firehose. they claim the credit and congressman worked as a promoter. they are consulting with crime. and everybody qualifies and it

is just untrue. and and they are out right fraud. in all likelihood, they wind up and congress pocket. they are making improper claims and put the small business owners in serious jeopardy. in my view, that is unforgivable somebody involved in that. and proof that everything was on that level.

i wish it wasn't about improving efficiency and taxpayer services. and get people off the and a trump oil list group and through, not somebody is an independent tax national and serious concerns we have a number of colleagues. they have gone unanswered. and they are focused on this.

>> thank you. making this statement. number one, is there anything you are aware of that might have a conflict of interest? and prevent you honorably discharged office. >> no. >> do you agree to respond to any summons to appear and testify before any constituted congress that confirmed? >> yes. >> do you commit provided by elected senators you and

homeless advocate for the american people served in the house and we were both members of the committee and repeatedly saw his infectious energy and conviction to serve people unshakable and that commitment and i know he's going to bring energy and spirit to his nomination.

and paid auctioneer. the real world challenges and and congress and give him valuable funds through which is the irs. it is not just a tax collector, but also public agency that must be transparent and accountable. the results. his vision is not about fixing what broken, it's transforming the irs into an agency and it is

rooted in the tax system. and the public that serves. he knows how connect stakeholders. open communication style will make the irs more visible and responsive to the american taxpayer.

and get a job done. taxpayer elimination. and for the american people.

>> please proceed. the internal revenue service. and i want big beautiful bill. and make real transformational change and agencies that need or than any other federal agency for i can go back home where the fish are biting and they're not going to catch themselves the

first one to be out and it's important because congress made changes to the text and they spent months if not years trying to interpret what they meant. in a comprehensive understanding of congress is intent. here's something you will find. things come into my head and improve situation and every single day.

tell me what's going on in their lives and going out of the irs. there is a lot and make it a better place for them to work and serve. the american taxpayers who deal with it but only want either one of them to be intimidated by the other side. i had as many democrats as republicans. and where i was for 12 years. this democrats over there on how

i serve worked on together and going on and on and on. five years in a row. are going to represent on the ground, they would go.

meet and when she was in boston. and if this would be a good one you have in this 87. i worked with them in the house and i went to his office. there is so much we can accomplish together. going to have a good time and i appreciate that question. if i tell you that, i mean it.

i want to come to your office and i'll be open on ufos. i'll be friendly and open my staff in the house and they would come up and say your boss talk to me, i speak to everybody. i am a people person like the president said make it a better place for the employees. i talked to one guy, the treasury and visit when you are over there, i just want to see how this so we can bring them in and talk. i've never been invited and i

want to change that. he put pluses and minuses. i have found any yet. he got to ask why, i want to because i care what people. you can call five days in a row, different answers. so he told me he was nominated and he was republican. if you go to check tbt, he was to go get out of the office.

i love to serve, i know i'm going to get a lot of questions. they said nobody likes long. i yield back. >> thank you very much. i will start with the questions. i have a number of questions, but first i want to confirm a few basic facts. if you could give me yes or no responses have you ever met or interacted with anyone? and referrals to other professions.

referring to the clients you specify they should have their counsel involved in any discussion or negotiations. and you referred to these strategies provided to you by capital. and they should not exist. you disclose that, correct?

and you can go yes or no if you would like. top quality service helping them understand the tax responsibilities and enforce the law and fairness for all. american taxpayers expected the irs will live up to statement in the tax law fairly. regardless of one political affiliation and it's always true. can you share your thoughts on how vital it is for the same fairness and impartiality while administrating it cap so, what

will you do will hold that. >> make sure we treat everyone there and there is no room for any thing other than treat everyone fairly and follow the law. concerned, and i mean all of us -- senator risch and all of the republican colleagues and me and all of the democratic colleagues -- about the suffering and famine that's upon the folks in gaza. and today i'm here to offer a resolution for consideration on which 46 senators on our side agree. and although we've not had signatories on the republican side, i know that my colleagues on the republican side are very concerned about the devastating

absence of food and medicine, baby formula for 2 million palestinians that are living in gaza. it's been 74 days, mr. president, since aid trucks were allowed to transit into gaza. that's a decision that the israeli government has made under prime minister netanyahu. and what does alarm me is that it's very clear under international law, it's very clear on prior actions that this united states senate has taken that in a conflict as a tactic of war, starving the civilian population is immehr missable and just -- impermissible and just wrong, absolutely wrong. and it is an indication of the suffering -- as an indication of the suffering, this is a young child who died in their parents'

arms. and that was due to no food, no baby formula to feed this young person. and the u.n. has released a report that indicates if food is not brought into gaza within the next 48 hours, 14,000 more infants will die, and they will die in the arms of their mother or father. so this question of should aid get in, obviously it should. it's not right for aid to be withheld as an instrument of war. and, regrettably, that appears to have been a decision that has been made by the israeli government. it's not right, it's not necessary, it's not helpful,

it's extraordinarily harmful to innocent children, to innocent mothers. so my hope is that this senate would pass a resolution making it very clear about our concern about the well-being of innocent palestinians in gaza in that food that those palestinians in gaza need is right on the other side of the border. it's there. all it needs is to be transported from where it is into gaza and then distributed. you know, i want to just quote the palestinian about how dire that situation is. the words of a palestinian, let me quote -- believe it or not -- and this is, by the way, at a moment when bombs are still

dropping, where people who've been relocated a dozen times are having to relocate again, where the two remaining hospitals in yunis have been bombed, where there's no security whatsoever. this is what the palestinian said that sums it up. believe it or not, people no longer care about bombs, rockets, or even death. what consumers them now is food, how to find it, how to feed their children. it is impossible to describe how hard life has become. people walk around in a daze dizzy from malnutrition in despair. people are confused, anning shaws and exhausted. they are literally dying of hunger. a this point, they would accept anything just to survive. people are fainting in the streets. they look like skin and bones, pale and dizzy. if you saw them, you would break

down and cry. that's the word of a palestinian in gaza. mr. president, we've got to feed those people. the food is there. we all want those innocent people to survive and avoid famine. let us do every single thing we can to persuade the israeli netanyahu government to get that food in to people who desperately need it. mr. president, at this point, i want to yield to my colleague, senator van hollen from maryland. mr. van mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. first i want to thank my friend and colleague, the senator from vermont, mr. welch, for offering this resolution. and i just want to focus on the resolution itself for a moment because you would think this is something that we could all agree on. i'm just reading the resolved clause here. resolve that the senate, part

one, is gravely concerned with, a, the humanitarian crisis and acute suffering of the palestinian civilians in gaza and, b, the suffering of the hostages and hostage families. so that's section one of the resolve clause. as senator welch has said, i think we all acknowledge the terrible humanitarian disaster that palestinians civilians are suffering right now. president trump just acknowledged it the other day. he said a lot of people are starving. cindy mccain said, and i quote, families in gaza are starving while the food they need is sitting at the border. 57 children have already died from malnutrition, and the reports are that 14,000 palestinian children in gaza are at imminent risk of death if

they don't get more food. now, just yesterday after 78 days of a total siege and blockade on any food coming in to gaza, a trickle of food began to get in, primarily because european countries began to say very loudly that what was happening was unacceptable, that it was a violation of international law. we're also hearing from the hostage families the urgency of putting an end to this conflict and resolving this to make sure their loved ones can come home. i was very glad to see steve witkoff be able to bring home edan alexander. now we have to bring back the rest of the hostages and the hostage families overwhelmingly have been calling on prime minister netanyahu and his government to end the conflict, end the suffering on all sides,

and bring their loved ones home. now i want to just read the second part of this resolution because it does what i understand so many of the hostages' families have been saying that we should do. it calls on the white house, the department of state, and other relevant united states government agencies to urgently use all available diplomatic tools to bring about the release of the hostages and immediate cessation of the blockade on food and humanitarian aid for palestinian civilians hand -- and a durable end to the conflict in gaza. that's part one and part two. resolve clause that i just read. and i want to thank senator welch because he has written this in a way that you would think not a single senator could object to the words in this resolution. and so i do urge my colleagues to support him. let's put an end to the suffering and starvation of palestinian civilians in gaza. let's get the hostages home and

let's work to end this conflict in a way that ensures no more october 7's and ensures security and dignity for both israelis and palestinians alike. i yield back to the senator from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, senator van hollen. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. president. thank you, again, the senator from maryland. mr. president, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate res. 224, further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. risch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho.

mr. risch: mr. president, reserving the right to object -- look, first of all, we have no disagreement with the suffering that's going on in gaza. the problem we have here is, as we heard from both of these speakers, not one word was said as to whose fault this is. this is the fault of a group of people, a understand that group -- and that group of people is hamas. i heard them mention israel several times. this is not israel's fault. i heard them mention us, the united states. this is not our fault. i couldn't agree more with senator welch when he talks about the fact that we want an immediate cease-fire and for people to be fed there and for things to get better there. it is so simple. it is so easy. it is totally in the hands of hamas. if they release the hostages, they lay down their harms, and

they surrender, not one more bullet will be fired and there will be asked as of trucks come in -- and there will be scads. trucks that come in. when we send trucks of food in there, who eats? the soldiers eat. the hamas soldiers eat. they starve the women and they starve the children. not dole they starve them -- not only do they starve them, they use them as human shields and they set up their facilities, their military facilities, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in all kinds of places that they then wring their hands and say, oh, my gosh, we've been attacked. look, this is this is despicable. this is horrible. it's beyond human understanding how human beings could treat other human beings the same way,

especially when you relate it to -- you're related to them as they are in palestine. i agree that this needs to stop, but the first thing that needs to be said is that this is the fault of hamas and it is not our fault. it doesn't matter if we roll trucks in there tomorrow. that food would be taken, it would be stolen, it would be distributed by hamas to their fighting soldiers, and the dying and the suffering of the women and children would continue. this thing is badly aimed. it does not in any waylay the fault where it belongs, and that is at the feet of hamas. so based on all that, i share your objective. this gets us nowhere. and worse than that, it doesn't point out where the problem is. madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. welch: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: i want the senator from idaho, the esteemed

chairman of the foreign relations committee, to know that when it comes to condemning hamas for what it did on october 7, for what it's done to the palestinians in gaza on an ongoing basis, i join you in condemning hamas. this resolution, madam president, does not get into the question of fault. it gets into the question of suffering. it gets into the question of suffering of innocent people who at times have been victimized by hamas but whose families are hungry, who are starving. and the point of this resolution is to say let's help them avoid starvation by supporting the delivery of the food and the medicine and the baby formula that they need. this in no way is going to solve the conflict.

that's a point the senator made, and he's got a point to be made. but if we do all we can to facilitate the delivery of aid, it means that we're doing all we can to ease the suffering of innocent families who have been victimized. my view, madam president, is that we should do all we can to alleviate the suffering, especially for these infants, these children, these women, and peace-loving palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace in their neighborhood. i yield back. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: madam president, i want to respond to that. first of all, i commend the senator for his appreciation for the suffering that's going on there. it is horrible, it's despicable. you've seen the photos, you've seen the video. it's a horrible, horrible

situation. one of the difficulties i have with this is he is correct, this resolution does not assign fault nor does it talk about fault. and that's one of the biggest problems i have with this. if this is going to be resolved, fault must be identified. the conditions on the ground have to be identified. and how this is going to be resolved has to be identified, none of which is considered in here. it is simply a suggestion that simply taking food there is going to resolve this problem. and we have done that. we have food there. it's ready to go in. as i said, three things need to happen, and it's in the hands solely of hamas. not in israel, not in netanyahu, not in our president, not in the people of the united states' hands. it's in the hands of hamas. and that is if they simply release the hostages, lay down their arms and surrender, it's over. the food flows in, there's not another bullet fired.

that's all that has to be happen. but what has to be recognized in this is how this is going to end. there is only one way this can end and that is with the complete and total destruction of hamas. this is very similar to what the united states of america and its allies did in the late 1930's. we decided that the nazis were so bad, they could not exist as a military force, as a political force, or as a cultural force, and we decided they needed to be eliminated. that's what israel has decided it has to do to protect itself. that's what it's doing. but hamas can stop this. they can stop it in a minute, and they're not showing any signs of that. and so what's going to happen is this thing is going to fight, this fight is going to go on until the last hamas falls. thank you.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: thank you, madam president. we're not in a quorum call?

