ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span for a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> a live look at the u.s. capitol as the senate is about to gavel in. senators are working on a measure to repeal a biden era epa rule on methane emissions and whether to advance the nomination of linda mcmahon to be education secretary. we we take you live to the senate floor here on c-span2. ...

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, empower our senators to make consistency a top priority. lead them over life's mountains and through life's valleys with a spirit of faithfulness and trust in you. help them to live their lives on an even keel, refusing to give in to despair. whether in life's sunshine or shadows, may they be aware that

you will walk beside them making the crooked places straight. keep them from making critical decisions without consulting you or succumbing to the temptation of taking the easy way out. lord, infuse them with a spirit of gratitude for your involvement in our nation and world. we pray in your wonderful. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, february 27, 2025. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the tim sheehy, a senator from the state of montana to perform the duties of the chair. signed chuck grassley, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following joint resolution, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 14, s.j. res. 12, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of l title 5 united states code and so forth.

were you given assurance about custom medicaid.

about the speaker and the two chairman of the areas of the cuts were big the unified there was a global because of the houses over here in the senate was over here and we were somewhere in the middle. >> so there will because to medicaid. >> but that won't affect the quality of care they will outwork requirements for able-bodied adults that don't have children they will audit all the wolves and if you don't apply a medicaid to take you off the docket a after hennessey assurance i have and that's expectation for president trump that that will not happen either. >> i want to ask you center on the armed services committee and served in the air force for over 30 years retired as a one star general let's start with ukraine, president zelenskyy is set to come to d.c. tomorrow, president trump has said he

called him a dictator and he said ukraine started the war and we know it was russia that started the war. why do we think this is happening. >> a couple possibilities. i think from my perspective i just like to state the truth ukraine is a national security interest and they remain independent if ukraine falls moldova will be next and maybe the baltics, georgia and so forth. independent ukraine is a game changer for the united states and europe it is in our interest to ensure that ukraine prevails. i want to say that is my perspective we have to be clear russia did the invasion i don't know why people have a hard time with this is a black-and-white issue. it's an absolute fact that putin invaded in the restore border country borders and you said that in ukraine is individual people, you see them as little

russians want to eliminate the language the airbus, the culture it's clear what's going on this is a war of aggression to take over ukraine territory and that is a fact. why is president trump saying this, i'm not really sure there is a possibility is trying to do this for negotiations or maybe he has a different worldview than i have, of a mixed of real and idealism and how i see national security we got a protector country. think we have an idealist strand as well in our country has to be an advocate for freedom, democracy, free market, rule of law and i don't know if he has ideals i think it's more of a straight realism and more transactional nature. i'm not too sure why folks in his administration don't see this clearly. i think it's very important that we have more clarity on this.

>> is it just a moral issue or is it a national security issue the new alignment with russia as opposed to our european allies and ukraine what happens in that case. why not let the europeans deal with it and we put america first? >> i think nato is important and a lot of them are carrying their own way and i think there is truth to that i think president trump has been good at pushing nato to do more but we gotta realize there are a lot of countries between more and defensive as we are right now for gdp. you can't say they're not all pulling their weight summer doing way more than we are for the share of their economy and some of these have done a lot more for ukraine that the united states has. and that story hasn't gone through as well either. frankly america is a leader of the free world indispensable nation and without america

russia and china and iran will will the void as a dangerous world i see it from a national security perspective but i also see a moral perspective. what we stand for is right and what putin stands for and what president xi stands for is wrong a dictatorship no rule of law and we support what is right. >> if you would like to join our conversation with don bacon republican of nebraska you can do so are lines 2,027,488,001 mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, when donald trump and doge began their work, they kept saying the same thing. they said, donald trump, elon musk, and doge said this is about cutting waste, it's about efficiency, it's about meritocracy. unfortunately the truth has not been as advertised.

