Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I will be brief. I always enjoy our exchanges, and this one, I think, was particularly constructive on substance. I will just say, my job is to count, and the votes do not exist for what the Senator from Oklahoma is asking for. They just don't exist, not if I wanted it, not if Senator Schumer wanted it. The votes are not there. I think that one of the things that I have tried to convey to my Republican colleagues is the depth of feeling, not because there is some group demanding that we be tough on this, but because American citizens have been deported, American citizens have been killed at the hands of this Agency. It doesn't mean everybody in this Agency is not trying their best. It does mean that this Agency is in desperate need of reform, and we do not have the votes to extend funding for this Agency without reforms, whether it is 1 day, 1 month, or 1 year. I object.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, first of all, I didn't get a chance to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for keeping the Senate the Senate last week. There was a moment where there was an exchange of views, and actually, the majority leader had a perfect right to kind of monopolize the time and make it so that it would have been six Republicans in a row and we would have been just standing there, but he is the one that said: Look, it is the Senate, we have to have a debate, and caused us to take turns. That seems like a small thing, but it is not a small thing because we ought to be hard on the issues and easy on each other. And I just appreciate his steadfastness in being decent while being extremely conservative at the same time. I will just make a couple of final points. On HSI, in particular, I think a lot of us would feel more comfortable carving that out if it weren't for the fact that so many of these HSI people are actually being taken off of their current assignment to help conduct immigration enforcement. And so people are literally being taken off of preventing child pornography, preventing arms trafficking and drug smuggling, and they are now in these immigration enforcement actions. Three hundred remain in Minnesota. There is a little bit of the devil being in the details as it relates to getting our arms around this because we don't want whatever we do to only apply to the narrow question of the appropriations bill. For instance, when Members said: I have a right under the appropriations law to go and visit this detention center, the people of the detention center who turned away Members of Congress said: We are not funded by the appropriations bill; we are funded by the OBBBA. Different pot of money, different set of rules that attach. And so whatever agreement that we achieve, if we achieve one, we can't mess around with color of money and detailees from HSI or CBP. As these operations manifest themselves on the ground, nobody is tracking what the color of money is. So all of the reforms that we are talking about have to attach to OBBBA money, have to attach to detailees from either the FBI or HSI or any other Federal law enforcement Agency. We are trying to actually get this Agency under control. But my basic problem is, this is cordial, this is constructive, but you and I both know we are not that close, and people have to make their rent and their mortgage now. And so the idea that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to sounds good in diplomacy, but the practical effect is that our coastguardsmen and women, our TSA, our FEMA employees, our CISA employees are going to miss paychecks because we are still in an argument about a very, very narrow swath of the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to read excerpts of a letter of March 17 to Senators Collins and Britt from the border czar and the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Trump administration. I won't read the whole thing, except to point out that there are five substantive areas in which the administration expressed a willingness to enact reforms. Now, that sounds kind of encouraging, but I want to read the five points. I will summarize. The first is, we will expand the use of body-worn cameras by DHS law enforcement undertaking immigration enforcement operations. Fine. Let's codify that. I think the retention of data is important. I think the last time we talked about body-worn cameras, there was a willingness to fund body-worn cameras. There was a willingness to indicate that it was the policy that people should wear body-worn cameras, but there was not yet a willingness to codify that requirement in Federal law. But that is workable. The second thing is, the administration will limit civil immigration enforcement activities in certain sensitive locations, like hospitals and schools--like hospitals and schools. There are more sensitive locations than hospitals and schools-- churches, synagogues, mosques, polling locations. There are multiple sensitive locations where we have just decided--until now--as a society that that is not a good place for law enforcement, especially a roving patrol, to be. The government should not be in a church or a synagogue or a mosque or a temple. The government should not be in a hospital conducting immigration enforcement. The government should not be in a polling location or near a polling location conducting immigration enforcement. So the idea of limiting civil immigration enforcement activities at certain sensitive locations is a reasonable start; however, I would like to rule out all of the sensitive locations and not just say ``like hospitals and schools.'' Now, here is where it gets a little--like, those are fine. That is workable. That is negotiable. I want to take you through the next three bullet points. This is the third bullet point, which starts with ``The administration will adhere to current law that affords Congress oversight of DHS detention facilities.'' It is literally saying: We have five concessions we are willing to make, and one of them is to adhere to current law. What in the hell is happening to this country where it is a concession from one political party to the other to adhere to Federal statutory law? That is not a concession. That is not something we have to negotiate for. That is not a show of good faith. It is also a concession that they were not adhering to current law until now. This is an offer. We offer that we are going to follow the law. The fourth point is that the administration will enforce the use of visible officer identification. I think that is also referring to a current Federal statute. By the way, the question of masks is a little sticky. There is no question in my mind that masks are being overused, and if there is no reason that ICE officers and ICE officers alone all have to not reveal their face, their badge number, even what Agency they work for--the reason people trust their local police department is because when something happens, you see their face. Hello, I am Officer So-and-So. How can I be useful? There are some very narrow circumstances--an undercover operation or if an agent has been doxed--where you may want to protect their privacy, but that is not the norm, and it has become the norm within ICE. Here is the final bullet point: The administration will adhere to existing law and practice of not deporting any U.S. citizens. That is a concession? We are not going to deport any U.S. citizens in violation