the presiding officer: we are not. ms. rosen: thank you. madam president, hardworking families in nevada and all across this country are struggling to make ends meet because of rising costs on everything from groceries to housing, all of which has been made worse by donald trump's tariffs that are driving prices even higher. nevadans, our families, we're being squeezed, and they need real relief. they need us to work together to lower costs for them. that's why i introduced the no tax on tips act alongside tax on tips act alongside i have been on hold for two and a halfip hours and he says it is not about that hospitality workers, tips aren't extra. it's part of their income that they use to make ends meet. tips are how nevadans pay their rent, cover their groceries, take care of their families, their kids. and nevada has more tip workers per capita than any other state. so this bill would mean

immediate financial relief for countless hardworking families. no tax on tips was one of president trump's key promises to the american people, which he unveiled in my state of nevada. and i am not afraid to embrace a good idea wherever it comes from. so i agreed we need to get this done. it's not a time for politics. it's time for progress for hardworking americans. this bipartisan bill is a good idea that has support from democrats and republicans, so we should pass it as soon as possible without any poison pills. the problem is that the house republicans have included a version of the no tax on tip act in their bigger budget bill, a bill that cuts medicaid, snap, and other programs families rely on, to give more tax breaks for billionaires and the ultra wealthy. so we shouldn't be forcing working families to choose between keeping their health care or keeping their tips,

which is why we want this bipartisan bill to pass on its own. on its own, not part of a harmful extreme budget bill. if we're serious about providing service employees with financial relief, let's do it now, let's do it too many, because the -- let's do it today because the american people get sick and tired of washington games. so let's pass this bill without playing politics, without taking away health care and food assistance from families who need it the most. let's pass it by itself. and so that's why i'm calling on the senate to pass the bipartisan no tax on tips act right here, right now as a stand-alone bill. we're going to cut taxes for real hardworking americans, for nevadans, for everyone, not just for billionaires. we're going to cut taxes on service workers' tips without cutting medicaid or snap. and let's get this done with strong guardrails so ceo's and the ultra wealthy don't exploit

loopholes meant to help working people. and let's pass it today. nevadans sent me here to fight for them, and so i'm going to keep working to lower costs, to raise wages, and make sure people who power our economy, our working families can keep more of what they earn. and through this bipartisan bill it shows i'm not going to allow washington gridlock and bipartisanship to block a bill without a fight. that's why we're going to pass it today. taking matters into my own hands with the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass our bipartisan no tax on tips act by unanimous consent. and so notwithstanding rule 22 i ask unanimous consent that the committee on finance be discharged from further consideration of s. 129 and the senate proceed to its immediate

consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 129, a bill to amend the internal revenue code on qualified tichs through deductions allowed through all individual taxpayers and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. ms. rosen: i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. rosen: before i yield my time to the senator from texas, i just want to say this is great news for nevada. our bill just passed. our hospitality and service staff, they're working harder

than ever while being squeezed by rising costs and this bill is not the be all, end all, but it's going to offer immediate financial relief while the senate continues to work to lower costs and find other avenues of relief for hardworking families. madam president, i yield back. thank you. mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: you know, i remember as a kid in sunday school thinking what it would have been like to live in israel in the age of the apostles, in the time of miracles. and yet, perhaps we have been transformed to another time of miracles. yesterday i was at the white house where president trump signed into law bipartisan legislation, my legislation, the take it down act, that i authored with senator amy klobuchar to protect women, to protect teenage girls, to protect young people online from

nonconsensual intimate images. we saw both parties come together and pass landmark legislation. and just a moment ago, 24 hours later, we saw the same thing happen. and so i thank my colleague from nevada for moving for this to pass by unanimous consent. and i want -- i want everyone to reflect on what you saw happen because it is conventional. last year president trump in a rally in las vegas announced his policy proposal of no tax on tips. the week after he announced that he had lunch with the republican senators and he told the back story of where the idea came from. he said he was sitting at a hotel in las vegas getting ready to go to his rally, and he said he was having lunch there and he said a waitress came by and he

said, she was beautiful, she was beautiful, which i believe him. and she said she was complaining about the burden and paperwork of paying taxes on chips and how challenging it was. and he said he wrote on a pad of paper, no tax on tips. what do you think of this? and she said great and then he went to the rally and announced this and the entire crowd went nuts. and when he announced that policy, i thought that was policy genius. the next week i drafted legislation to implement no taxes on tips, and i introduced it into the senate, and within kay days -- within days, both senators from nevada cosponsored it. as the senator from nevada said on the floor, 25% of all workers in the state of nevada are tipped workers. and this is commonsense,

bipartisan tax reform. look, i think we ought to be fighting for waiters and waitresses, we ought to be fighting for bartenders, taxicab drivers, we ought to be fighting for bu tigss and -- bu tigss and nail salon workers, we ought to fight for casino workers. i don't want to leave them out as a long-time poker player. we the ought to be fighting for blue collar workers across this country. and i have to say i have been urging, i urged the house of representatives, i've urged the white house, that she should take up no taxes on tips in the house and pass it. i said, look, if the house passes it, i think there's a real chance the senate will pass it. it's bipartisan legislation, and what we just saw is the senate passing no tax on tips 100 to 0. every democrat voted yes, every

republican voted yes, and by the way, the back story, just pulling the curtain back on how this process operates. the way the process operates is when you're seeking to pass something by unanimous consent, you circulate what's called a hot line and every senator gets the chance to say, are you going to object? 0 and on the republican side, every senator said nope, good by me and on the democratic side, everybody said, nope, it is good by me and now we are sending to to the house of representatives. here's the good news. with what we saw now, the certainty that we will see no tax on tips become the law of the land i think is very close to 100%. as the senator of nevada mentioned, it is included in the house's one big beautiful bill, whether it passes freestanding or part of a bigger bill, one way or another no tax on tips is

going to become law and give real relief to hardworking americans. i'm proud of what the senate just did and i commend democrats and republicans even in a time of partisan division, coming together on a commonsense policy. i think that's great for workers in all 50 states. in all 50 states.

dealing with the irs including significant delays in receiving their refunds and having their tax returns process. if confirmed, how will you speed up delivery of tax refunds. >> i mentioned in my opening, i saw a lot, thank you, a lot of you took time to visit with me

in your office. i think that we have to listen to the people in the regional offices, i kind of want to pattern myself after was big on getting out to these offices. i will be there 90 minutes early to listen to the people. the only two people, i do not care, billy long is not in this equation. what i care about is the taxpayer partners that i will have if i am confirmed with the taxpayers and i mentioned i do not want either one of those to be afraid of the other want to come in to work with. >> i asked you a very specific question about how you would speed up delivery of tax funds and there were not any specifics in your answer. they have struggled with delays receiving their refunds. the administration is cut the

number of employees in the new hampshire office of the taxpayer advocate service which helps taxpayers who are struggling with the irs. this has significantly increased wait times. since the administration has come in, since the administration is cut that number of critical employees who help taxpayers navigate the irs, and new hampshire higher, the wait times are worse. if you are confirmed, will you admit to reversing the cuts of the new hampshire higher office. >> i am loyal to a fault. i will be loyal to the taxpayer partners and to the employee partners in the taxpayers. i will advocate for those people just like if it is my family. >> just like these people have already been cut, they have been let go. the customer service at the irs is worse today than it was several months ago.

>> it takes people to provide customer service. especially nuance customer service, we spent a lot of time in my office. a constituent service unit and we spend a lot of time on a variety of issues and i can tell you that we are getting more and more calls from taxpayers that cannot get an answer from the irs, cannot get somebody on the phone and the irs and are seeing significant delays in getting their refunds. i want to turn to another question. i would like to follow up on my colleague's questions as to how this year you use new funds donated to your defunct senate campaign to repay yourself for a personal loan. around the time of your nomination, you took in $165,000 in donations to year 2022 campaign fund and then use these funds to pay yourself 130,000 dollars to retire the remaining

balance of the loan that you had made to your campaign. meanwhile, you'd only received $36,000 in donations in the prior two years. these donations, which benefited your personal finances seem to have been motivated by your nomination to lead the internal revenue service. did you at any time make your donors aware of your plans to use their donations to pay back a personal loan that you made your campaign do you have any knowledge that your donors were aware that you intended to use their donations to repay a personal loan. >> i think that you know exactly how campaign debt is handled. >> that, of course is not what i'm asking you, sir. a real question about whether they may donations to your financial benefit after you became the nominee because they were hoping that they would have more influence as that leader of irs. it goes to the questions that the senator was asking about your conflicts of interest.

>> everything that i signed with oge with the career employees over there dictates whether i can have anything to do with anyone like that. >> i appreciate that. i wish that we were getting a more direct answer. thank you. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> my first question, i hope that you do not take too long to answer because the second question is the main one on my mind. since we always hear from the previous administration, the emphasis on enforcement, i agree enforcement of our tax laws is necessary, in my view, it should be on improving customer service to put the taxpayer first because giving good information is one way of helping the taxpayers to abide by law. most taxpayers want to do that and would gladly do so if they

could get their phone calls answered and questions addressed if confirmed, what is the balance we hope to strike between enforcement and customer service. >> we are having a hard time hearing you. >> you did not hear my question. okay. >> if confirmed, what is the balance you hope to strike between enforcement and consumer , customer service. i'm sorry i did not have my mic on. >> everything that we do has to be fair to both sides. we have to handle the taxpayers whether they are paying in or whether it is a compliance issue in exactly the same manner

according to the code what the laws to date that we do. >> a program that i have champion i think going way back to the early 2000's, irs whistleblower program to incentivize those with knowledge of high dollar tax evasion to alert the irs and this deals mostly with corporations. to date this program has brought in over $6 billion to the treasury and could raise billions more if used by the irs to its fullest extent. should you be confirmed, can i count on you to be supportive of the whistleblower program and work to ensure it is used to its full potential. let me explain some of the problems. we've got people that sometimes do not get any word from the irs for years about what is being done on what they suggested that

tax money was not being paid by a particular corporation. it seems to me that if you are in interested enforcement, these whistleblowers and you want to follow up on it we seem to get some cases from the irs. >> i do not think there is a lot of daylight between charles grassley and billy long on that issue. you are one of the first senators that allowed me to come in the office and visit. we had a robust discussion on whistleblowers. i am right there with you, senator. >> thank you. that is good to hear. there been more instances of taxpayer information being improperly disclosed orally from the irs. the most prominent example in the release of thousands of individual tax returns to liberal publication.

i guess that he is in prison now as a result of that. in your view, how important is it for the irs to maintain the confidentiality of private taxpayer information. >> i think that it is utmost, the utmost and i do not know if it is my place. i am not in congress. i think that they were having the thing of the penalties involved and whether they should be strengthened. for what some of these cases have leaked up people's personal information and why they do that , who knows, but there should be a stringent penalty and long-term sentences as you could possibly get, i would think. the laws along that they get the maximum, it is not very much. that is what you are dealing with today. >> you mentioned in your written testimony technology at the irs

is dangerously out of date and needs to be modernized. updating irs information technology has been a priority for every commissioner for decades. unfortunately, such experts have been plagued with cost overruns and under delivered in terms of performance. what steps can you take as the commissioner to ensure that this history does not repeat itself and we do not waste a lot of taxpayers money trying to upgrade everything. >> i mentioned earlier that we need to. >> thank you very much. he met thank you. senator young. >> good to see you, congressman. i enjoyed our office visit. i have enjoyed serving with you in our capacity as members of congress. i know that you will bring the

same seriousness of purpose and professionalism to this post that you didn't serving the people of missouri's seventh congressional district. i would like to focus on part of your written testimony that highlights your commitment to implementing a plan aimed at enhancing the irs's service provision. it is widely recognized that the irs has long-standing challenges without technology, limited it modernization and, you know, generally behind the curve. you have spoken to this compared to many other federal agencies and many other private enterprises in this 21st tech heavy century. tax administration growing increasingly complex and digital transformation continues, uni, i would expect, would agree that the irs needs to keep up.

this committee has been working on a bipartisan tax administration package. a tax filing process. my constituents, america's taxpayers cannot wait. it is out of hand. irs's several years behind in reviewing tax returns and frequently gets things right. offers improper advice to many of us. one of my contributions this overall effort is a barcode efficiency act. trying to make sure that the irs like so many other entities around the country can scan paper, scan tax returns in this case and then this will facilitate more filing on paper. the irs can easily convert that information into the digital format and harmonized.

we in congress have not passed a broader irs transform process since 2019. i hope that changes, i think that it will. you have an opportunity, as i see it. we have not had an irs commissioner put pen to paper on a modernization plan and over six years. with that in mind, if confirmed will you commit to developing a comprehensive irs modernization plan that prioritizes customer service, identifies critical technology infrastructure needs and ensures greater transparency and audit practices, yes or no. >> yes. >> excellent. you will commit it to paper so that we can all review it, debate it. >> yes, sir. >> and hold you accountable. >> i want to be held accountable

with all of this. >> that is exactly what i want to hear. thank you, mr. long. i look forward to working with you on that. now, while modernization will go a long way toward approving irs efficiency, reducing error rates , it will not be enough. we still require human interaction with people from time to time to deal with some more nuanced issues. sometimes it is just nice to talk with a human being rather than go to the drop-down menu of the drop down menu and you're on the wrong website and this and that. there are limitations to even today's technology. as you know from your time back in congress we have case work teams. the puzzle palace that is the federal government. they do a really good job in my office. if confirmed, do you work with committing to work with my office in every congressional office to make sure that the tax related matters are addressed and resolved in a timely manner?