it's been utter chaos. yesterday the department of veterans affairs said they were reversing course on canceling billions of dollars in contract work because as it turns out slashing billions untiling funding that -- in funding that helps veterans -- yesterday the department of veterans affairs said they were reversing course on canceling billions of dollars in contract work because, as it turns out, slashing billions in funding that helps veterans is extremely harmful for veterans. these v.a. cuts were loaded by doge as an example of eliminating waste. the v.a. secretary said they were for making power point slides. that is not close to the truth. let me read examples of what

doge was actually prepared to cut. funding for chemotherapy and imaging services. those were going to be cut. hardly make-work, hardly writing meeting minutes. funding for veterans with disabilities, cut. even funding to help veterans suffering from toxic exposure in burn pits. one contract would help over 20,000 veterans, track down their military service record from dod in order to prove there was toxic exposure as is required. without these records getting affordable treatment would not likely be possible. and doge said let's cut that too. even if the v.a. reverses course, canceling these contracts and firing v.a. staff is still immediately damaging. very damaging. there's the risk that you can't rehire workers back in time

because they moved on to other jobs. or contracts aren't available because they took their business elsewhere. and by then the damage is done, vital services and operations that serve veterans can't continue as before. it could take months, maybe even years to build this back, which had been built up carefully to help veterans over the years. and many of us in congress worked for those things. so to cut these services and then say never mind still ends up being very destructive. sadly this is only one example. yesterday elon musk led his first cabinet meeting of this administration. he admit that had doge's approach has led to many erroneous cuts to staff and programs that are not wasteful. but on the contrary, vital. for example, he said with usaid one of the things we accidentally canceled was

briefly, very briefly was ebola prevention. those are his words. mr. president, are you kidding me? cutting funds to stop one of the deadliest diseases in the world is reckless, especially when there's an ebola outbreak in uganda as we speak, and flights leave kampala every day and go all over the world. when epidemics hit america, they often time begin abroad, and u.s. funding is essential to prevent those diseases from reaching us here at all. i should also note that the claims that ebola funding is back be online are false. reports are out from last night that 95% of all usaid funding is now being cut. so, we're not sure where it all is. mr. president, what doge is doing is not what efficiency looks like. if doge actually cares about ep fish is i and mer -- about

efficiency and meritocracy, it is failing in many ways its own test. it would be better to look at these programs, see which might be wasteful, see which are needed and then make the cuts to the wasteful programs, not take a meat ax, below torch, call it what you will, cut everything and then say we'll restore some of the things we shouldn't have cut because once you make those cuts it's hard to put things back together. on republican taxes, last months -- this is how confident consumers, average americans feel about the economy, biggest nosedive in four years. inflation is trending back up. the price of eggs is sky high. the threat of a trade war looms over our country, and americans are fearful things are not going to get any better anytime soon. what are republicans doing about all of this? they're trying to cut taxes for

billi billionaires. trying to cut taxes for billionaires. and make the american people pay for it. the republican agenda is quickly taking shape. under donald trump's republican party, billionaires win, american families lose. it doesn't matter if republicans go with one bill or two bills or 50 bills. that's what they're debating right now. their end game, house and senate republicans, has always been cutting taxes for billionaires and forcing american families to pick up the tab. of course, senate republicans know that cutting medicaid by over 800 billion to lower taxes for billionaires is wildly unpopular. they know that increasing the deficit by up to $5 trillion to help the ultra rich contradicts everything the so-called party of fiscal responsibility stands for. they say they have to cut all this stuff to reduce the

deficit, and then with their tax breaks for billionaires they increase the deficit. no matter what sleight of hand accounting method they use. what are republicans doing about fiscal responsibility? are they admitting that their plans would be a disaster for the deficit? no, instead senate republicans are engaged in budgetary hocus-pocus to hide the true cost of their tax cuts for the ultra rich. there may be signs house republicans are going along. instead of admitting the truth about the consequences of their plans, they're pursuing a gimmick called current policy baseline, a gimmick if there ever was one, which is essentially an attempt to magically turn $5 trillion of deficit spending into zero dollars of deficit spending. that can't happen, and doesn't happen, and the economy will realize it doesn't lap. any junior high school math student could tell you this is a butch of bunk.

you can't pass $5 trillion to cut taxes for the rich and pretend it doesn't affect the deficit. the issue isn't complicated. republicans are trying to hide the true cost of their billionaire tax cuts from the american people. meanwhile, they're getting ready to eviscerate funding for health care that serves over 80 million americans -- kids, seniors, rural communities. these cuts to medicaid will dramatically hurt rural america, people with disabilities, and more. the only people who seem to be opposing this is the hard-right freedom caucus, because they seem to really care about the deficit. let's hope they stay strong for the sake of the economy of this country. of course, the american people are not going to take these medicaid cuts lying down. last night, i got on a zoom, over 3,000 new yorkers worried about the attacks from republicans on health care got