of Federal law? That is a give to us? That is not a give to anybody; that is the Federal law. And this was what was sent as a ``Look, we are working on it.'' So all of this is to say that we are not that close to a deal on ICE. It is not that discussions are not ongoing. It is not they are not people of good faith trying to figure out how to both fund this Agency and reform this Agency. Those conversations are going on. But there is not a serious person in this building who thinks a deal is imminent. There is not an imminent deal. By the way, even if we had conceptional agreement, it takes time to draft legislative text, vet legislative text, and get House and Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House on board. We are not that close. In the meantime, TSA workers are not getting paid. In the meantime, the Coast Guard has experienced a lapse in appropriations. In the meantime, FEMA has a lapse in appropriations. In the meantime, CISA, which does our cyber security in the middle of a war, has a lapse in appropriations. So all I am asking--all we are asking is release the hostages. These government Agencies did nothing to deserve being defunded. By the way, that is exactly what we did about 6 weeks ago, is we decided: We are just not in agreement about DHS, so let's fund the rest of the government. Ninety-six percent of the government is now funded. We funded the Department of Defense. We funded the State Department. We funded the National Institutes of Health. We funded the Centers for Disease Control. We funded the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior. We funded all of those Departments because they have nothing to do with the current debate. So what I am saying is that we are not there yet on ICE, but why in the heck would we punish TSA? Why in the heck would we punish the Coast Guard? Why would we do that? So I am completely flabbergasted at the position of the Republicans, and I respect the person who is about to object, and we are going to engage in all of this. But let's just be really clear on what their position is: They won't fund TSA, they won't fund Coast Guard, they won't fund FEMA, and they won't fund Cybersecurity unless we attach ICE to it. Let's just be adults, continue our negotiation about ICE, and release the hostages. These are American citizens working for the government, working for the public without a paycheck, and we could solve this right this moment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the Murray bill that is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ. I object.

Mr. SCHATZ. Is that a request?

Mr. SCHATZ. What is wrong with that?

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I can understand what the leader is saying. I understand what the Senator from Alabama is proposing. But I think what the vice chair of Appropriations said should not be glossed over as some sort of talking point. If you are trying to understand why in this particular situation we don't have the votes to provide for a 1-week CR, for a 3-week CR, for any funding for ICE, it actually is that Americans have been killed by an Agency that now has more funding than most militaries around the world, more funding than the U.S. Marine Corps. You may think this is some issue that we think we are going to turn to our political advantage, but I promise you, when we saw Renee Good and Alex Pretti killed, this became an issue that was beyond politics. There are a lot of us who are not going to provide resources to this Agency that is acting in such a way that makes citizens of the United States so unsafe. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, just 1 minute, through the Chair, with your permission.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I think Senator Schmitt said it perfectly. We are actually not very close as it relates to the question of ICE funding, and he made that crystal clear. I won't repeat his words. They were forceful. They were not conciliatory. And he said, essentially: We will be damned if we adopt those Democrats' demands. So what has been happening is the White House and Democrats in Congress have been trading paper, submitting offers back and forth, and it was relatively professional. But, on substance, we are actually as far apart as Senator Schmitt is describing. We are not that close. So if everybody agrees on that, that we are not that close, that it is not like negotiations have shut down, but they are a little stalled--these things sometimes stall. Sometimes they pick up again, and sometimes they stall. Sometimes you are trading offers every 6 to 12 hours, and sometimes you are trading offers every 6 to 12 days. It doesn't mean a negotiation is not happening; it means it is happening as we transmit legislative text from one party to the other. The idea that the only way we can convey that we are negotiating is with a meeting in person is like literally not the way this place works. There are a million ways to negotiate. Sometimes you negotiate live fire drill, Senate floor. Sometimes it is in the cloakroom. Sometimes it is in the leader's office. Sometimes it is in committee. Sometimes it is by email. We are in a negotiation; however, we are not close. So if you stipulate to that, then the question is, What the hell do we do about the Coast Guard in the meantime? Do you think we are going to cut a deal tonight to reopen those portions of DHS? There is nobody in Congress--staff, journalist, citizen, Member--who thinks we can cut a deal in time to fund the Coast Guard, the TSA, CISA, and FEMA. So we can continue this negotiation about ICE, and we should. If someone is going to complain about what manner we use, what modality we use to have that negotiation, fine, but that is actually a separate question from, in the meantime, TSA is going to miss paychecks; in the meantime, our cyber security function at the Department of Homeland Security has a lapse in appropriations; in the meantime, the Coast Guard has a lapse in appropriations; in the meantime, FEMA has a lapse in appropriations. So all we are asking is to say we continue to disagree about this one relatively narrow thing. We have already funded 96 percent of the government. Let's fund another increment of the government to keep everybody safe. Let's just do that while we continue these negotiations. Then the real answer on the Republican side to why they don't want to do that is they think that once we fund those other Agencies, the Democrats will walk away from this negotiation about ICE. My view is that we really shouldn't keep the Coast Guard or TSA or FEMA or cyber security hostage while we continue to disagree about this. The question of whether or not we fund these Agencies is very, very time sensitive, and so that is why we are pushing for this. This is not an unreasonable--and one of the things that is weird to me is, in another world, in this same context, you could actually see a bunch of Republicans coming to the floor and saying: Why don't we fund this? Why don't we fund that? These UCs to fund different portions of the government are a tool that both parties have used. But we are in a very unique situation where there is some danger. So I would just like to understand the leader's thought process--and the Senator from Alabama and the chairman of the Ethics Committee. Why in the world wouldn't we just fund the stuff that we all want to get funded and then keep arguing about the thing we are arguing about?