yes or no. the taxpayer advocate service has also been emphasized by some of my colleagues. the key role that it plays. i would agree that the taxpayers receive fair treatment from the irs. taxpayer advocate pace advocates are often those that engage in most with my office to help us help our constituents. they provide invaluable service on behalf of hoosiers across the state. how do you envision the relationship between the irs and taxpayer under your leadership and how if at all could this relationship as you step into this role be improved to strengthen important mission of the taxpayer advocate service. >> i've not spoken to that. through like i mentioned earlier , a lot of people think that i'm still in congress. i constantly get this.

they sent me a picture of my brothers like to ascending a picture at the va and he lost it in afghanistan and was having fits with them so i put them in contact with the right people. i say that i am not involved and i am not the irs and i will chat gpt indiana taxpayer assistance service. usually there is more than one depending on your population. i have had good reports back from people. i am going to do everything that i can to make sure that that is a very efficient effective way for taxpayers to get served. i am not important today. what is important is i want to help my employee partners. i want people year from now to say want to go to work over at the irs. he gets 90 minutes early every day. let anyone come in and talk to him. he has built a great culture. i do not want to be intimidated.

a lot of times, today, the taxpayers are very intimidating. they get a certified letter on the desk from the irs. sometimes it's accurate information, sometimes it is not to me, i did not know what else to turn them to. but that is what i've been doing the results and what people have told me, they are pretty happy with. >> thank you, sir. chairman. >> senator lankford. >> it is good to see you again. i have the privilege of knowing you for a long time because we served together in the house of representatives. some are just getting a chance to know you. i've seen you, i've seen your work ethic. i've had the opportunity to see you firsthand. i appreciate you stepping up on this. there is a certain sense that you get when you get a letter from the irs that comes to your house. there is also a certain sense that you get when the president of the united states i want you

to be the commissioner of the irs. it is a very, very difficult task to be able to manage. no one likes paying taxes on anything or likes doing the math and paying the cpa in doing all the details. making sure that the laws enforced. the most efficient way possible absolutely essential for our nation. it is still true no matter where you are. those two things are certain. we do have to run a government. we do have to do good collection we have to do it the right way. >> when he wanted to know if i would consider being the 51st commission i.c.e. had assumed he had called other people that had turned it down. >> let me run a couple of things past you. we will do a tax bill here in the next couple of months. as we did in 2017. there will be a lot of work that

they have to do to put guidance documents out to have clear instructions of what that means. the trump administration put in place oversight office of information of regulatory affairs. being able to look at the process when the irs did regulations. they swept that away and said we will not have oversight for irs. this administration back in place again. being able to make sure that it is done. taxpayers need to have a good answer for that. >> i think it provides a cost benefit analysis. i am all for it. >> that is helpful. it helps to pay taxpayer money. being able to have somebody over

your shoulder. all the boxes were checked. this is in administrator receivers act. it is helpful. senator young had mentioned something about casework the i just wantedec to put an exclamation point on that as well. they are experiencing more delays on getting an answer back it has been a crucial lifeline.v if we go back several years ago a very long time to get an answer. all of our offices were flooded with questions. now it is not as good as it was let's say six months ago. madam evyatar is now, as i speak these words on the senate floor, living his 591st day of captivity in a hamas dungeon under gaza. his brother eli told me recently that another hostage recently freed brought him a message from

evy evyatar, that evyatar misses most of all playing music with his family. instead, evyatar has been starved and kept in chains with a bag over his head. he and his best friend have been held together and tortured tog together. evyatar and guy both have younger sisters, olders brothers -- older brothers, parents, friends, whose lives are shattered by their absence. this, madam president, is evyatar before. but recent photos show a man abused and malnourished, and he was recently taken to witness the release of other hostages, and then returned to captivity, simply to torment him. madam president, i first met

evyatar's brother, eli, when he visited atlanta, then hosted eli at my office here in the senate. and i was inspired by the tenacity of his hope and his relentless effort to ensure his brother is not forgotten. and today, madam president, i rise to demand evyatar's freedom and to demand, yet again, the release of all hostages held in gaza. many of us in atlanta's jewish community, including beth jacob and all of the synagogues of the atlanta rab innical asem pli decided to adopt -- assembly decided to adopt his case and call for his immediate release to ensure he is not forgotten or left for dead. this 24-year-old man has now spent two birthdays in brutal captivity, where he remains, right now, at this moment.

but he belongs at home with his fa family. evyatar, you are not forgotten. free evyatar david. free him now.

he's go out to the office and they would be go out that day and they would say i want to go out on the audit and they would say you cannot go out on the audit. >> thank you. >> i am the irs commissioner. going on for a long time.

morale is a low spot over there. let an outsider, the way of the last. >> we need to go on to senator warren. >> i am sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. collecting nearly all federal revenue. behind every road that we build, check that we pay is the irs making sure that everyone pays what the law says that they owe. no politics. donald trump has a different ideao. he wants to use the irs to punish his enemies. on may 2 trump said "we will be taking away harvard tax exempt status. harvard would not cave into other demands d trump made so trump said that he would hurt them using the irs. now, this is about more than harvard, it is a threat to anyone who may displease the

president. including the people or organizations ertainly yield to first. ertainly yield to the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. crapo: i will object and we'll make our remarks anyway. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from maryland. ms. alsobrooks: thank you, madam president. robert f. kennedy jr. secretary of health and human services, is presenting a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of the american people. he oversees 13 agencies that are critical to u.s. health policy and the health of our nation. one such agency, the national institutes of health, is the world's leading agency for public health research. and i am proud to represent many of the scientists who work there as the senator from maryland. this is the place that the nation looks to for discoveries

in public health. this is where the world looks to to fight global health crises. this is the beacon of american exceptionalism. over the last 40 years, nih has helped reduce deaths from heart disease by 75%. deaths from stroke are down 75%. and nih funding has led the fight to save countless lives with ground breaking discoveries. nih is the greatest credit to sustained medical research in history. but now we're dealing with an administration that is a direct threat to our health. since donald trump has taken office, nih has fired 1300 employees, and has canceled more than $2 billion in federal research grants. he wants to cut the nih budget by 40%. and these cuts would be carried out by robert f. kennedy jr.,

one of the most unqualified individuals that we've seen to hold that position. secretary kennedy took an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which he was about to enter. and to this point he has utterly failed and is making americans sicker. look at what he's done in just four months. we're currently watching the largest single measles outbreak in our nation in 25 years. 25 years. 1,000 cases and a third of them are children younger than 5 years old. three people have died, including two young children. for years secretary kennedy without an ounce of medical training has spread lies and conspiracy theories about safe, ineffective vaccine -- and effective vaccines, vaccines that literally prevent measles. a qualified hhs secretary would

highlight the effectiveness of vaccines and urge people to continue getting vaccinated. a capable secretary would have some sense of compassion for suffering children. the secretary we have instead chose to downplay the deaths and encourage untested treatments. this is dangerous. americans will get sicker. and in fact they already have. our nation has made incredible gains in ivf and infertility treatment, raising the birthright through ivf dramatically over the last 30 years. but just last month secretary kennedy fired the entire team at cdc who works on ivf and infertility research. secretary kennedy fired most of the employees at the cdc's division of reproductive health which helps to promote healthy pregnancies. and secretary kennedy fired staff at the maternal and child health bureau, which oversees

important programs that support children and pregnant women. countless women across the country have become mothers thanks to the incredible advancements in ivf. and a good number of this president's women supporters supported him because he vowed to make the treatment more accessible. how dare this man take that away there them. our nation has made great progress in the fight to eliminate hiv and aids, building on an understanding of how to treat the virus and getting closer to finding a cure. until now. secretary kennedy has now cut funding for dozens of hiv-related research grants. did you know that there's a national firefighter registry that was set up to study the link between the hazards of the job and firefighters developing cancers? well, that registry has now been

taken down at secretary kennedy's bidding. this is a part of a heartless trend. they're destroying what decades of research has built. the billions in funding cuts and thousands of staff cuts threaten the race to find cures for a.i., cancer -- alzheimer's, cancer and other devastating diseases. the impact will be far beyond our borders and it will be generational. for decades we've taken the lead on develop. we've taken the lead on finding global -- fighting global health challenges. many of the world's brightest researchers come here to join the fight. top research agencies around the world partner with us. public health is a responsibility that we must lead. rfk is single-handedly destroying that reputation, setting us back potentially decades. the eyes of the world are on us.

most look to us to lead. some look for us to stumble. but they're watching to see what we do. having secretary kennedy as the face of our nation's health and research operations sends a terrible message to the rest of the world and a terrifying one to the american people. he's in over his head. he cannot do the job. and he needs to step down for the health of our nation. and to my colleagues, we took an oath as well. we have a duty, a duty to do what is right. and we know that rfk jr. is not right for america. i want to thank my colleague and partner here in maryland, senator van hollen, as well as senators wyden and warren for joining me in this effort. mr. crapo: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho mr. crapo: i'll now explain the reason for my objection.

this is another of many attempts that have been made to stop the efforts of president trump and his cabinet and the rest of the administration from downsizing our bloated bureaucracy and trying to bring a little bit of control to the amazing growth of our federal government without causing the damage that is always alleged is being done. from groundbreaking biomedical advancements through the nih to critical health care coverage for america's most vulnerable patients, the department of health and human services oversees many of the federal government's most essential functions. but far too often these programs fall short of their well intended purpose. bureaucratic overreach has resulted in the loss of trust from many americans. waste, fraud, and abuse has contributed to excessive spending without meaningful improvements in outcomes and that's driving our national debt

now to $37 trillion or $3 trillion. secretary kennedy has committed to addressing these failures. he's made himself and his staff available to congress and the american people to restore faith in our institutions. when issues have arisen, secretary kennedy has worked quickly to remedy the problem. in fact, in recent days, secretary kennedy has appeared before two senate committees to have an open, transparent conversation about the department's efforts. last week the senate finance committee moved to advance more nominees who will assist in the department's management and communication with congress. secretary kennedy and his team deserve time to deliver on the promise of putting patients first, promoting transparency, and follow the science. -- following the science. for these reasons, madam president, i objected to the request.

president trump traveled to meet with members of the house and representatives to talk about the one big beautiful bill that we are trying to pass. the president is now back at the white house where he is taking meetings and later this afternoon, he will be making an announcement from the oval office with our secretary of

defense. he is in charge of our military pete hegseth. i want to thank all of you for coming today. it's great to have you here at the people's house. have some very special parents who perform a very special job. we are here to make america great again and we live in the best country in the history of the world. we are all very blessed to be here. with that -- thank you. i am happy to take some of your questions. why don't you start us off, beautiful little girl. go ahead. i do think he likes to give hugs [laughter] you are welcome.

would you like to ask a question >> what is the funnest part of your job and the heart. >> that is definitely a very good question. i think the most fun part about my job is doing things like this with all of you in the briefing room and answering so many great questions. i think the hardest part of my job is also things like this in the briefing room and answering all of these questions and reading the news is a big part of my job every day. i wake up and read the newspaper and watch the news and listen to all the things that your parents are reporting on in the news and that is a big part of my job every day. frankie, go ahead. >> what is president trump's favorite food? president trump loves a lot of different foods, but i think his favorite is probably steak. a big beautiful stake.

[laughter] do you like steak, frankly? yes? okay. >> what is the state of the border? >> the border is the most secure it has ever been in the history of our country. i think your dad has worked for the homeland security council. it is a very apropos jane. what a beautiful name. would you like to ask a question okay. >> can you come back to me? [laughter] >> sure. i would be happy to. bobby lynn.

is a very good question. i think if he had a superpower would be to snap his fingers and so will other countries problems just like that. he likes to get done things quickly but sometimes it takes a bit longer but today he had to go to capitol hill to convince people to vote for him one big beautiful bill. i'll bet if he had a superpower he would snap his fingers and get it passed immediately that life doesn't work that way unfortunately. go ahead, but he. >> favorite soccer player? i don't know the answer to that. it's a very good question on

that we'll check in with the president and get back to you. how does that sound? i know you like soccer and he likes all sports. does he leave the country each week quick. >> no he doesn't. he left the country last week week and one on the long trip to the middle east, very far away but they have some plans to leave the country later this year. mostly he's at the white house working very hard. norah, go ahead. in what is president trump's favorite president besides himself? >> it's a great question because it would be himself. so i think that perhaps he would say george washington. i know he speaks very highly of george washington who was a course the first president of our great country and he had big beautiful portraits hanging in the oval office above the fireplace.

a good question. go ahead. you look very professional and beautiful. >> what is it like balancing a baby and a job as a press secretary? >> it's a very good question. my baby is here with my mother and as you can see he does not know what going on. but it is a challenge every day. it's also a blessing to have this opportunity and to be a mom. you have to prioritize your time in lean on your support systems which fortunately is my mother, my husband and my family. you can do it. you just have to work very hard. >> my mom is. >> nice to meet you. p my question is the youngest press secretary what advice would you give to young girls like me correct?