on the zoom, many more than we expected. but these were rank-and-file folks, health care advocates, union members, and concerned citizens from all walks of life. they were all upset about the cuts to medicaid and making -- putting those cuts in place in order to give tax breaks for billionaires. it was a great call. it was an energizing call. i urge my colleagues to do the same, as many of them are. it's a stark reminder of what's at stake, but also a reminder that the american people don't like these cuts. we've heard from new yorkers who are in danger of having their medicare -- medicaid coverage taken away if republicans proceed with their actions on this zoom of over 3,000 people, but we also talked about taking action. i urge participants to call

their members of congress. i urged them to mobilize online and organize in their communities. we urged everyone to make their voices heard, like we're seeing in the town hall meetings. i reminded folks that organizing is not easy, but it works, it changes things, and it's going to make a difference in making sure medicaid is bprotected. on our education secretary nominee, today the senate votes -- will vote on whether to advance the nomination of linda mcmahon as secretary of education. ms. mcmahon's nomination comes as president trump has been clear about cutting funding for education and abolishing the department of education entirely. is ms. mcmahon going to go along? i hope not. cutting education is not what the american people want. the american people don't want a radical, out-of-touch billionaire slashing funding for public schools. when you slash federal funding for education, guess what

happens -- since so many of our school districts, urban, suburban, rural depend on this federal money, it leads to higher property taxes for people back home. if you eliminate the department of education as a whole, that means local communities are forced to pick up the tab to fund the schools. it means that families in these communities will pay in the forms of higher property taxes to make up the loss of federal funding, but communities will also be forced to slash other programs to make room for funding for schools. again, this is not what the american people want. this is not what they voted for. ms. mcmahon, in my judgment, is not qualified to lead america's public education. she seems not to care very much about it. but that's precisely why president trump nominated her. she's the perfect choice to bring our public education system burning to the ground. i yield the floor and note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. they want to cut 40% in the defense budget, second we have the power and some control through the budget and policy and law and the president can veto it we have to have two thirds there's checks and balances there but there's no doubt the president has a large

say he is the commander-in-chief and he got elected. >> here is johanna in stony point new york, republican. >> good morning, how are you. >> i'm collated with the question i'm just wondering he was speaking about checks and balances how comes a republican congressman have no backbone to stand up against the thing this president is doing and saying you fall in line to whatever he says talking about not cutting medicaid medicare, now murdock would cut the quality of care, you still get it cut the people he's talking about cretin under president putin is not a dictator and there's not a p from the republican side will happen to the backbone of the republican party you can't stand up to this president you think you have no say anymore. he is not the supreme leader and i think the republicans need to realize that and stand up and finally do something.

>> johanna must not of been listening to me earlier been very public talking about ukraine since invasion in ukraine since president trump got elected i was very vocal last week and with the president's comments and i was discouraged about his vote, or vote in the united nations i've been very public and i'm not the only one there is ten or 20 on ukraine for sure and probably more behind-the-scenes endocrine issue divides republican party. we have two strands of an isolationist strand and then the old reagan viewpoint, i represent that point america indispensable nation for freedom. >> would you be willing to vote against president trump's agenda unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. this week, the senate has focused on unleashing american

energy. as i've said before, our country is facing some serious energy challenges. we need more power or we face the possibility of a future defined by unreliable and unaffordable energy. which is why president trump declared an energy emergency on his first day in office, to produce more energy, build more infrastructure, and ultimately bring energy prices down. but our democratic colleagues made it clear yesterday they don't believe such an emergency exists. the senator from virginia called it a, quote, sham. our colleague from new hampshire said it was, and i quote, an emergency declaration in search of an emergency, end quote. and every senate democrat voted to deny the emergency that our country faces. i guess they haven't seen the reports of the precarious state

of american energy. last year a "washington post" headline read, and i quote, amid explosive demand, america is running out of power, end quote. a recent report from the north american electric reliability corporation warns of, and i quote again, mounting resource adequacy challenges, end quote, in the next decade. so mr. president, whether democrats want to acknowledge it or not, the signs of a rapidly approaching energy crisis are clear. there's a threat of blackouts, not enough power to meet demand, heightened prices for gas and util utilities. apparently, democrats don't think these are cause for alarm. but whether they're willing to acknowledge it or not, and yesterday's vote i think made clear that they're not, we have a serious problem. if we don't do something about it, we face a future with an unreliable and unaffordable

energy supply. republicans, mr. president, are taking action. this week, the senate is working to prevent two of the biden administration's anti-energy policies from going into effect. on tuesday, the senate passed senator kennedy's resolution to stop the biden administration's marine archaeology rule. offshore oil and gas producers have long been required to submit an archeological report before drilling if their project area was thought to include things like shipwrecks, settlements, or other archeological sites. last year, the biden administration decided to require archeological reports for all offshore projects, even when there's nothing to suggest the project will be near an archeological site. it's just another way, mr. president, to slow down production and heap more costs on producers, costs that consumers eventually pay.