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the leader and Senator Lankford for the deference. In trying to turn this into a little bit more of a debate, I want to ask unanimous consent that we turn this into a colloquy between myself and the leader for 5 to 8 minutes.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, in my 13 years serving in the U.S. Senate and before that as Lieutenant Governor in Hawaii, I have met military officers at every level. And no matter age or rank, regardless of what they do or where they serve, they are every bit as disciplined, principled, committed, and brave as you could possibly imagine. They are patriots in every sense of the word, and you can't help but be impressed and inspired by them. But the same can't be said about the man who commands them, the Secretary of Defense. Particularly in recent days since the war on Iran began, Secretary Hegseth has demonstrated a shocking lack of emotional maturity and a basic understanding of the gravity of the situation. And instead of characterizing what he said, I want to read verbatim a few recent statements: [D]eath and destruction from the sky all day long. This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they're down, which is exactly how it should be. They are toast and they know it, or at least soon enough they will know it. America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy. What happened to ``walk softly and carry a big stick''? Here is another quote: Israel has clear missions as well for which we are grateful, capable partners, as we've said since the beginning, capable partners are good partners, unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force. America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course classified effects. All on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement . . . no politically correct wars. And this one might be the most bizarre: We're going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality . . . This is from the Secretary of Defense: Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We're going to raise up warriors, not just defenders. This is the man overseeing the most powerful military force in the history of the world spelling out his unique and unlawful theory of action. He finds the Geneva Conventions and our rules of engagement, not just logistically inconvenient, but--to use his own word ``stupid''--``stupid.'' And as we are seeing in real time, there are moral and strategic consequences for the callousness and the sloppiness atop the chain of command. It is very likely a school being blown up, leaving 168 children dead. It is the botched evacuation of American diplomats and servicemembers in the region who are stranded while Iranian missiles fly into American facilities. But even if you somehow accept the administration's unusually high tolerance for casualties and bad outcomes, this carelessness resulted in them killing the very people they were hoping would take over. This is not: War is hell and bad things happen. War is hell. We all know that, and that is why most people--but especially our servicemembers--oppose it unless absolutely necessary. It was Dwight Eisenhower only months after he had helped lead the allies to victory in World War II who declared: I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. War presents impossible choices, and wanting precision planning and professionalism does not make you weak. It means that you grasp the gravity of the war. It means that you are not casual about using kinetic force--not because you are afraid, but because you understand exactly what comes next, that for all our military might and capability, war is not something to revel in. Violence is not to be glorified. Death, whether of an Army Reserve officer from Des Moines or an Iranian schoolgirl, cannot be shrugged off. Immaturity and incompetence are a lethal combination on a battlefield. And if Secretary Hegseth's alarming behavior continues, it will not end well for us.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, this is a war of choice. It did not have to happen. There was no imminent threat from Iran. The indications right up until the attacks were that negotiations were actually trending well. And remember, if Donald Trump hadn't pulled out of the JCPOA to begin with, Iran's nuclear program would have continued to be managed. This is the President of the United States asserting that he can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, with the most powerful military in history at his disposal. It is important to point out that a lot of people put Donald Trump in office because he promised to oppose forever wars. It was central to his foreign policy pitch as a candidate for over a decade. But what we have seen over the past 2 months alone is a President that is eager to use kinetic force as a first option and then figure it out from there. The challenge with the Venezuela action was that our men and women in the military and intelligence agencies executed that thing so efficiently and effectively that I think Donald Trump got it into his head: This is great. What else you got? This is great. Are we doing this in Cuba? Are we doing this in Iran? What else you got? So he gets on an airplane, and he starts shooting the breeze with Members of the Republican Congress, and he decides in that moment on Air Force One to start a war--to start a war. In the days after capturing Nicolas Maduro, the administration offered up confusing and contradictory claims. They said the United States was going to run Venezuela indefinitely but then left most of the illegitimate Maduro regime in place. They said American companies would go in and build the refineries, even though most of the American companies said they wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe, most confusingly, they said the United States would control oil sales but not the revenue of those sales. Two months later, we still don't know what their plan is. And that was easy compared to this. That was easy compared to this. There is no coherent strategy, much less an attempt to even explain it. I want everybody to understand how unique this is in American history--maybe world history--to have a leader say: I declare war, and I will let you know why later. I am going to send Secretary Hegseth out there to say some things that are kind of indecipherable, then Secretary Rubio, certainly a better communicator, but also indecipherable. Then the President of the United States has a press conference, presumably to explain himself, and he is personally so distracted by the ballroom renovation that it makes me sound like I am some person who is so obsessed with Donald Trump that I watch MSNBC, I have an IV drip of MSNBC and TikTok to make me hate this President. But actually, that is what he did. He took a kinetic action against another