>> it's a great question and you are so beautiful. my best advice would be to work as hard as you possibly can to pursue every opportunity that opens up and is given to you and work, work, work as hard as you can. you are welcome. behind you. >> what is donald trump going to do about climate change? >> what is president trump going to do about climate change? that's a good question. the president cares a lot about our environment he wants to have the cleanest air the cleanest water the cleanest environment for the world and he cares very much about our energy independence and ensuring we can keep the lights on in our homes at a rates. we want to make energy here in the united states so we can do it cleaner and better than ever so thank you. [inaudible] >> what is my favorite country i think you said?

oh wow that's a very good question. i have been to many countries but i've lived in italy for few months and study but i very much enjoyed our trip to the middle east where the president went to qatar saudi arabia and the united emirates. they are three beautiful countries. we'll take a couple more questions. in the back that beautiful high hands. go ahead. and what -- did donald trump half when he grew up and does he have right now quick. >> he doesn't have any tests right now and i don't know if he had any when he corrupt. i have to ask him. there are no pets at the white house except for great k-9 circuit's favorite -- secret service dog that's here today. hazel did you remember your question?

>> what is the presence of religion? the president is a christian. yes, in the back. >> what did the president do today today quick >> the president was very busy today. he went to capitol hill earlier today and then he's here back at the white house in meetings and then he's going to do a big announcement at 3:00. all of your moms and dads will be able to ask him questions directly. [inaudible] he has a good amount of candy, yes. he likes pink starburst entity roles. yes buddy, go ahead. we will take two more.

wondrously president's favorite order at mcdonald's? the president's favorite order at mcdonald's but he loves hamburgers and french fries. who doesn't? they are the best. in the back. my least favorite white? [laughter] my least favorite white? i can tell you are staff kid. honestly it depends on the day. go ahead, honey. >> his favorite room in the white house? his favorite room in the white house is definitely the oval office because it's so beautiful and he has a decked out in gold. it's now golden era. one more. >> with his favorite child?

>> that's a very controversial question that i'm not going to answer. i know he loves all of his children very much and they are all great kids. some of them were here yesterday. we will do one more at the little girl in the back behind you. >> who is my favorite president? >> who is my favorite president? well that's a good question to answer. donald trump. thank you all so much. it's good to see all of you. thank you for coming. we will see you later. you are welcome.

the national archives. we will focus on the states today. i appreciate the opportunities speak to you today. when i came there for months ago i told you what it wanted a state department that was the heart and soul of american foreign policies that was the single biggest driver of action but also of ideas and we are well on our idea -- well on her which to me that. i'll talk about the many things that accomplish but let me explain the process. the first is a reorganization of the way the state department functions and we have sort of preview that the committee and many individual members and obviously we'll have to take input and are taking input now through the process a memo come

back to notification. we have taken input provided by individual members and your staff but also inside the building. i could simplify the role it's this. the goal is to drive power and action in our agency to the regional bureaus under embassy on everything we do. we want a foreign policy so we recognize the set of factors in diplomacy and foreign aid in guatemala return the data or in jamaica are going to look different than they may somewhere in africa or somewhere in the indo pacific region and we want those decisions and influence over those decisions to be driven by the regional bureaus. it's taken the functional bureaus and processes and move them under the purview of the regional bureaus and the career individuals that serve their and ultimately down to the embassy.

one of our first test is going to be in syria. don't have an mvc -- embassy in syria to bring out tricky but we need to help them. want to help the government succeed because the alternative is a full skull -- full-scale civil war and chaos. we will allow our embassy personnel at the damascus embassy located in turkey and a short period of time during the interim are best entered turkey to work with local officials there to make determinations about what kind of aid they need whether it's humanitarian law enforcement or governmental functioning. i strongly believe our decisions in have the power to drive decisions in the decisions in the input we are taking have to be driven in many cases from the bottom-up and not not from the top down and focus on the fact that their unique sets of factors in individual parts of the world that require different priorities and attention and foreign-policy requires a balance of intervention. that's just a fact.

our human right's agenda is going to look different in certain parts of the world at will on others. that doesn't mean we as a people -- you need to conduct real foreign-policy and a mature way and airways will have to balance all of these. senator rubio we are making progress. there are protests in english now. >> we have to understand that's why we think it's so important in our regional bureau to be at the core in the heart of everything we do and so we feel good about that part of it. by the same token critical it is at the reforms were trying to make in foreign aid and i said everything we do have to make a stronger's state more prosperous elite undertaken a review of our foreign aid in and the reality is they are many of these programs and they may have some good programs and some may call the sense in the world and we want to pursue those programs.

some of these programs make all the sense in the world but frankly, priorities scale perhaps other programs are more important. others frankly make no sense at all. we can talk about some of those programs. i will say this even with the reforms are put in place and what we are suggesting the changes to our foreign aid we still will provide more foreign aid and humanitarian support in the next 10 countries combined. then the entire oecd and far more than china. china does lending and that's what their initiatives and that's what the bureau of humanitarian aid in the world and frankly they don't know how to do it and they have no interest at it and they are good at going to country making a loan of holding the dead over your head. and by the way you have to hire a chinese company to do it. i don't agree with the assessment that there's no

evidence whatsoever that china has the capacity or the will to replace the u.s. and humanitarian assistance for delivery or developmental systems. we provide developmental assistance and they provided deathtrap and that's the point over and over romba world that was made. anytime you undertake reform of this magnitude that needed to be made you are going to have hiccups and you have controversy if these reforms had to happen. usaid 12 cents of every dollar was reaching the recipient in order for us to get aid to somebody we had to spend all this other money supporting this foreign aid industrial complex. we have to find more efficient ways to deliver a two people directly and will be directed by the regional bureau and responsive program exit difference and part of a holistic approach to our foreign policy. i look forward to engaging with this committee and appropriators and ensuring we get to the right place on that. my last point i would make this is something i'm proud of. i'm not besmirching anyone else

but i believe the approach we have taken at the state department and frankly it usaid but if the state department to move forward for forms that involve intake from all of our partners that requires input from people within the building. many of the reforms are driven by people inside the building many of whom who have worked there for many years. we are engaging with congress both in the house and the senate in a comment. f where we are taking many comes to making changes to or organizational proposals that we look forward to bringing back to you with an official congressional modification after that will be an opportunity before but the state department had to change. it was no longer the center of american foreign-policy and it would be replaced by the national security council or some other agency of government when in fact we have highly talented people any of whom have served in multiple posts around the world and have a holistic view of how foreign-policy needs to be conducted. we are being edged out.

in the state department they the state department aide handed these memos there were 40 boxes. that means 40 people had to check up yes okay but forgot to mean that's. takes too long that's what people say don't use the state department it. it's too cumbersome and if any one of those boxes to get checked the memo did move up the chain. we can't move at that pace in this world. events happen quickly would have to be able to move it at that the pace of relevance so i hope to work with you in a productive way to make that possible. i want each note the intent of the changes are. it's not to dismantle american foreign-policy. 18 countries in the two it doesn't sound like much of what i see this foreign ministers including in ukraine when i see my own children. we are engaged but we will be engaged in a world that makes sense and that smart or it's not about saving money to about buy the ensuring we are delivering to our people what they deserve

a foreign policy that makes america stronger safer and more prosperous. thank you. >> thank you senator rubio. we are going to do round of questions. i'm going to start. one of the things you mentioned admittedly this is what we are dealing with here large number of subjects and i want to focus on one that senator shaheen have worked together on it that's the theory of matter. you and the president for suspending or lifting the sanctions on syria. i think the next step and i think you agree with us both syria and at 11 on are opportunities for us and we need to explore the opportunities with a careful eye on what's going on to make sure. i think the next step as far as i'm concerned as far as moving syria forward is getting her snow on the ground. you and i talked about the

possibility of opening the embassy. i understand this is a classified setting but can you maybe describe for us the challenges of opening the agency and why we haven't done it yet at this point staying within the bounds? and gets entirely driven by security concerns and by the way it's not the transitional authority. there are other elements on the ground. you have to get people in and you have to get people out. we have requirements that are there for a reason. if you have a medical evacuation plan can you secure a facility from an attack from an armed group many of whom are running loose in the country unfortunately but it's one of the challenges the transitional authority is facing for it on the router point of syria if you look at the history of the region when syria's unstable the region becomes unstable this has been true after the spring led to the assad rebellion against

assad and that people will stabilize the region and turned serious frankly into playground for jihadists groups to operate and to destabilize it. you have this change in december and my view which i've discussed with many of you individually hear the bad news is that transitional authority figure didn't have the background check with the fbi. on the flip side if we engages them it may work out in the may not work out. if we did not engage them is guaranteed to not work out. it's our assessment frankly the transitional authority given the challenges they are facing our weeks if not many months away from potential collapse and a full scale civil war of epic proportions. the country splitting up basically. there is a serious national identity. one of the places in the middle east where christians and and and of live alongside each other underneath the banner of the syrian identity.

assad pitted them against each other so they face a number of challenges. the first is they are dealing with deep internal distress because assad pitted these groups against each other. he claimed to be the protector pitted them against each other and the result is a deep level of distress. there's a displaced move up to 8 million syrians and very successful in the countries they go to but we need to figure out how we can enable the transitional authority to create an environment where they come back home so they can come back to the homes where they can rebuild their economy. what prompted the president to move quickly on sanctions because we have a plan. we engage with foreign minister at the u.n. in new york and gave him a visa to come into the country and allow the finance to come in to the washington d.c.. i was going to meet with him in turkey at the nato gathering that the president had an

opportunity to meet with him and he made a bold decision. i will meet with him under the saudi's that encouraged that our rationale the region as right now the most important thing is partnering nations come nations in the region want to get aid and want to start helping them and they can't because they are afraid of our sanctions so they don't for the lifting of the sanctions the most immediate impact will allow the neighboring countries to build governance mechanisms that will allow them to establish government unify the armed forces. i want to be frank that won't be enough. we can issue waivers but these waivers because of expirations on them are not going to attract the foreign investment but ultimately they will have to be something done more conference of late to ensure the right steps are taken we can create an environment where the private-sector begins to provide economic opportunities. one last point i would make the outcome of syria will have a

deep impact on what happens inside of at 11 on. at 11 on to is a combination of clashes at the border but also they have responsibility for some. the fifth you think about two years from now where syria and at 11 on are stable that opens up incredible opportunities around the region for all kinds of peace and security to the end of conflict. this is a big task it's big picture thinking that it's an historic opportunity and we are obligated to explore it and make it work. >> i appreciate that and i think we are in full agreement with this. it is a conundrum as far as it's concerned. as you say it's hard to the future. there are real issues in the future. we can take it a step at a time.

senator shaheen and i met and you issued him a visa to come to new york which is important to meet with other heads of states. you have the ability to do that with the president also. >> sharon there may be an opportunity to do that at the united nations. probably will be. >> we do hear a lot of complaining and ranking of governments over cuts here and there on our foreign assistance but the number you laid out is absolutely stunning that the united states contributes more to foreign aid than the next 10 countries put together. that's an absolutely stunning number. i guess what you're telling us before you feel too guilty about

it is we need to look around and compliment ourselves for what we are actually doing and have been doing for a long time. that there is no doubt we want to do it in a smarter and more targeted way. >> last week let me give you a minute on pepfar but people talk a lot about pepfar and virtually everyone here supports pepfar. you've done some things to make it better. if you can give us a short dissertation on that. >> 85% of pepfar's functional right now. now there were hiccups on the payments are not the waivers but the payments. the treasury at the push for money now than there were hiccups which diagnosed in conversations with many of you. we have fixed that program. 85% of pepfar is functioning in operating. there were reductions of individual pieces that program but pepfar today stands at 85% of functionality and when i hear the stories about the money we

are moving money out every single day. money is moving out the door and it's going to somebody but some of that is going to pay for work that was conducted in december or january and february and we are paying back invoices on some of them but a lot of it is going towards programmatic activities that are approved either through waiver and door were approval process moving forward. appreciate it presenters shaheen. >> mr. secretary of the number of questions but i first want to go back to what you had to say about china. i agree that their efforts are but i think somebody may be missing what they are doing in response to our ceasing of foreign assistance in places and mr. chairman for the record i'd like to submit this fact sheet the prc supporting international assistance with the u.s. withdraws.