it's another part of the biden administration's efforts to close off america's waters to conventional energy production. under president biden, offshore permits dropped to a two-decade low. the administration's offshore leasing plan included only three possible leases, down from 47 in an earlier draft from the first trump administration. of course, there was president biden's last-minute ban on oil and gas production in 625 million acres of america's waters. why would we so severely limit the use of our natural resources is beyond me. under republican leadership, we will be leveraging those assets to restore american energy dominance. later today, the senate will also vote on a resolution to block the $6 billion natural gas tax that was included in democrats' so-called inflation reduction act. this tax would increase costs

for energy producers and limit energy production, leading to higher utility bills for many americans. under the biden administration's implementation of this tax, it would hit smaller operations the hardest. on top of that, the tax puts tens of thousands of jobs at risk, including in natural gas rich states like pennsylvania, new mexico, texas, and north dakota. the senate will vote later today to stop implementation of this tax on energy producers, and i appreciate senator hoeven's leadership on this issue. thanks in substantial part to his efforts, energy producers will not have to worry about this unnecessary natural gas tax and the american people won't have to worry about it driving up their utility bills. mr. president, it would be nice if democrats would join us in our efforts. if not to avoid our rapidly approaching energy crisis, at least to promote more affordable

prices for americans. i've recently been hearing our democrat colleagues express newfound interest fighting infl inflation. if they're serious about that, they should be joining us in blocking these anti-energy policies that are driving prices up. with democrats or without, republicans will keep working to build a more secure and more affordable energy future. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

charlie brown is the poster boy for and something else you say you're a christian you believe that god sees all, and here's all? >> last question. yes i believe in the almighty god of our bible that he knows everything. president trump didn't fire him he was early out. we were talking about seven generals and admirals and i've heard this about gerald cq brown the poster boy for di, people say that but back it up why do

you say that? he was doing some programs that biden wanted as was president biden was the president he asked the military to do these things. president trump comes in and he gets a chance to tell the military we're going to do differently let's do a 30 degrees change or whatever it may be, the military won't respond so the general brown for doing what president biden asked him to do i don't think that's right this was an unlawful order. >> a republican in virginia, good morning. >> good morning. i have a question about the original help that we give ukraine. was this agreed to as a loan before prior to this or was it determined later after trump got into office here and he made up his own mind. also as a sidebar to that all

the help that we've been giving to israel has not been considered alone or has it been ironed out yet? >> answer both of those questions now, it was aid one of ukraine and also aid to israel and they were not promised initially as loans. again i'll come back to that is international security interest for ukraine to win this war if russia prevails we will spend a lot more money weatherby nato or in other ways. if you stand up to a bully and if you do not stand up to the bully they act out even more and reminder of what happened in 1930 with hitler privately and they carved up czechoslovakia without czechoslovakian leaders even there and then a year later

hitler had the rest of czechoslovakia and invaded poland we call that appeasement, it does not work with the dictators. i believe in being firm with them. i've a different view of how to go about this that our president. >> i will point out i don't think president biden did a great job here either. he was always late anti-shipping missiles, he gave it to them a year later than what they should at a level that was too little and they gave him rules of engagement and made it hard for them to fight russia. i was very critical of joe biden two on this. >> representative don bacon republican of nebraska on the armed services and agriculture committee, thank you for being here

>> right now waiting for senator to come to the fork to speak at noon eastern editors will post on the resolution to repeal the biden administration epa on methane waste admission for oil and gas producers also this afternoon's editors will vote on whether to advance the domination of linda mcmahon to be education secretary. you are watching live coverage of the senate on c-span2.