country and then when it was his time to explain why, he sort of talked a bit about it, but then he was really passionate about the curtains that he chose, about the color of the ballroom, about the jackhammers running from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. That is his passion, and he is letting these neoconservatives run wild within his administration. I want to make a very specific point about tomorrow's--hopefully tomorrow's--War Powers Resolution introduced by Senator Kaine and others to block the use of American forces in Iran. I will support that, of course. But make no mistake, if a War Powers Resolution is defeated, that does not constitute an authorization of the use of military force. The way this works is that a President has some flexibility to basically take a kinetic action to use the U.S. military to protect American interests if there is an imminent threat. What do we mean by imminent threat? It is what it sounds like. They are about to attack us. And Secretary Rubio--again, very good communicator and I talk to him all the time--he said it about an hour and a half ago. He said it. The imminent threat--I want you to listen to this logic chain--the imminent threat to the United States was that Israel was going to attack Iran, and we anticipated that in retaliation, Iran was going to attack our interests, therefore, imminent threat. That is not what we mean by imminent threat. There are no bank shots when we are describing an imminent threat. If we want to conduct a war of choice--and we have in the past--we need hearings, we need briefings, we need a proper debate, and then we need a vote on the authorization of the use of military force that is foundational to the oath of office that we took when we became U.S. Senators. This is actually not a particularly controversial point, except that we are in this very weird moment where I think the public was sort of not tracking at all that maybe the President was going to wake up one morning and go: Why don't we go to war with Iran? I will explain it to you over a period of time. I understand that his method of communication is, if nothing else, rather unconventional and meandering and contingent and that he thinks he is preserving his optionality: Maybe it will be short. Maybe it will be long. We will see what happens--all that stuff. You can't do that with the American people. The American people are not his negotiating counterpart. They are the foundation that you need if you are going to take military action. If you are going to go to war, you need the American people behind you, and you need them to understand: Why in the heck are we doing this? Do I think Iran is a malevolent actor in the region and even across the planet? Of course, I do. But that is not the question at hand. The question at hand is, Why in the world are we trying to do another regime change? Iraq, Libya, Vietnam--I don't care what you think should happen. This is a question of what is very likely to happen based on what always happens when our best designs and our extraordinary, trained, courageous military executes well. In the first couple of days, there are two things that everybody does. They correctly praise our U.S. servicemembers, and then they say--if anybody raises any objections, they go: Oh, do you want that bad guy still in power? Is that what you want? Of course, I don't want a bad guy in power. However, the world is full of bad guys in power. So the question at hand is not ``Do I wish there were better people in charge of other countries?'' but, rather, ``Has it met the threshold for the U.S. Government to declare war against another country, especially in a region where we keep screwing it up?'' That is not a rhetorical question. I sound like Donald Trump a year and a half ago. He just is so fixated. I don't know if it is the ballroom or his legacy or some sort of revenge fantasy about Iran, but this man is not thinking clearly either politically or geostrategically. Geostrategically, this is a terrible decision, and he has no plan for what happens next. His view is just like it was in Venezuela: We are going to decapitate the person we don't like. We will get a client state--not so easy in Iran, not so easy in Iran. And these things have a terrible tendency to metastasize. They really do. After the Iraq war--my goodness--I thought there was going to be bipartisan consensus that we are not going to go into a war of choice again. Congress has a duty not just to check a reckless President but also to represent the will of the people, and the American people-- left, right, and center--do not want another regime-change war in the Middle East. It is about time our President started paying attention to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, where is the redline? You know, a lot of us wake up every day trying to figure out, exactly how bad is it? Is this the moment that Republican Members of the U.S. Senate are going to stand up for not our rights but their rights and not just U.S. Senators but everyone who put us in office? Last night, there was a failed indictment of two U.S. Senators, and the indictment--we don't know what they were charged with, but it was about a 90-second video in which they reiterated the guidance from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. By the way, even if you don't like what they said; even if you thought it was unwise, what they said; even if you thought it was provocative, what they said, it was not illegal. They have a perfect right under the Constitution, the First Amendment, to express themselves. That is not illegal. That is not seditious. That is not worthy of a court-martial. That is literally them doing their jobs. You can criticize them in the manner in which they do their jobs, but you may not incarcerate them. In addition to the First Amendment, they have specific constitutional rights for Members of Congress under the speech and debate clause. In other words, if you are doing something as a U.S. Senator--and they very clearly were--you have additional protections. Why does that matter? Not because we are overly concerned with 100 of the most privileged people on the planet but because this place represents U.S. citizens who put us all into office, and then we get to say what we want. So I ask my colleagues, where is the redline? Apparently not this one. Why? I have had several interactions with my Republican colleagues, and it basically comes down to ``Well, the system held. This was a failed indictment.'' So here is my question for my Republican colleagues: What if it is successful? What if Pam Bondi instructs Jeanine Pirro to try again and again and again until they perp-walk Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly and incarcerate them? Is that your redline? It is not obvious to me that anybody has even contemplated where exactly the line is. For me, it has