just to give you few examples earlier this month's general michael langley is the commander u.s. africa command i said on the armed services committee and what we asked him about this at the usaid programs he stated the prc is trying to replicate inflows to specific usaid aid including pepfar. there are several pages of these examples and another one is in cambodia after u.s. terminated 2 million mining program in cambodia. we are seeing 4.4 million to expand in the mining programs for the searcy recently stepped down to fund child literacy and nutrition programs previously supported by usaid. we can pretend china's not doing these things in promoting

themselves as a reliable partner when the united states is not that we have specific examples that show where this is happening. but i want to move to ukraine because we heard the conversations that the president had with vladimir putin the phone conversations where putin didn't agree to any meaningful negotiations that would end this war and ukraine and as president trump has admitted vladimir putin is taking him for a ride. we have a bipartisan bill in the senate led by lindsay graham that has 80 sponsors. i understand the house members are ready to take this up on a discharge petition. if we pass it on the senate. how much longer until we reigned put an end and are you prepared to support that sanctions bill

that graham and blumenthal 78 other members of the senate support? let me answer your last question first about the bill. i believe senator shaheen you were involved in a conversation and made it clear to the russian's what would happen if there is no progress and that's been repeated multiple times for that make this point and this is important but every single sanction, not one sanction is than lifted on the russian spread every single sanction in place under the previous said mr. sharon is in place. we have the same leverage today that we had in the previous administration. >> mr. secretary would argue the lead for -- the leverage is taking nato membership off the table and taking away commitment to continue to help the ukrainians with intelligence sharing and military equipment and arms that they need to help fight this war. >> that continues. there was applause for one week

and that was restarted. >> that was intelligence sharing though. doesn't cover the equipment and arms. >> that program has not been rescinded. >> we continue to fund with the ukrainians need and are you prepared to pass another supplemental bill. >> that's a different question. that's not for me to decide. the white house will have to make a determination of the supplemental that everything has been a congressionally appropriated and is ongoing. to the extent it's conditional what they have asked for his air defense pager units which frankly we don't have that we are working closely with our nato allies for their nato allies to do a patriot missiles that they could transfer over to the air sports in kyiv and other places. we have been working alongside with their partners to get these systems. none of these countries want to give up their patriots. we can't make them fast enough

and part of the challenge ahead and ukraine is the mission has been extended substantially in the broader west and not just us but the west to produce them. that issued ukraine here was what we can agree on. you'll have have to and a negotiated settlement in the fundamental towns we have and ukraine is this russia wants what they do not currently have and are not entitled to and ukraine wants what they cannot regain militarily. that's part of the challenge. >> i don't disagree with that at one level but on the other hand what vladimir putin is doing now is playing for time in playing this present like a fiddle. the longer he plays him the more opportunity he has again territory in ukraine and the harder it will be to get them to the table but we need to do is to put pressure on vladimir putin in every way they can to ensure we can get them to an the negotiating table. >> i disagree with that playing

the fiddle analogy. putin have the same set of sanctions sanctions on them by the saudis had since the beginning and ukraine to getting our rensin shipments from us in the allies in european union or the u.s. is looking for patriot -- to transfer into the ukrainian hands. but the press is trying to do is to end the budget -- bloody costly war. but this notion what is putin gained? he hasn't gotten a single concession. >> he gets time in the more time he gets without official pressure -- pressure on russia the more incentive we have too continued to play for time. i want to get to a final question because my time is running out. and that is a recently about a letter to you about the issuance of executive orders on afghan

allies. these are people who fought alongside her military during the war in afghanistan. they have been stranded in qatar and albania in afghanistan. these are individuals who have been dead already and they are ready to travel to the united states. the question i have is this administration going to allow them to come to united states has promised because unless we are willing to keep our promises of those people who are willing to fight and die alongside this how can we ask people to do that again? >> a couple of points. the issues are getting mixed up here is whether we will pay for the united states or whether they have defined their own transportation and those are two separate topics for their payment to move people forward with the issuance of the visas. that's still going through internal review as to who will be allowed in and it's a review of the vetting process. frankly their brand errors in the previous vetting for --

process. we have been working with them alongside her intelligence forces and special operators on the ground. there were some concerns about slowing down this program so they could determine whether we are properly vetting people to come to the states for that process is ongoing and we'll have more concrete answers for you which are not satisfactory at this moment but we have a lot going on and this is something we have heard a lot from from our dod partners and others in the intelligence community that we are working to make progress on. >> i'm out of time but just to clarify last week secretary known as the status for over 8000 following senators be permitted to speak for up to five minutes each. myself, senator whitehouse, and

democratic leader schumer. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. padilla: thank you, mr. president. i rise today with my colleagues to make very, very clear, not just to our republican colleagues but to history of exactly what's at stake. let there be no doubt that the senate republicans are threatening to go nuclear on senate procedure to gut california's clean air act waivers. but this isn't just about california's climate policies and this isn't just about the scope of the congressional review act, this isn't just about eliminating the legislative filibuster. no. what republicans are proposing to do would go far beyond just eliminating the filibuster. if they insist on moving

forward, federal agencies will now have unilateral power to trigger privilege on the senate floor with no institutional check from the legislative branch. just as epa has submitted california's waivers with full knowledge that they are not actually rules, other agencies will now be free to submit any type of action going back to 1996. think licenses, permits, leases, loan agreements, drug ale approvals. there would be no limit. now, we've been safe from this kind of abuse until now because the senate has a process, a process in place for the government accountability office to help the senate parliamentarian determine privilege for the purposes of

the cra. republicans are threatening to throw that process out. the consequences of throwing the rulebook out the window will be very, very serious, mr. president, but it's not too late to turn back. republicans must understand exactly what they're doing the today i think it's important to establish some facts about the process that protects the senate from agencies that try to game the system. mr. president, i have a parliamentarian inquiry. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. padilla: mr. president, is it correct that the then-senate naerm 2008 -- parliamentarian in 2008, in cooperation with committee staff developed a senate procedure for determining what qualifies for consideration under the congressional review act when an agency fails to submit an action to congress and

that it was first established in 2012. the presiding officer: based on information publicly available, yes, that is correct. mr. padilla: and is it correct that that procedure which uses a gao determination as to the nature of the agency action, whether or not it is a rule, has been implemented numerous times by senators on both sides of the aisle, including one occasion where a gao letter gave rise to a joint resolution of disapproval which became law? the presiding officer: based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct. mr. padilla: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i join the ranking member of the rules committee with a parliamentarian inquiry of my

own. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. whitehouse: is it true that unless a piece of legislation is privileged under a rule or statutory provision or is the subject of a unanimous consent agreement, motions to proceed to that legislation are generally fully debatable. the presiding officer: yes, that is correct. mr. whitehouse: that is correct. for those of you following this at home, fully debatable 60 votes are required to end debate which republicans do not have. mr. president, i have a further parliamentary inquiry. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. whitehouse: is it commonplace for senate offices and for whichever senator is presiding over the senate to consult with the parliamentarian to determine whether and in what

manner expedited procedures apply under a host of statutes, including the war powers act, the national mnls act, the congressional budget office -- congressional budget act and congressional review act. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. whitehouse: for those of you following this at home, it means this is the commonplace way in which the senate operates and when it becomes the parliamentarian's call on a matter and not anyone else's call. so in the congressional review act matter before us, here's what happened. both sides drafted written memoranda to the parliamentarian. both sides presented oral arguments to the parliamentarian. the parliamentarian questions of both sides and the parliamentarian, our neutral

referee, reached a decision. that all took place here in the senate, actually over there in the lbj room. the gao was not even in the room when the arguments were made, and that decision, the decision of the parliamentarian is what is now at hand in what is about to happen here in the senate. and with that, let me note the presence on the floor of the democratic leader and yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, is it true that the parliamentarian advised leadership offices that the joint resolutions of disapproval regarding the california waivers at issue does not qualify for expedited consideration under the congressional review act? the presiding officer: while the chair has no personal knowledge of those circumstances, the parliamentarian has advised me that such advice was given.

mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. before i yield, i want everyone to understand what the essence of my question was. this week the republicans want to use a legislative tool known as the cra in an unprecedented way to repeal emissions waivers that the fossil fuel industry has long decembered. the cra -- detested. the cra has never been used to go after emission waivers like the ones in question today. the waiver's so important to the health of our country and particularly to our children. to go nuclear on something as significant as this and to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry is outrageous. and we just heard in response to my inquiry just now that the parliamentarian affirmed this that these california waivers are not -- not eblgible for the -- eligible for the expedited procedures that the

krar affords. that means legislation to repeal these waivers should be subject to a 60-vote threshold in the senate. to use the cra in a way that republicans propose is going nuclear. no ands, ifs, or buts. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, i wonder if any other member of this chamber grew up like i did where on a pretty regular basis we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled

over the san fernando valley, the city of los angeles. how many of you grew up to more reports of unhealthy air quality in the air quality indexer, hazardous air quality forecast for that particular day then it was just clean air. but that's the case for far too many californians still to this day. but it's the reason why decades ago congress recognized both california's unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity and granted california special authority to do something about it. and thanks to the bipartisan the clean air act of over 50 years ago, california has had that legal authority to set emissions standards, to petition and be granted waivers to be able to show leadership. for over 50 years.

because congress recognized rightfully so that air quality in west virginia or wyoming is different than it is in southern californiale. -- california. that there's fewer cars on the road in salt lake city than there are in los angeles. and because california was and still is the center of innovation in the united states. in 2025, it appears that republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine california's ability to protect the health of our residents. by using the congressional review act to revoke california's waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emission standards, republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents. what happened?

you know, nearly 60 years ago it was republican governor ronald reagan who established the state air resources board in california. three years later it was republican president richard nixon that signed amendments into the clean air act fulfilling a promise that he made during that year state of the union. that clean air should be, quote, the birthright of every american. i wonder if governor, future president, reagan, president nixon would recognize their own party today. i also want to take a moment to speak to parents of young children, not just in california but across the country, because parents are rightfully concerned about the safety of what our children eat, what medications they take. you know, as parents we have some level of control over

certain things, like the food we give our kids or the medications that we provide, but some things we can't control as parents include the quality of the air that they breathe outside. we can't individually control the toxic nitrogen oxides, the carbon monoxide, the sulfur buy oxide, the benzene particulate matter that flow into the air and our children's lungs. unless industry were to somehow decide to suddenly do the right th thing, it's incumbent upon government to act, and that's what california has done. but of course, this discussion debate is more than just about public health. california's emission standards also represent ambitious but achievable steps to cut carbon emissions and fight the climate

cr crisis. we've taken a stand because we know transportation somewhere the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and california has been proud to set the example for other states who may choose to follow suit. now, mr. president, i use the word choose, and i use it repeatedly, because over and over again in this debate i've heard some arguments coming from republicans that i think are misleading the american public. i hear arguments like, well, california, quote, isn't simply setting a stricter standards for itself. it's setting a new national standard. end quote. or california's, quote, emission standards would become de facto national ones. end quote. so i want to be clear -- california has not, and cannot force our emission standards on any other state in the nation. as much as i may love that

authority, that does not exist. but yes, over a dozen other states have voluntarily followed in california's footsteps. not because they were forced to, but because they chose to in order to protect their constituents, their residents, and protect our planet. and the truth is they do have a tremendous blueprint to follow. california is now the fourth largest economy in the world, and the largest contributor to the federal treasury. california didn't get there by sticking our head in the sand as the clean energy transition blossomed elsewhere. we we leaned in and proved what's good for the air is good for business, what's good for the planet and public health is good for the economy. but meanwhile, the cost of inaction continued to hit americans where it hurts the most, in our wallets.

in 2021, the natural resources defense council estimated air pollution from fossil fuels cost americans an average of $2,500 a year in medical bills, or over $820 billion in total. so, no, this isn't just about republicans defending against some california power grab or fighting on behalf of the little guy. which brings me to my final point, because it's not just why republicans are trying to undermine california's climate leadership, it's how they're trying to do it. now, i've been very clear on where i stand on the filibuster that's been a quiet counterargument in several conversations here amongst colleagues. yes, i do support lowering the threshold to move to pass a bill from a supermajority to a simple

majority, but only after there has been an opportunity for amendments and debate. in an effort to stop the endless partisan gridlock that prevents so much more progress that the american people deserve. i voted to make that rule change, and codify it in the senate rules. but in 2022, when we did so, republicans opposed it, and they defended the filibuster and the 60 vote threshold as sacred. today, as a ranking member of the senate rules committee, i want to make sure everyone understands exactly what republicans are trying to do here now. the clean air act passed this body under regular order by a vote of 88-12 in 1967. the landmark clean air act amendments passed the senate 89-11 in 1990. overwhelming bipartisan support.