so we can continue to grow make sure the services there are for everyone. >> senator thank you for the question i know this is an important topic. if confirmed i intend to look into this and i know the housing change and we need to focus on it and to get the stakeholders together. >> thank you i appreciate it the naval air station on the readiness of our naval aviators in navy seals some of our

special operation is critical so we have the space and services so we are ready to do whatever we need to do servicemen and women and support them is critically important. thank you. >> senator sullivan. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you very much for your willingness to serve and your family and i appreciate your willingness to save lives, i'm looking forward for your confirmation, this chart is one of the biggest challenges facing you in the navy is one of the biggest colleges facing our military and that is the challenge of the chinese communist party pla is on pace to surpass a 400 ship navy this year and by the end of 2030 is on pace to have 120 more ships compared to our very weak

shipbuilding attempt in 2023 china added 30 ships to the fleet 15 of which were large service combatants we added two. i think that will define the tenure of your time as secretary whether success or not if we could start to address this challenge. fortunately as you see in this hearing you will have a very strong bipartisan support once you get it and take a look at the hood i'm exactly how we need to address this let me ask one question one of the things that hasn't come up yet

electric vehicle mandate. he fulfilled that promise on day

one. he ended the biden ban on gas-powered vehicles. in my home state of montana and your home state, that is welcomed relief. the next is to end subsidies on electric vehicles and i introduced legislation to do just that. my bill ends the 7,500 subsidy for e.v. and close the loophole that will sub dis-china. -- subsidieses china. this was a giveaway, to give money away to coastal elites who drive electric vehicles, and it was connected to biden's unpopular biden dreams. it began with the democrats reckless tax and spending bill. it included a 7,500 handout for anyone who bought an electric

vehicle while not a single republican in the house or senate voted for that spending bill. the joint committee on taxation looked at the cost of these e.v. subsidies because there was going to be a mandate attached, you would have to buy an electric vehicle. they said it would cost $14 billion. that's a lot of money. when they did the math a year later, they said the cost estimate would be 100le billion dollars. outside analysts estimated the cost even higher, goldman sachs said that the e.v. subsidies could cost the taxpayers as much as $294 billion, which is 28 times as much as originally thought when the committee on taxation looked at it. these subsidies, this is for a vehicle that most americans can't afford, doesn't want, doesn't work for them in my home

state of wyoming or in your state, mr. president, of wyoming. most know e.v.'s are luxury items, severe limitations. certainly can't be the primary source of transportation for most americans. average cost of an e.v., $62,000. that's $16,000 more than the cost of most gas-powered vehicles. the dealers i talked to in my home state of wyoming told me it takes significantly longer to sell an e.v. than a gas-powered vehicle. and the e.v.'s to do sell they sell for a loss. the nationwide sale of e.v.'s also stalling. actually lost market share in 2024. despite endless subsidies, e.v.'s account for less than 10% of all car sales in america. now, most of these are sold to wealthier americans, people who don't need a subsidy from the government to begin with. this is social engineering to

benefit the liberal elite. it's a transfer of money from hardworking american families to the wealthy. every time a wealthy liberal in san francisco gets a government subsidy when they go to buy an electric car, a working-class family in s wyoming pays those tagsz. e.v.'s are a bad investment for american people and american automakers. this month ford projected that in 2025, it would lose over $5.5 billion on its electric vehicles. in 2024, ford sold only 21,000e.v.'s. it lost $5 billion. that's a lot of $60,000 for each and every electric vehicle that they were able to sell. now, ford isn't alone. major car companies, general motors and others are also

losing money on e.v.'s. the transition to e.v.'s also estimated to kill hundreds of thousands jobs, manufacturing jobs of gas-powered vehicles. it's already sending thousands of american workers from the assembly line to the unemployment line. ending subsidies for e.v.'s about saving taxpayers money, protecting american jobs, but it's also about protecting our national security. initially only e.v.'s made in america were supposed to be eligible for this 7,500 subsidy, before leaving office, joe biden made it easier for those tax credits on e.v.'s to gl for those -- for those made in china. it wasn't supposed to happen that way. but biden and the democrats so desperate to force e.v.'s on to the american public, they created a leasing loophole, specifically designed to help china. this is how it works -- it