been crossed. For me, it has been crossed. But I just ask my colleagues, do you even have a line? Is there some Rubicon that, if they cross it, you will say ``My God, I don't want to speed-run this place into turning into Belarus''? It is not that important to have this job if what it means is we are collapsing American-style democracy on purpose. And whatever irritation I have with another Member from another party at what they said or did, that is not illegal, and they should not be incarcerated. The fact that they failed in their attempt to incarcerate a U.S. Senator should not obviate our outrage. They tried to incarcerate two of us. I am not entirely sure that the U.S. Senate can survive this if we do not have Republicans standing up for our most basic principles. Tomorrow night, very likely, a bunch of people are going to go to the Munich Security Conference, and on a bipartisan basis, they are going to say: American-style democracy is still intact. Look at this bipartisan coalition. We still want to be part of the world. We still want to be engaged with Europe. We still want to protect democracies. They are going to say nothing about the fact that the President tried to jail one of us. So spare me the high-minded panel discussions and bilats and press availabilities about the United States as the indispensable Nation when we are dispensing with our most sacred constitutional obligations. You know, now it was a long time ago, but it feels like yesterday that I was first sworn in right in that corner. I don't remember exactly, but you swear an oath to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and that you take that obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And I am afraid we are evading our most fundamental responsibilities. So I don't have any illusions that this speech is going to change everybody's mind, but I would just start the dialogue. What is it going to take for you to say enough is enough? I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, among the bills in the funding package that was signed into law yesterday was the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. And while people are understandably focused elsewhere, I want to take a moment to talk today about what is in the so-called SFOPS bill and why it matters because, simply put, this bill will save lives all around the world. It will strengthen our alliances and partnerships at a moment when global instability is at an alltime high. And, crucially, it will make Americans safer here at home. As ranking member of this subcommittee, I saw in realtime the destruction and devastation wrought by Donald Trump's illegal dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Estimates are that more than 760,000 people, including 500,000 children, have died over the past year since American assistance suddenly vanished-- 760,000 people. Worse, millions more are expected to die in the next 5 years if the current trend continues. So it is in that context that this bill is essential. It is proof that there is still broad bipartisan support for America showing up in the world, not just with tanks and guns but with food and lifesaving care and economic assistance. And we do that not just because we are the indispensable Nation and that is the right and moral thing to do-- although that would be enough--but also because projecting power in all of its forms is smart, it is strategic, and it makes us more safe and more competitive. In this bill, there are vital investments in global health, humanitarian aid, and economic and development assistance. There is more than $9 billion for global health programs to help to fight HIV/ AIDS, malaria, TB, and polio. The funding also supports vaccination efforts that the administration tried to eliminate and strengthens maternal and child health programs. The bill includes close to $7 billion for development programs focused on economic resilience, education, water and sanitation, and disaster mitigation. And there is a reason why we have funded these programs for decades. Yes, our partners want them. Yes, they employ tens of thousands of Americans. But more than that, these programs benefit our national interests in unique ways. For instance, it is because of USAID's war legacy work in Vietnam that we share a strong security partnership today. It is thanks to our disaster risk mitigation programs in the Pacific islands that we have as much access to the region as we do. So it is not as if we just invest this money and hope for the best. This is not charity. This is not charity. It pays off over years and decades. This bill also rejects the administration's efforts to retreat from multilateral institutions like the United Nations. It ensures that we can pay our treaty dues to international organizations, restores voluntary funding for organizations like UNICEF, and fully meets our commitments to multilateral development banks that focus on economic development. Relatedly, the bill includes billions of dollars in funding to allies and partners across the globe, including those in the Indo-Pacific and Eurasia who are working to counter Chinese influence and Russian aggression. Now, I want to be clear: This bill is definitely not the bill that I would have written if it were up to me. There are steep cuts to really important programs, and we are asking our diplomats and our partners to navigate a riskier world with fewer resources. The cuts to humanitarian assistance are especially disappointing, and they are the result of the administration effectively shutting down the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, slowing assistance for those impacted by conflict, and reprioritizing funds for its own agenda. Our international broadcasting grantees are also experiencing significant cuts even as they try to provide essential information and services in Ukraine, Iran, and across the Indo-Pacific. And I want us to understand that what happened in the spring around DOGE and USAID--a lot of people are not tracking some of these funding areas, but, for instance, this is about getting our message out in Ukraine, this is about countering the Government of China's propaganda in the Indo-Asia Pacific, and this is about people in Iran having access to the internet through VPNs that we helped them to get. And so some of these programs--if you are just a tech guy and you have been assigned to find things to cut and you read a line item and you say: 75 million for what? VPNs in the mid--what is that? That is what this is. All of these programs serve our national interests. That said, there was nothing inevitable about this bill. We are here today, a year on from the wholesale evisceration of the American foreign assistance enterprise, enacting a bipartisan law because Members on both sides were committed to preserving this enterprise. So I want to thank Senators Graham, Murray, and