but now, republicans are trying to pass these bills that strike at the heart of the clean air act's provision for california on a simple majority 50-vote threshold, bypassing the filibuster. republicans certainly must know they don't have the votes to amend the clean air act under regular order. if they did, they'd choose that path. they also know congress doesn't have the authority to amend the clean air act through the congressional review act. don't just take my word for it. they heard it from the independent, nonpartisan general accountability office. not just once but twice, and they heard it from the senate parliamentarian, who told them they cannot move forward. so what republicans are now trying to do is truly unprecedented, and it's about far more than simply california's clean energy

policies. republicans are threatening to vote on whether or not to overrule the senate parliamentarian. republicans are effectively saying that whenever the parliamentarian rules against them, they can simply disregard her to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation on a simple majority vote. so, no, this isn't some one-off change to the rules. this is throwing out the rule book entirely, because if they can ignore the parliamentarian here, then why not on an upcoming tax bill, or in their efforts to gut health care for many americans, or whatever the latest overreach is called for by president trump? this goes way beyond the fili filibuster. the trump administration could send an endless stream of n nonrule actions to congress,

going back to 1996, including vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, merger approvals, and any number of government decisions that apply to president trump's long list of enemies. all it would take is a minority of 30 senators to introduce related bills, and the senate would be bogged down voting on agency grocery lists all day long. is that how we want to spend our days here in the senate, voting on every vaccine approval because secretary kennedy decides to send them to congress? so, to my republican colleagues, i should also say this, the old adage says what goes around comes around, and it won't be long before democrats are once again in the driver's seat here,

in the majority once again. and when that happens, all bets would be off because of the precedent you could be setting here at this moment. think mine increments, think fossil fuel approvals, think lng offset licenses or offshore leases, irs tax policy, foreign policy, every project 2025 or doge disruption, every agency action that democrats don't like, whether it's a rule or not, and no matter how much time has passed, would be fair game if republicans set this new precedent. so, i suggest we all think long and hard and very carefully about this. and i would urge my colleagues, all my colleagues, to join me, not just in defending california's right to protect the health of our residents, not just in combating the existential threat of climate change, but in maintaining order

in this chamber. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, let me start with just a quick o overview of the congressional review act, which brings us here to the floor today. under the american legal system, administrative agencies can make rules, and there's a very robust process for doing so. the agency often gives a notice of proposed rulemaking so the world will know what they're considering doing, then solicit comment from affected stakeholders, the public, a wide variety of people. so you start with an agency that seeks to make a rule. they have to follow the processes of the administrative procedures act, which is a very

careful statute, well policed by the courts with a very robust precedent around that. then at the end of the day, the agency creates a rule, and they adopt the rule. now, you could always appeal that rule to a court, but what congress decided many years ago was that in that situation, where an agency had gone through the apa process and had promulgated a rule, that there would also be a congressional review of that rule, not just a court, and the filing of the rule here in congress triggers a period of review in which senators, or members of the house, can call up the congressional review act and seek to disapprove the rule.

so, this whole thing was originally designed, and for all the decades since the congressional review act was first passed, has always been to address agency rulemaking under the administrative procedures act. well, the fossil fuel industry pretty much runs the republican party here in bash washington, and for a -- here in washington, and for a long time it has objected to california having clean air standards that many states, including my state, voluntarily follow, because it's good for the health of our people to have clean air, it's good to have less smokestack emissions, less exhaust emis emissions. but it means less gas sales for the fossil fuel industry. efficient cars may mean lower costs for consumers, but those lower costs for consumers are lower sales for the fossil fuel

industry. so, the majority here has decided to jump outside that tradition that it takes a rule developed by an agency to kick off the congressional review act. in this case, again, for decades pursuant to a statute, california has had the right to set emissions standards. and it was never done by rule. it was always done by an executive action. in this case, called a waiver. and what's now being done is a real violence to that distinct and clear process. this breaks the congressional review act in at least three ways. first, it breaks the time limits of the congressional review act.

again, in the ordinary course a rulemaking goes through its ordinary process under the apa. and when it's done, it then comes here to the senate, and we've got a short period of time in which to make a determination whether to try to disapprove it or not. under the rule that -- under the proposal that is threatened here, you'll be able to take any executive decision in decades and simply by dropping it into the federal register, making that submission, and sending it to congress, let the majority party say, okay, we're going to overrule that. not a rulemaking, nothing done under the administrative procedures act, just an executive decision. so, the window back in time outside of the ordinary 60 days

is the first thing that they broke. the second thing that they break is that it has to be a rule. like i said, pretty much any executive action could be plowed through the process that is being created here. and so, however settled the reliance on a particular permit or a particular license or a particular executive decision from years ago, it's all up for grabs under this. anded third of course, other than breaking open the time horizon of the congressional review act and breaking open the subject matter horizon of the congressional review act is to clear out the police of the congressional review act. and that is the parliamentarian who made in would in my view was

not a difficult decision to say this is not a rule. never was a rule. year after year, administration after administration, congress after congress, california has used this waiver and it was never a rule. and now the parliamentarian's plain, clear, obvious decision that this was not and is not and never was a rule is what they're planning to overturn. so you're breaking open the time horizon. you're breaking open the subject matter boundary. and you're knocking out the neutral police officer who is supposed to keep us living by the rules. this does not end well. by the way, i've heard it said that the argument on the other side is going to be they're not overruling the parliamentarian. they're overruling the government accountability

office. well, if that's what they wanted to do, there are ways to do that. if the government accountability office says that the law says a certain thing and we disagree, we can go back and change that law. we can amend it so that it's clear what it is that we want the law to say. and correct the gao decision that way. we can pass a joint resolution that does the same thing. we could even pass a simple senate resolution, but guess what? all of those things are fully debatable. and as i said earlier, fully debatable means what? it means 60 votes to end debate meaning that the minority party gets a vote, gets consideration. they don't want that. they want to ram this thing through for their fossil fuel donors, period, end of story, don't care what they break. but please, don't pretend that you're overruling gao. my team along with senator

padilla's team was in the lbj room making those arguments to the parliamentarian. there was robust debate. we filed briefs, questions were asked. the whole thing was a very vigorous contest, and she ruled. and she ruled. and gao was not even in the room. that stage was long since passed. the reason we're here is to overrule the parliamentarian. the reason for overruling the parliamentarian is to get a simple majority to get around this. there are other ways this could have been done, too. epa didn't have to do it this way. epa could have gone through the administration procedures act and done a proper rule making. we could have amended the clean air act and have a proper debate about this on the senate floor. epa would have followed regular

administrative procedures act order of the debate about the clean air act would have followed regular senate order. but no. or the fossil fuel industry could have gone to california and said hey, things have changed a little bit. we'd like to figure out a way to work with you. you change your rule. they're the real principal party here. rhode island follows the california standard. they could have gone and negotiated with the sovereign state of california instead of coming here to just roll the state using a sneaky parliamentary maneuver and choosing to go neutral to do that. so this is not a great day in the history of the senate. we are opening up a pandora's box of multiple abuses. and let me just point out that there actually are a lot of legitimate cra, congressional

review act targets out there. many dozens of decisions that have been made in this congress that lend themselves to a proper use of the congressional review act. and guess what? it takes 30 signatures to bring one of those up. the minority can do that. so if the majority wants to start playing cra games, well even under existing cra's where we don't need a 51-vote majority, we can start bringing up cra's of our own. expedite them to the floor. have a vote after vote after vote after vote after vote. there are ways in which we can respond. i intend to work with my leadership to make sure what the

best way is. but don't think that this nuclear option gets deployed here, gets deployed for the fossil fuel industry, gets deployed against a sovereign state, and gets deployed to make air dirtier and water dirtier and we just walk away as if nothing happened. that is not what will follow. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california mr. schiff: mr. president, here we are, the moment that we have been warning about, the moment the majority and its members used to say under their leadership would never come. and yet here we are. the week our colleagues may push to go nuclear and override the parliamentarian killing the filibuster and going against their word to unwind 60 years of

precedent and policy. and no matter what anyone says, that is what is happening. our colleagues will be overturning the parliamentarian to end california's right to cleaner air. the majority promised, and i quote, quote, we can't go there. i'm old enough to remember just when it was they said it because it was their majority leader just 19 weeks ago. 19 weeks ago. but not to worry, the majority says, this is not what this is about, they claim. instead we've heard the majority try to address -- to dress this up as an attack on the nonpartisan government accountability office saying that their unprecedented action was preceded, almost warranted by the gao's actions. yes, my colleagues, senator whitehouse, senator padilla, and myself went to the gao to ask for their guidance on whether this expedited mechanism called

the cra could be used to target california's waiver, california's right to establish stronger clean air standards. and, yes, the gao responded affirming that this expedited process, the cra, does not apply. that these are the rules. that if they want to strike down california's clean air rules, they can do so but not in this summary fashion, not without 60 votes. that is the ruling that the parliamentarian has reaffirmed and which the majority now wants to strike down. but let's be clear. going to the gao was nothing out of the ordinary. in fact, it was exactly what both parties have done when adjudicating this issue for decades. there are senators serving in this chamber, republicans and democrat, who have made use of the exact same process by going to the gao.

there have been more than 20 different opinions delivered by the gao at the request of republican senators and members of congress in the last three decades, more than 20 times. and in the cases where the gao found that the cra may not apply, this expedited process may not apply, that decision has stood. they did not move forward and respected the rulings of the gao and the parliamentarian until now. so what does all of this money? what it -- all of this mean? what it means is california established clean air are standards. it was given a waiver under the clean air act to do so. it has done so for decades. those standards have been adopted voluntarily by other states. and as a result, in california and many other states, we have cleaner air to breathe. until now. until now.

when the majority has decided to abolish the filibuster so that they could eradicate california's clean air standard s, so that they could use a summary process that doesn't apply here to get over the hurdle that they require 60 votes in order to do this. and i urge my colleagues and the american people not to be distracted by suggestions that nothing is going on here, nothing new is going on here, no precedent is being set here because it is. and that is to eliminate the filibuster in the service of the oil industry. in the service of the oil industry. whether it's an attack on the gao or the parliamentarian, the new ground we find ourselves in today is dangerous both the effects it will have on california and on this body. in california in particular because it means that this congress is abolishing the

filibuster so that californians will have to breathe dirtier air. that's what this is about. they want to abolish the filibuster so that polluters can pollute more and californians have to breathe dirtier air because they know they don't have the votes for it otherwise. and taken together, my colleagues are embarking on a path that will forever change the senate. it will not gist mean dirtier air for california and dirtier air for all the other states that have adopted california's higher standard. it will also mean that the filibuster is gone for a whole range of things. now, i represent a state that makes up one out of every ten americans. it is the fourth largest economy in the world. so one out of every ten americans is going to be deeply impacted and of course if you

add all of the other states that have adopted this higher standard for their citizens, it may be more like one out of every five. but it's more than that as well. because what we have at stake is also a state's ability, its right to make its own laws and to protect its own citizens without having this body overturn that right. this week's vote is shortsighted because it's going to have devastating impacts for our nation's health, but it's more than that. and it should send a chill down the spine of legislators in every state and communities across the country regardless of their political affiliation because the senate is now setting a new standard and one that will haunt us in the future. and it will haunt those states whose senators vote to go down this path. make no mistake. today it's california and our

ability to set our own air quality standards, but tomorrow it can be your own state's priorities made into a target by this vote to open the pandora's box of the congressional review act. that oil drilling lease that one of your state's got approved, that can be on the chopping block with the simple majority now if the filibuster is eliminated. that license for new energy hub, gone with a simple vote of this body. that new community grant, gone with a simple vote of this body. that's fair game now if the majority adopts this tact. this vote to expand the power of this expedited process called the congressional review act will be used to target democratic and republican priorities alike. i moved to los angeles in 1985. i remember what it was like to breathe the air in los angeles in the 1980's.

i have seen images of what the air was like in los angeles in the 70's and the 60's and the 50's. we are a basin. and with all of that automobile traffic and all that congestion and our geography and top forking topography, it means that smog gets trapped. there are times when you can't see the hills in front of you. there are times when you can't see down the street, at least there used to be. there's a reason why california got this waiver decades ago. because there were unique challenges facing places like los angeles. and so california acted to protect its own citizens. but if your state acts to protect your citizens, whether it's from dirty air that can give you lung cancer or whether

it's pollutants in the water that give you all other kinds of cancer, do we really want this body on a simple majority vote to be able to eviscerate what the states are doing to protect their own citizens? so i urge any colleagues again not to abandon states' rights in the senate this week. because this may be a policy that you agree with today, but the thing is about a slippery slope, you can be the one who starts down the slope but you don't get to be the one who decides where it stops.