allows customers who lease e.v.'s, instead of buy them, but who lease e.v.'s made with chinese parts, they could still fully receive the subsidy. well, since 80% of the e.v. batteries come from china, they had noted a major problem because they weren't going to be able toe get the subsidies, that's why they came up with the leasing loophole. in 2022, before the loophole, over 7% of new e.v.'s were leafed. -- leased. because of this gimmick, it jumped to 345%. -- 45%. if american taxpayers are subsidizing by things controlled by communist china, it is wrong. republicans are focused on what matters. lowering prices, unleashing american energy, creating

american jobs, and putting americans back in the driver's seat. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. in 2023 secretary of navy announced a numerical strategic

plan to conduct national government efforts to transform u.s. and allied naval and power, the michigan maritime manufacturing initiative was formally launched at that time within the maritime strategy strategic plan, through the initiative the department of defense is implementation pipelines and programs targeted to the navy's demand for thousands of new workers that will be necessary for this all across the great lakes region. my question how do you plan on using the submarine and industrial base money in the manufacturing states for physician manufacturing in the highly technical field in the

manufacturing industrial capability. i think we need to look across the country to find the appropriate expertise and skill set and workers to do what is a highly complex manufacturing process, the fact that some of the skills reside there obviously an advantage an important advantage so if confirmed i will look into that and this is the utmost priority to making sure thank you mr. following thank you, mr. chairman, first of do we have a picture i just want to get to your reaction about affixing this picture yet this was the uss dewey singapore last week.

>> please don't give it to president trump will get a text that one in the morning. >> we are constantly paying the darn ship whenever we go to a port it is pretty discussing. we heard the stories would have enough ships you cannot build ships and you've took over and dealt with several companies before, how would you do it. >> it is very complicated it is

a huge organization that is very complex with a lot of tradition. i think at the end of the day i have to work with the key senior leadership and subdivision and the tone for what we are going to try to accomplish and a large majority of the leadership is on board with the vision and that tone. if they're not they should reconsider staying on ultimately. i need them and they're going to need me and we're going to work together to turn this around. we are at a critical inflection point and i think their adversaries afterward these are strong people that will take on our dominance and try to supplant the united states and

were in a much more critical time the people recognize. and i think we need to fix the navy ronald reagan said the only thing more expensive than the navy is not have a good navy and i believe that's right basically is setting the proper vision in the proper benchmark key performance indicators and feedback to make sure getting those done and having the right thing to do it. we've done this before with many companies. again this is a complicated one with big tradition some of those traditions need to be respected some of them need to be question and modernize that's what i would hope i would bring to the table as a partnership approach but with a shared vision and purpose. >> or any of your companies like this?

>> i dealt with the company not the size but i've dealt with companies that had a lot of complications and needed to be changed. >> senator warren thank you very much, mr. chairman. congratulations on your nomination, let's talk about efficiency of the defense department. last year the navy asked for $260 billion to buy everything from ships to nightvision goggles, one reason it cost so much big defense contractors with restrictions into their contracts that denies sailors access to technical that they need to maintain or repair equipment even equipment that the navy owns. i would give you an example the navy combat ships are designed to operate close to shore and to sing submarines. this ship has been bogged down with maintenance issues and when

something breaks, sailors are not allowed to make repairs themselves because lockheed martin and general dynamics don't let them have access to the necessary data and materials. and to fly contractors to the pacific to fix minor repairs. are they in a review of checks. dollars. >> it does not sound like it to me senator. >> i'm glad to hear that. let me give you another example. the government accountability office found that fuel tank level indicators were improperly calibrated on the uss fort lauderdale built by huntington

it seems like an easy fix, you go in and recalibrate these things. the navy technician were denied information that they needed to do that so every time they had to recalibrate the indicators the navy had to fly out one of the contractors technicians. does this sound like and not being able to maintain an important ship card and put the navy readiness at risk. >> it sounds like i mentioned earlier these contracts are something that need to be reviewed and better understood and if confirmed that something i tend to do is focus on the. >> i appreciate that. i want to see more than just reviewed, sailors need to rely on it. that means being able to maintain their own equipment but

from fiber-optic navigation, cranes that employ search and rescue, sailors do not have the right to repair their own equipment thanks to defense contractors who need more money out of the military. many people on this committee, both sides, democrats and republicans understand the risk here, chairman wicker released a report last year showing dod consistently underperform in procuring data rights and pointed to the lack of technical data as a factor that inevitably leaves to reduce training and readiness. can we count on you to advance the navy's right to repair its own equipment? >> thank you for the question senator i know this is an issue very important to you. as i said, it is something i