Collins as well as Representatives Diaz-Balart and Frankel for their partnership in negotiating the bill. It was one of the toughest negotiations and most important negotiations I have ever been involved in. And I also want to thank the incredible staff here in the Senate who worked tirelessly to get this done. On the Democratic side, that is Alex Carnes, Sarita Vanka, Kali Farahmand, and Drew Platt, and on the Republican side, Paul Grove, Paul Denaro. This would not have been possible without all of you. And now the hard work of implementation and oversight begins. We can appropriate as much money as we want, but we need experienced people to administer these funds. So, to that end, while rejecting the administration's request to close USAID as an independent Agency, this bill sustains investments in our diplomatic workforce that provides new hiring authorities for the State Department in order to properly manage the additional assistance. And on oversight, we have closed loopholes and added new transparency requirements so that Congress can better track the use of funds and ensure that they are being spent as intended. Just last week, Secretary Rubio committed to faithfully implementing this bill, and now it is on all of us to work together to make that true. There will be a lot more work to do in the months and years ahead to rebuild American foreign assistance, but this week marks a very important first step. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, President Ronald Reagan founded the National Endowment for Democracy, in 1983, as an independent, nonprofit foundation with a bipartisan board, and since then, it has been the main way that the United States has helped to strengthen democratic institutions around the world. NED exposes Russian propaganda, counters Chinese Communist Party censorship, circumvents the Iranian regime's efforts to silence critics, and highlights corruption and drug trafficking in Venezuela. And it does all of that for a fraction of a penny on the dollar. Let's be perfectly clear. Letting authoritarians go unchecked directly undermines our interests and our safety, and these attacks against NED, led by a small group of people, have been repeatedly proven to be lies. It is why the House defeated the same amendment resoundingly. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 4241

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senators from Minnesota--the junior and senior Senators from Minnesota--for their incredible leadership in serving as a ballast not just for the people of their State but for the whole country. Tyranny is tyranny, and the people of this country, whatever our other differences, don't want anything to do with it. You might be a liberal; you might be a conservative. You might be for immigration, or you might be against it. You might think that guns should be more readily accessible, or you might think that guns should be harder to purchase. But when the U.S. Government is killing your fellow citizens in your name, none of that matters, because tyranny is tyranny, no matter the tyrant. Overreach is overreach, regardless of cause. And state violence is state violence, and it is against everything that this country stands for. There is a reason that a very unusual--an unusually broad--coalition of unlikely partners quickly converged in the wake of the tragedy, and it wasn't some organizing strategy. This was organic, across the country and certainly across the great State of Minnesota. It was liberals. It was conservatives. It was gun owners. It was clergy members. It was business executives. It was libertarians. It was Trump voters. Why the new unity? Because people from different places and persuasions, faiths and financial situations understand that, at least on the very narrow question of freedom and liberty, our fates and our futures are intertwined. No one is free until everyone is free. In my Jewish tradition, during the Passover seder, it is customary to recount the story of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. And the reason the story is told anew every year is to remind us that the struggle for freedom is not confined to the past and limited to others but instead has to live inside of all of us. The Haggadah says: We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord, our God, brought us out of there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Not ``they''--not ``they''--but ``we''--the point being that no matter how many generations removed we are from that story, we are still obligated to see ourselves as though we were personally freed from slavery in Egypt. No one is freed until everyone is freed. Our Founders knew that too. The Constitution deliberately begins with ``We the People.'' The Declaration of Independence promises equality and ``certain unalienable Rights'' that we hold to be ``self-evident.'' Collective responsibility to protect freedom and liberty is central to the American experiment. It always has been, which is why in the summer of 1963, sitting in a dark jail cell in Birmingham, AL, in the throes of the battle for civil rights, Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. No one is free until everyone is free. That same spirit of solidarity has united people for generations. In Hawaii, it was the sugar plantation workers, in the 1940s, tired of being overworked and underpaid, who organized across ethnic lines for fair conditions. Up until that point, they had been divided by the plantation owners into separate camps--Chinese camp, Japanese camp, Filipino camp, and so on--and paid different rates for the same work. And so they came together, vowing to treat an injury to one as an injury to all. They went on strike and won, altering the trajectory of workers in Hawaii to this day. An injury to one is an injury to all. No one is free until everyone is free. If there is a lesson in this collective outrage and widespread condemnation of ICE's conduct, it is that people don't want state- sponsored violence on their streets in their names. It is not a question of whether you voted for Trump or Biden. It is not a question of whether you agree with Joe Biden's immigration policy. And the idea that the immigration enforcement has to be accompanied by enthusiastic cruelty is so far out of the mainstream of American society. Nobody wants this, save for a handful of people intoxicated by power and deluded by their own fantasies. Thuggery is not strength. Strength must be used to protect people, to give a voice to the voiceless, and make people feel safe. That is impressive and noble and important precisely because it is harder to practice and harder still to come by. But that is what makes the response in Minnesota of ordinary Americans--taking it upon themselves to stand up for their neighbors-- so extraordinary. I want to read a little bit of what Adam Serwer observed in