who are more diverse for you. for free market of companies to deliver power europe so badly needs. an uprising to the european union these individual countries have a degree of sovereignty. they don't have to make decisions and we can certainly in our conversations remind them of the vulnerabilities that their energy grid. one of the factors that went into vladimir putin's decision to invade ukraine he believes europe is a defendant on them for energy they do nothing about it. that turned out to be the case. now you see some countries moving faster than others to diversify. for example i've for example i believe saturday was the first delivery of the u.s. lng to italy. they have opened up a terminal to accept in their countries

looking but these things take time for the case in point if that's what led to the collapse of the grade and by the way the clouds in the telecom system in as a reminder the vulnerability of energy. for purposes of conducting commerce and economics that foam abilities to being used as a geopolitical west -- weapon. i sense among many of our allies in europe are chiefly on the eastern flank there was not just an awareness that a growing fear of helpful marble they are an energy both to foreign actors and because of the strains that will be placed by ai and other new technologies on their energy grid in the years to come. says senator rubio going to shift gears for a moment and come back to part of the world that doesn't get a lot of attention and that central asia. think about central asia the

five countries kazakhstan kurdistan that she could stand and when they look north they see russia and they look to the east and they see china and they look south to afghanistan for they look south and west to iran. there is great potential and i don't believe it's being utilized. an example of that is the lack of trans caspian pipelines for you have have these five central countries and the caspian sea. 20 miles is all that's needed right now for an interconnector to connect turkmenistan into azerbaijan and then into the network pipes of the gasland pipeline certainly throughout europe. it's just 20 miles for that interconnector. turkmenistan has the fifth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world a huge

potential and obviously with their neighbors of china and russia and iran getting that gas out as a challenge but there's a path forward to the caspian sea. mr. secretary do you believe completing that 20-mile caspian interconnector would be the best interest of the united states and our allies? >> i think the answer is yes. it sounds to me that way from what you describe but. i can't same an expert on most 20 miles but i can see your argument the way you put it for it that it makes all the sense in the world and it reminds us once again of why we want our foreign-policy at the regional embassy level. those are the kinds of opportunities that in a different context how we were conducting energy policy would be lost those are the kind of opportunities we have driven from the bottom-up. ideally we would have individual bureaus that would identify these operations and within that bureau be able to operationalize it by conducting energy

diplomacy and potentially other american companies are allied companies. fire the american companies are allied companies that could contribute that africa could help us fulfill that gap and provide a contract where needed. >> yes and secretary what's fascinating if those countries i was the first u.s. senate to be in turkmenistan in 13 years when i went over there last november. i get choked up to thinking about it. but they talk about multifactor diplomacy over there because you have corrections in the chinese who are actively engaged right now and it's a vacuum and we can fill that vacuum because they want to work with us. they were thrilled with this election november but i spoke with everyone of the central president's and one-on-one meetings. they were very pleased to see the outcome in november and now

they are ready move forward with a promotional and azerbaijan the interconnector could be as they say that this the cork on the wine bottle of central asia that could unleash some of the synergy and move it towards allies and friends of united the united states instead of being dependent on russia and china. by the way they have been a valuable ally in the global war on as well as the counterterrorism issue. i would throw out in terms of your radar because you have a lot in your plate right now mr. secretary but i think we could encourage the modernization of trade relations in that part of the world where there is frankly a lot of great power competition going on but anyway secretary it's good to see you up here. godspeed and thank you for all you do for our country. civic center merkley. >> thank you very much mr. chair and secretary in rubio it's a pleasure to work with you when

you are in the senate capacity on a number of human rights issues related to china taiwan hong kong and the prevention act which is a standard in the strategy i hope will spread to other countries for goods made by labor in china. today however i want to russell a bit with another what i consider to be a humanitarian tragedy in conditions in gaza. i very much support of israel going after hamas following october 7. but we are now well over a year and a half into this and there's a new phase of events which i will try to summarize. six months ago finance minister said israel should then do in the end through voluntary migration used the term encouraged migration. these terms are considered a euphemism for forced displacement and the strategies

for forced migration or food denial, the demolition of homes so there is no place to return to and directing people from one area of gaza south to the southern side. then there is a new plan called operation gideon's chariot and math call up of troops in israel and netanyahu said it few days ago we are going to take over all the areas of the gaza strip. and on that forced displacement for demolition of homes i want to put up a church accentuate the point. this is satellite image so that "the new york times" that shows before the war, detailed homes, mass damage toward cease-fire and since the cease-fire absolutely the entire neighborhood turned to rubble. it's basically nothing left that is habitable. i want to just make the point

that it's not some theory about the strategies being implemented and implemented very aggressively effectively. let me return to the issue of food denial. the office for coordination of humanitarian affairs estimated that in february of 2000 children were admitted for treatment of acute malnutrition. i was thinking about the that are used mid-upper arm circumference basically a measure of the bicep. i saw them when i went to areas under starvation in africa and i saw these being used. you can see a child and you would think this child is just maybe two years old in maybe five years old in her arms were as thin as a toothpick but i was struck when the u.n. health representative returned and said and i quote i have seen them in the wars of child of five years

old and i thought he was too and a half. so 2000 children acute malnutrition that's a nice way of saying we are starving. in march there were 36 children admitted for acute malnutrition. the denial of food began in the blockade began march 2 so the numbers are undoubtedly up higher than april and now into me. the world health organization reported a couple of days ago that 57 children had died of malnutrition. that blockade shows signs of being changed. netanyahu has made some public comments and he said we will not stand by. we cannot reach a point of starvation for practical and diplomatic reasons but he went on to say mass starvation is a red line that could cost israel support by the u.s. and they

didn't say was the humanitarian problem. yesterday five trucks when there was a plan to get up to 100 trucks. but five trucks is 1% of the amount needed for daily food supplements to 100 trucks as 20% in an area that's extremely hungry. this is lead canada france and britain to say we cannot stand by while the netanyahu government pursues these actions. the level of human suffering is intolerable. so i guess my question here is the u.s. is a close ally to israel of an military security support in certainly in economic support. is the administration conveying to the netanyahu government that encouraging migration through food denial is a non-acceptable strategy. >> let me say for many different reasons but we share with our partners and allies, but i will walk you through the steps you

have rightly outlined. >> not too long of a speech because i'm trying to get where it administrations stands. >> i'm going to have to reclaim some time but try to keep it short. i do want you to answer but hopefully answering the question is pretty simple to see us consider this an acceptable strategy? and i would say we were pleased to see aida starting to flow and can understand your point it's not a deficient mouse we are pleased to see that as this film was made and i understand 100 trucks are there and maybe more. i met in rome few days ago with the world food program to walk through some of the ideas and plans they have for distribution on the ground. ultimately the answer here is hopefully with the elimination of hamas the people of gaza deserve and more prosperous peaceful future that they will never have as long as hamas is there. >> well thank you that was brief

and well done. thank you. the second part of this is the systematic destruction of remaining homes as a way to make it impossible for people to stay in gaza. does the u.s. discouraged that and is it discouraging the netanyahu government from continuing that strategy. >> we don't believe that is the strategy. we understand they are targeting elements of hamas and that's what they have claimed. they believe they need to root out the areas and multiple cease-fires have negotiated and even agreed upon by hamas and external as hamas internal. >> it sounds like we are concerned about that or you characterize it differently. there had been reports of the administration working behind the scenes to develop a plan to help deport gazans. have you been involved in discussions regarding deporting of gazans to libya?

and there are no deportations. what we have talked about somewhat voluntarily and willingly so much as i want to go someone off because i'm sick or my children need to go to school or what have you. are there countries in the region willing to accept them for some period of time but those are voluntary decisions by individuals. >> are they voluntary decisions because there is no food or water and bombing is all around you? is that really a voluntary decision. >> ultimately that's the point. you do want people trapped there. they may want to live there in the future but right now they can't and as a nation willing to accept them in the interim period? we have asked countries whether they be open to accepting people not as a permanent situation but a bridge towards reconstruction settings. i'm not aware of libya. >> thank you. we will just summarize since my time is up. i think the u.s. has a moral responsibility to fiercely

convey to the netanyahu government to using food an estimate of war is unacceptable and it's a violation of international humanitarian law. it's mass punishment. we have now children who are dying and while netanyahu said he doesn't want to see mass starvation, he's drawing a line at massg starvation even though their starvation right now. rij on april 21, 2025, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. as the longest-serving member of the rhode island state senate, donnie was affectionately known as the dean of the senate. i first met done knee as a young man when we both attended the aacademy in rhode island. we played high school football together.

he was a remarkable gentleman then both on and off the field. both on and off the field. one of the things that we discovered is donnie was about . he was a wide receiver and he would be running down the field looking at the goal line. halfba. so we got to know each other pretty well. one of the nicest gentlemen you could meet. he was especially kind to the other players on the team, encouraging us and acting as sort of a custodian and making sure we got a chance and we weren't mistreated. throughout his entire life donnie carried that spirit to raise others up and provide opportunity for all. i later had the privilege of serving with him in the rhode

island state senate from 1985 to 1990. once again he paved the way for me with his advice and assistance. indeed, his quiet commitment to the people of rhode island has always been an inspiration for me and, frankly, anyone who ever met him. donnie was a strong advocate for organized labor and joined the laborers international union of north america as a field representative and organizer, eventually becoming administrator of the new england laborers, labor management cooperation trust. and donnie started his public service long before we linked up again in the state senate. he began working for the late lieutenant governor thompson dulugio and the rhode island public transit authority. his career continued in public service in the 1980's when he was elected as representative of

house district five in providence rhode island. four years later he succeeded his father-in-law, majority leader to rhode island's senate district number 4, beginning his 40-year tenure in the rhode island state senate. in that role in the senate, donny served as vice chairman of the senate labor committee, senate majority whip, deputy majority leader and majority leader, and in 2017, he was honored by his colleagues with his election to the office of senate president. the hallmark of donny's leadership style was to have an open door policy which encouraged colleagues and constituents and elected officials to become engaged. he devoted his life to improving our communities, strengthening public health and public safety and creating new opportunities for all rhode islanders to

thrive. he made significant strides toward improving the lives of working rhode islanders, and he is credited with spearheading efforts to preserve pensions and raise the minimum wage. in the face of recent incredible and ultimately unsurmountable health challenges, donny valiantly sought reelection last november in his beloved community and was returned by his senate colleagues to his post as senate president after he won reelection. he led the senate with tenacity and unwavering dedication. throughout his decades of public service to his constituents in north providence and providence and to the entire state of rhode island, he was strongly commitmented to fulfilling -- committed to fulfilling his responsibilities, obligation and tasks with a sense of

accountability, decency and honor. he led his life with purpose and served the people of rhode island extremely well. and donny leaves behind a devoted family, and i express my heartfelt condolences to him, his children and his wife and amanda and her husband william. his grandchildren, ava, mia, natalie and jamison. his sister lisa and his brother-in-law james and his nieces and nephews. i will miss donny's friendship, his unwavering advocacy for our state and the people who make it a special place. rhode island is much better today because of senate president ruggerio's leadership and dedication. he inspires us all and will continue to do so. and i would yield the floor to

my colleague from rhode island, senator whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i join my senior senator today to honor our friend dominic ruggerio who was president and the dean of the rhode island senate. president ruggerio who passed away last month was affectionately known as donny. he leaves behind his children, amanda and charles and four beloved grandchildren. donny was a graduate of two great rhode island institutions -- lasalle academy and providence college. at la salle, senator read was his schoolmate and teammate on the football team. after finishing college, donny served as a policy aide for former lieutenant governor tom dulugglio, a rhode island

classic in his own right. donny went on to spend many years with local un 271 serving in multiple leadership roles. he was elected to the rhode island house of representatives in 1981 where he stayed for a few years until making the jump to the rhode island senate in 1984, where then state senator jack reed was his teammate in the senate. the senate was donny's home. for four decades he was the champion for residents of district 4 which includes providence and north providence. after holding be several leadership positions he was elected to serve as rhode island's senate president. his legacy will be defined for advocacy for working people and his practical highly effective style of legislating. he never forgot his background

as a laborer, never stopped working to create opportunities for working men and women. to that end he fought for a higher minimum wage and for a specific project that would create union family supporting jobs. he also led the charge to eliminate lead pipes making our tap water safer to drink for rhode islanders. among his many accomplishments was his work to address the state's opioid crisis. he created a fund to support statewide opioid treatment, recovery,ing prevention, and education programs, and shaped a law to ensure that filling a prescription for lifesaving antioverdose medication would not create a barrier for rhode islanders getting life insurance. i'm grateful in particular for donny's leadership on climate. he sponsored legislation that put rhode island on a path to 100% renewable energy by 2033. when that legislation was signed into law was the most aggressive

statewide energy standard anywhere in the country. donny was beloved by his lifelong north providence community and he was always a pleasure to work with. in a profession that is not always gentlemanly, he was always a gentleman. he took pride in the senate being a place where people had, as he would say, always been the able to disagree without being disagreeable. so i thank senate president ruggerio for his successful service to our state. i offer my condolences to his family. we will miss him. i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. on a different topic, i note that the senate this week has started debate on the genius act. this bill establishes a regulatory framework of so-called stablecoins, which are representations of dollars

recorded on a block chain. the genius act could be the most significant banking bill that congress has considered since the wall street reform legislation that passed after 2008 financial crisis. there are a number, i believe, of fundamental problems with the genius act in terms of national security, consumer protection, and systematic risk, and i'm so pleased that the majority leader has said that we will have an open amendment process, and i look forward to to filing a series of amendments to address the problems in the bill. and i hope that together we can come up with a much better version. with that, mr. president, i would thank you and yield the floor.

thank you for coming. light travels halfway around the world before truth has its shoes on we have seen that from her democratic colleagues you spin half-truths and misinformation to attack donald trump's one big beautiful bill. last week, in committee, we were told work requirements hurt seniors on snap. that is one 100% false. we were told work requirements on snap hurt those with disabilities. that is one 100% false. we have seen that kind of misinformation day in and day out from our colleagues for weeks. eighty-three pragmatic conservatives of the republican main street caucus will not allow that misinformation to go unchecked. these strong leaders, these strong voices are assembled

today to begin to push back against that misinformation. to continue this conversation with the gentleman from nebraska, the vice chair of the republican main street caucus. cliques thank you very much. by the way he's done a great job as a chair of our caucus through today, like him i want to cut through the clutter. depending upon what news channel you are watching or wet internet site or what app you use you might think this is about other things then the basic point of this bill. this is about keeping taxes on americans low rate this is not a red bill, it's not a blue bill, it's an american bill. if we are not successful with this legislation, a family of four somewhere in georgia or nebraska or south dakota, california will see a tax hike. sometimes north of 20% and their tax bill. that's an unacceptable outcome. let's keep the focus on what

this entire effort is about and that is keeping taxes low on every day middle-class working american families. with that i'm very pleased to introduce lauren lee a member of the main street caucus board of directors and an outstanding member from the state of florida. [applause] >> i am proud to stand here today with my colleagues to help separate fact from fiction. we achieved the greatest deficit reduction in over 30 years through this bill. it is important to understand in particular the misinformation that is being spread about the medicaid program and the reality about republicans are doing to reform this program and to keep it safe and strong for generations to come. there are three principal changes to the medicaid program. one comment to make clear those who were not citizens of the united states of america are not

entitled to medicaid benefits. to get them off the benefit program. second, to ensure people are otherwise ineligible who are receiving into states or have deceased, those people should not be on the medicaid rolls. and finally to encourage those who are able bodied with no dependents to seek employment. to seek work or to volunteer meaningfully in their community. these reforms are not about taking something away. they are strengthening this program. they are about ensuring those who truly need it are the ones who are receiving medicaid benefits. most importantly, ensuring that this program will be here not just today, but for generations to come. i look forward to working with my colleagues who are here today. i'm very proud to stand with them to assure we get this bill passed. it's the right thing for america with that and proud to introduce my colleague representative angie. [applause]

thank you. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. i am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with president donald trump to support this one big beautiful bill which i am here to say is a jet fuel for the american economy. moody's recent downgrade of our credit rating is yet another reminder of why we need to get our fiscal house in order. this bill does just that. we will never balance the federal budget but we will never overcome our debt and deficit challenges if we do not grow this economy. and in fact, we have to grow our economy so fast that what we owe starts to shrink relative to the overall size of our economy. this one big beautiful bill will grow our economy faster than we have ever seen before. do not believe cbo who has been wrong over and over and over again. so wrong when they first scored

deficits under the first trump trumptax cuts. they underestimated the revenue, the positive revenue benefits of that bill by over a trillion dollars. but, here's what this bill will do the one big beautiful bill will do. it will provide a one 100% expensing immediately for new manufacturing factories here in the united states. it will provide for an expansion of small business tax deduction, 23% for all of those small businesses the main street businesses. that will provide for bonus depreciation which again jet fuel for the american economy. i will pull forward all kinds of capitol investments and make sure the capitol spend assures are affordable for the entrepreneur and drop traders in this country. do not believe this is the misinformation this is a deficit producer this bill will create

the economic growth that is required for fiscal responsibility. with that i'm proud to introduce my good friend from across the ohio river erin from indiana. >> thank you i'm so proud to be here to speak about the great thing in president trump's one big beautiful bill for months we've heard the same tired to scare tactics from democrats who are more interested in defending democracy than telling the truth. we are here today to set the record straight are one big beautiful bill does not cut medicaid medicare or social security benefits. it protects it for the americans who need it most by targeting a waste, fraud, and abuse. what republicans are doing with this one big beautiful bill is restoring common sense and fiscal responsibility but we are strengthening and protecting medicaid for the most vulnerable pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low income seniors and struggling families. these americans will continue to get the care that they need and

deserve. let me repeat that these americans will continue to receive the care and services they deserve. what we are not doing is going to keep writing blank checks for waste, fraud, awoken nonsense were ending taxpayer funded healthcare for the illegal immigrants currently receiving it. we are stopping payments for dead people and duplicate enrollees currently receiving benefits in two or more states. yes were cutting off federal reimbursement for transgender surgeries on minors. even the "new york times" the darling of the left acknowledge last week a democrats are exaggerating the impact of our bill when a source that really agrees with us admits the left is stretching the truth you know the fear mongering has gone too far. it's time for that left to stop misleading the american people. this a budget is about protecting what works and fixing what's broken for hard-working americans to put them first. we were elected to clean up the mess joe biden left behind with

president trump's leadership and are one big beautiful bill we are doing exactly that. without them going to yield to the gentleman from texas mr. crenshaw. [applause] >> thank you for doing this. press report of main street proud to be supporting president trump's big beautiful bill pretty talk to us this morning's message is really simple it's get this done this is good for america, it's good for the american people. i think it's worth noting with the democrat message is it's very simple. we want to raise your taxes in december. that's not a really good message to bring back to the american people that the opposite of what were trying to do. we want to keep your taxes low but on top of that we are putting in provisions that are monumental for our country, for our debts and for our kids but one of my favorite provisions were to put in our bill protects

kids from a radical transgender ideology remove any federal funding for transgender surgeries or treatment on children. that's one of many good things. it enhances our military capabilities list goes on and on. democrats actually flew in all sorts of hills around the country kids with disabilities, adults with disabilities claiming these are the people we are taking medicaid away from. it was all a lie and deeply unethical for them to bring those people and scare them to think there medicaid was going to be taken away here's the truth they claim are kicking poor people off medicaid. false. in actually 4.8 million able-bodied adults would rather not work or volunteer but they would still be on if they could work if they wanted to work. 1.6 million arm rolled into states one point to million are not even eligible to begin with

1.4 million are illegal immigrants. this is not a purge its accountability to fix the system for what it's intended to be forwhich is for kids and the por are they saying were cutting substance abuse tree but they are wrong the bill explicitly exempts those with substance abuse disorders. they say were slashing medicaid entirely. here's the reality spending still grows six and half% above 2021 projections that's even after enter billion dollars in savings. that's the opposite of a cut. they also deny illegal immigrants are on medicaid. but for california for instance diverts five-point to billion dollars to do just that the bill closes the loophole. finally they said is will be budget chaos within the state. the reality is what we are actually doing is freezing runaway provider taxes and payments. hospitals will still get what they need. this bill is nothing with the democrats claimant is.

nothing but none of what i just described could be loosely interpreted as the word cuts and that's exactly what they keep saying is false in the american people should know that. i'll leave it there and i like to introduce my friend from new york. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you very much as a member the house ways and means committee very happy we are able to pass this out of our committee last week. i want to give you an overview of some of the important tax provisions. what you hear from the democrats, they claim tax cuts for the ultra- wealthy the billionaires is simply not true. her focus on working americans, middle-class families and senior citizens. not only are we tripling the salt deduction for families with less than $400,000 we are increasing the child tax credit. we are increasing standard deduction. and, my legislation that would

give a deduction of $4000 for senior citizens who are struggling to get by on their social security checks paid $4000 for single, up to $75000 in income. you double that's $8000 deduction for seniors who are married up to one or $50000 combined income. that's not billionaires us are working middle-class people that we represent. that's who we are fighting for this piece of legislation. the democrats want have a tax cut on everybody across the board. we are making sure not only do we keep the incomes brackets where they are right now but we are giving extra support for again working families, middle-class families and our senior citizens who are struggling to get by on their social security checks. and with that i will introduce my colleague from ways and means

of laden same thing he was going to saint blakemore from utah. [applause] >> there's a lot for the tax portion of this billing want to talk about some of the major economic growth factors a child tax credit standard deduction and things nicole mentioned are exceptional. they constitute a majority of the bill. but it is important understand three things. what took place in 2017 what is in the current bill and what's it going to do going forward 2017 he went through major tax reform moment in our country. when you keep taxes the global community, you see economic growth with that economic growth ironically you see revenue growth. being able to use a low tax

break say in ireland it's comparable now to do that in the u.s. i will repatriate and we get more revenue. that cannot be understated of keeping taxes competitive so we continue a strong revenue growth that took place in 2017. all those provisions expire for the most part at the end of this year. we don't get this bill done every business across the country. so what we are doing here is take a look at 2017 sent what was so productive and we will make that permit that's getting it missed and all the conversations. we are making permanent moon to continue the strong economic growth the gdp leader of the free world. that's within the bill the majority is looking at 2017 we

move forward with permanency. that cannot be understated. we are going to be able to do in addition to that bigotry and expense r and d. we want american invested rnd research and development. when you go buy a piece of equipment for your company instead of writing it off are only getting 8060, 40% of it you're going get one 100% expensing in the interest part is now going to beat back to where it should be you're going to see an enormous amount of economic growth come from that. every single person should be able to highlight one provision 199a. that set themselves up as an llc or an s corporation shared partnership. they get a 20% deduction. if this bill does not get through it will not be able to have that going forward.

the massive increase in small businesses across the country what we are doing here is making sure that is consistent and permanent for the next generation of business owners for the foreseeable future. that cannot go understated and cannot get bogged down in all the conversations getting done about the bill the facts are going to give the economy the american worker the american family real consistency without a yield from washington. [applause] >> think it mr. moore. appreciate being here with my colleagues on the report main street partnership to talk about this very important piece of legislation. as a member of the house agricultural committee i am very proud of our portion of this one big beautiful bill. we restore the integrity of the snap program by making states true partners in the program and returning it to what congress originally intended snap to be.

that is truly supplemental. we were able to and crude critical pieces of the farm bill that was this farmers across the country relief and support they desperately need. we expanded the american trade opportunities by over doubling the funding for market access programs. delivering a win for specialty crops and trade reliant communities across the country all while reducing overall spending. the bottom line of this legislation as we invest in the future of our farmers. we strengthen snap so it can help future recipients we played our part in keeping taxes low for the middle class small businesses in our country towards a thank you very much with that i like to introduce lm the great state of iowa. [applause] >> thank you all very much i am

congresswoman probably representing i was first congressional district. i do think our caucus chair dusty johnson and mike fled for flood fortheir leadership in chn conservative progrowth solutions here and here is a small business owner and a member of the house energy and commerce committee. i am proud to stand in support of president trump won big beautiful bill transformational package to lower taxes, secure the border, restore integrity and strengthen medicaid waste, fraud, abuse more government and revive the american and yes we are doing our jobs. as a mother and a former small business owner i know what happens at the tax cut job act expires the ways and means committee held a field hearing and i with i was state fair. the people who spoke at that meeting were small business owners and farmers. what would happen if this bill is not reauthorized?

every small business in iowa and across to america would face a tax hike of at least 20%. i also know what will happen to families everywhere if it expires. every family, every single mom would face a historic tax increase and lose out on the higher child tax credit. that is unacceptable i refuse to let radical left progressives force tax increases on hard-working iowa families and small businesses or take away or reduce the child tax credit. this big beautiful bill protects america's small businesses. make the trump tax cuts permanent expands child tax credit and federal taxes on tip in overtime.

>> this bill does exactly, represent printed outcome of taxpayer funding for legal summer handouts, to adults without disabilities who refuse to go to work. no more people were ineligible for medicaid, and taking up a position, disabled adults, reisinger could have. were to me we confronted abuse and we are putting patients first pretty nonresident trump leadership, the american is not just a line coming it is being renewed and yield, from florida. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> when the same as long but i'll be brief and i let me just say something really simple but i've heard the last few weeks, over and over again somehow giving a big tax cut to the rich current highest tax rate is

37 percent with this bill passes it will still be 37 percent people getting this taxcutting the people who are senior citizens who earned that benefit from working all of these your people getting this benefit are those folks who work overtime and for the steps and this is progrowth, smart policy that truly works working i'm excited to be a part of this team and so present actually backing up when he campaigned on and is not quite have the president is effectively talk about on the campaign trail and that is why i run for congress to keep promises during the campaign, enemy of move this country forward it's my pleasure to introduce a fellow freshman great cinema, summa. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> think same district of the great state of montana could not be more proud, standing shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues here and being a family man,

small business owner, the number one contributor to prosperity prosperity access to capitol s capitol access is your on getting more bureau. the sensation number 22 and 2643, 1700, 22 percent is the average american is looking at 26 percent for an average mantegna.rt have seven committees meeting in today's session of the senate. i ask that the senate proceed to of calendar number 40, s. 216. the clerk: a bill to amend the save our seas 2.0 act and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. budd: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 67, s. 97. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 67, s. 97, a bill to require select u.s.a. to coordinate with economic development organizations and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and

passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to en bloc consideration of the following resolutions which are at the desk, s. res. 237, s. res. 238. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolutions, en bloc. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. budd: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, may 21, and following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be

closed, and the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 66, s. 1582, genius act, postcloture and that all time on the motion to proceed expire at 11:30 a.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. budd: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. >> today the suit lawmakers continue to work in a bill regulating point in the crypto currency market in the upper chamber weekly pretty compass luncheon, live coverage of the here on "c-span2". >> on wednesday, british prime minister, answers questio from members of the house of comments on domestic and feign policy pretty much from answers question and time to 7:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span to see spent now our people have been online cspan.org. background sounds background sounds >> internation t5 become a rare moment, this fall, cspan present cease-fire with stocks in the conversation begins down with partisan prevails one table two leaders one goal to find common ground this fall see spot, and the network that does not take sides only on c-span. >> is cspan wherever you are, cspan now our free mobile video up that which you the center of democracy five and