The Atlantic about the mistaken assumptions that fed this administration's brutality. He wrote: The secret fear of the morally depraved is that virtue is actually common, and that they're the ones who are alone. In Minnesota, all of the ideological cornerstones of MAGA have been proven false at once. Minnesotans, not the armed thugs of ICE and the Border Patrol, are brave. Minnesotans have shown that their community is socially cohesive because of its diversity and not in spite of it. Minnesotans have found and loved one another in a world atomized by social media, where empty men have tried to fill their lonely soul with lies about their own inherent superiority. Minnesotans have preserved everything worthwhile about Western civilization, while armed brutes try to tear it down by force. Look, I get that we are all divided and distracted and exhausted and that it is not going to resolve overnight. But in the wake of the tragedies in Minnesota, in Minneapolis, a bright red line has emerged. We can argue about everything else, but we will not tolerate tyranny. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ. Well, our grid is different, obviously, because we have a series of islands, and they are kind of self-contained grids. But our challenge is, to meet the load, we need electrons. And we do the dirtiest and most expensive thing, which is to light low-sulfur fuel oil on fire to create electrons. That is just north of like, you know, wood-burning stoves in terms of its efficiency. It is not a good way to do it economically, and it is not a good way to do it in terms of climate impact. So the Hawaiian Electric Company has a bunch of clean-energy projects on the grid because we have--the net capacity factors for our wind project on land are comparable to offshore wind. That is how much the wind blows in parts of essentially Maui and Hawaii Island. The southern part of Hawaii Island is incredible. People don't believe the numbers until they go down there and measure them. It is as if it is an offshore wind platform, but it is land-based. So we have ample resources to power our grid. When I was a kid in the Hawaii Legislature, I still remember the Hawaiian Electric Company would come and testify and say: The maximum penetration of renewables onto the grid is 15 percent. After that, you get power quality problems. By the way, that was true when that person studied electrical engineering in the seventies. That was actually true. The person wasn't lying. It is just that we have figured out a lot of this. It is not that we don't continue to need dispatchable power or baseload power; it is that grids are getting really, really smart and capable of handling high penetration of intermittent renewable energy. And when you layer them on top of each other, they are no longer functionally intermittent. So I kind of was like--I am sort of like from the future, right, because 10 years ago, 15 years ago, it was cheaper for us to move in the direction of clean energy in Hawaii, but you couldn't say that on the continental United States side. And we moved in that direction as fast as we possibly could and tried to provide some measure of relief for ratepayers. But now what is going to happen is we are going to have to buy a bunch of electrons in the most expensive fashion. We are the most isolated majorly populated place on the planet, and everybody pays more for everything, and now electricity bills are going to go up because of the OBBA. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Yes. I would be pleased to yield for a question through the Chair.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership and his clarity, and I want to underscore one of the most basic points that has to be made. And this is how times have changed. We have changed what we are talking about because energy systems change, prices change, needs change, and the load changes. Right? But hearing the Senator from Kansas, it could have been 1998 or 2008 or 2018. It is the same talking points, and it is literally not true anymore. There was a time when you could actually credibly say: Look, I understand there is a planetary emergency. But coal is so cheap. People are struggling. We have to balance the planetary emergency with the need for people to be able to cool and heat their homes and keep their lights on and all the rest of it. All of that is out the window. Why? Because clean is cheap and cheap is clean. Clean energy is now the cheapest kind of electricity that we can get on the grid in any kind of reasonable timeframe. There was a time where it was coal. That is definitely more expensive now. There was a time where it was gas, but the cost of gas keeps going up and up and up, for a couple of reasons--because we are exporting a lot of our gas but also because the turbines needed to convert natural gas into electrons--there is a huge backlog of them. So we have an industrial renaissance happening in certain States, and we have all of this AI data center load coming up, and we have your normal American economy stuff happening. There are not enough electrons on the grid. What happens when there is not enough of something? The people selling that thing raise the price. And that is exactly what is happening. That is not a rhetorical flourish. Like, they have overnight prices. They have people whose job it is to find how we are going to meet everybody's needs, so when you flick that switch, everything just works. There are technicians in front of probably three or four screens figuring out ``OK. I am going to buy this. This is the overnight price. This is the backup,'' all that. What has changed over the last couple of years is that solar energy is it. Even if you don't care at all about the climate, you should still love solar energy. Why? Because nobody should be enthused about paying more for electricity. What Donald Trump has done is very unique in American history, maybe even in world history--I am not too sure. It is normal for a President of the United States to try to alleviate economic pain for the citizens of the United States, and this is certainly the first President that I have experienced in the U.S. Senate but honestly the first President that I have even been aware of who is intentionally raising the price of something that we all need. It is Secretary Burgum's order, and it is the way Secretary Wright is behaving, and it is the way Lee Zeldin is behaving, and it is the way people in the White House are behaving. They want to create a shortage of electricity. Why? First, they have ideology against solar and wind. Trump has a particular idea about wind and golf courses and birds or whatever. But they viewed, 10 years ago, solar as a kind of ideological project, as like a nice to have, United Nations, utopian view of the world. Well, listen, solar is the most pragmatic thing we can put on the grid. Solar is really the only thing that is ready quickly. Why? Because nuclear energy has tremendous potential but is at least an 8- to 12-year timeframe, so we are talking about the 2030s. Geothermal also has tremendous potential, but they have not worked out all of the technical issues. And again, that is really a 2030 to 2040 play. In the short run, we have a shortage. In the short run, we have a shortage, and Donald Trump is making it worse. Now, why would you make it worse? Well, when there are shortages of something, the people selling the thing get to charge more, and they are charging more. So you, as the consumer--and again, I care deeply about this planetary crisis. It is actually the main reason I am in the U.S. Senate. I care deeply about this. But even if you don't, nobody wants to pay more than necessary on their electricity bills, and this national solar ban is making everybody pay more. One in four Americans struggles to pay their electricity bills--one in four Americans. So what is Trump doing about it? Well, it is definitely worse than nothing. The criticism about Biden during the inflation crisis was that he wasn't doing enough about inflation, but this is a different criticism. This is deliberate policy choices to drive up the cost of something that everybody needs. By the way, that is also true for food and health insurance and electricity. All the stuff you need, he is creating a shortage of. Why? Because when there are shortages, people have to petition the King for mercy, and that is what is going on right now. If you are close to him, if you can get dinner with him at Mar-a- Lago, you can get relief. There is enough money in the system for lots of people to get wealthy, but there is not enough money for a regular person living in Kaimuki, Honolulu, already paying three or four times the average electricity rate, paying more and more and more because there is a national policy driven by the President of the United States to create a shortage of electrons because he has decided that climate action is against his interests. I think, if we are going to move forward on permitting reform but if we are going to move forward more generally on the question of affordability, we have to say that shortages are bad for prices. When there is not enough of something, people charge too much, and right now, we need as many electrons on the grid as we can possibly get, which means we need interstate transmission, and we need to not just permit new projects but at a minimum let the projects that have been almost totally built be plugged into the grid. So this is not a climate speech; this is a ``people can't afford their electricity bills'' speech. And I just hope some of my Republican colleagues understand they have to abandon their old talking points because they don't apply anymore. Cheap is clean, and clean is cheap. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, no regime-change wars. No regime-change wars. I heard it from leftists. I heard it from rightwing people. I heard it from Bernie Sanders. I heard it from Tulsi Gabbard. I heard it from Donald John Trump: No regime-change wars. And yet here we go again. Almost 25 years ago, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney cooked up claims of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction to justify going into Iraq. Last month, just 2 weeks before ordering the capture of Nicolas Maduro, Donald Trump designated fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. Fentanyl is terrible. It is not a weapon of mass destruction. It was Donald Rumsfeld all those years ago who falsely claimed there was ``bulletproof evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida.'' Marco Rubio has spent the past few months accusing Maduro of leading a cartel that even our own DEA doesn't recognize. Just like the Bush administration insisted earlier on that oil revenue, not American taxpayers, would cover the cost of reconstruction in Iraq, Trump is hoping people will buy the fantasy his incursion into Venezuela will be cost-free. The parallels to Iraq are alarmingly obvious. In fact, according to Trump himself, here is the only way in which the situations are different: The difference between Iraq and this is that Bush didn't keep the oil. We're going to keep the oil. ``We're going to keep the oil.'' He could not be any clearer. The Justice Department can dress this up in charges of narcoterrorism. Secretary Rubio can talk about the promise of a better life of Venezuelans as a secondary effect. But Trump is being very explicit about the main goal. It is the oil. This is the same guy who for 10 years and over three Presidential runs made not getting into wars a central premise of his campaign. It scrambled the political coalitions. It really did. There were a lot of young veterans who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan and said, ``What the hell is the Democratic Party even for if not to be the party of peace?'' It doesn't mean that we are opposed to the use of force in all situations. But as Barack Obama used to say: I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm just opposed to dumb wars. We got away from that. Donald Trump seized that opportunity because he saw those young men and women who came home who were injured with physical and mental injuries and who were trying to reintegrate into society, and said: What was all that for? We have to stop regime-change wars. That is why he beat Hillary Clinton. But it turns out Trump is basically George W. Bush but with the corruption ratcheted up. How else do you explain the administration's talking to oil companies before the strikes but not to Congress-- talking to oil companies before the strikes but not to Congress? The Gang of 8, not all of us--I understand 535 of us can't be briefed on an ongoing, kinetic, risky military operation. I am an adult here. I don't think we have a right to know--all 535 of us--but there is a thing called the Gang of 8. They are supposed to be trusted with the most sensitive national security information, and they were not trusted with the national security information in realtime. But do you know who was trusted with that national security information, we think? Oil executives. This is not an accusation I am making. This is an assertion that the President is making, which is that they were in on it before the kinetic engagement. There is no reasonable explanation for this. We all know how this is likely to end, and it will not be good for us. We paid a mighty price for our blunder in Iraq in the thousands of lives lost, trillions of dollars spent, and untold new problems in the region and elsewhere. In response, as a country, we said no more--no more war--but especially not when our fundamental national interests are not at stake. Yet Donald Trump is now knowingly, enthusiastically dragging us into another conflict again. I yield the floor.