intend to study and look at and what i submit to you, let me come back so you can understand it it is accommodated issue i'm in an agreement that these do not make sense to me. i am not up to speed enough yet to give you the answer. i welcome back and see you and commit to that and look at this. >> i appreciate that. i want to say this makes me uneasy because there's so much pressure to continue to let the defense contractors take advantage of our service members who we waste taxpayer dollars and we delay missions and we actually put people at risk because were not permitting basic right to repair, technical data needs to be a must-have acquisition contract for the navy, my service members right to repair to make sure that the

navy and every other part of our military have fair access to the data rights into the other materials that service members need to be able to repair their own equipment and keep themselves safe. i want to work with the administration of my colleagues and i want to work with you we owe it to our taxpayers and we await to the minute women on the field to get this straightened out. and we can put a stop to it. >> senator banks is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman congratulations you have been nominated to my dream job as secretary of the navy and i don't think in my lifetime it's never been more important that we have a leader like you to make the navy great again and strong again. it's important because i wear the uniform answer as the navy

reserve officer for ten years. i wanted to ask you from the outset. have you thought a lot about the importance of the reserves and make each of the navy reserve is a strong component of the united states navy and how important it is to strengthen and make it better the reserve is something we need to look at and strengthen in the reserve is an afterthought little bit today in today's navy and that is a mistake. i think that you have seen reserve forces with great efficacy in the marines and some of the other service to be looked at. if confirmed i look forward to working with you on that.

>> i appreciate your commitment to that. i deployed to afghanistan as the navy reserve supply corps officer the navy reserve gaming opportunity a little bit later in life than typical military service to use skills that i had experiences that i had to contribute to wear the uniform to serve my country and never thinking that i would give 20 years and retire but the avenue to service is what the navy reserve and reserve component is all about. i look forward i appreciate your commitment to making sure that everyone in the navy organization understands how valuable the navy reserves our work together to strengthen it. the other thing that we talked about my office we want to talk about today. is a historic recruitment crisis in the united states navy and over 50 years of a volunteer force the navy missed the mark year after year under the loss of administration, the last administration had to lower

standards to meet the recruitment goals. have you thought about that, how can we get standards back to where they need to be to find the best and the brightest young leaders whether enlisted or the officer corps to fix the recruitment crisis of the united states navy. >> thank you for the question senator. i think it is critical that we have standards that are high and we have people who can meet the standards i think there are some things to learn marines in particular have done a very effective job, what i understand the marines put some of the best leadership into the recruiting

role and that's one of the reasons why they do so well with it. i'm going to try to adopt some of the best practices that we get from other services and for my business experience and how to attract and retain talent. a lot of it is making sure, whatever the job may be that you have the appropriate skill set and you try to hire that person. i think that's really important thing in one of the important things that i learned in business you always want to hire a person for tomorrow not for today. . . .

it goes to show men and women the uniform and it's the greatest honor you can have for members. help us initiate you are country. mr. chairman, i look backthe

tears including chairman and have you spoken to her ex. >> i have not. >> you plan to do so? confirmed, i'm happy here for selective. not tribute to those people.

>> yes. undertaken the first way and 8% two/the budget and i view it as a threat the non- mission critical and i don't know it's budget it would be revealed and locations spend somewhat. defamation of existing why the budget estimate of $70 million

and put it in perspective spent only 100 million on the 109 on climate so the expenditures are .1% and there is this cut plan that will cause 72000 personnel along with spending cuts upwards of $70 billion. >> thank you for the question. from my understanding it is the budget cuts for planning purposes basically direct assets

-- >> that's why i'm asking. >> i don't have enough to tell you whether or not i would support them. >> you taken over many and have turned them around knowing already a decision had been made this criminally across-the-board have no say in that? >> i'm not privy to how they got to this or what the criteria was. >> would you walk into a situation where there was a 10% cut in workforce?

>> it's a hard question to answer because typically -- >> i think that's probably and no. i don't think any expert in your line of work would do it. would you agree with me concerns about politicization or armed services are well-founded given the kind of firings we've seen? politicization should be part of them do not have any discussions likelihood, it may in particular

on active duty in the united states navy one of the greatest fighting forces in the world. i understand earlier you mentioned america act. under young and i and house members are working on back from its dismal state of 80 vessels something much larger than that. our adversary has 5500 and we got to rebuild this industry so thank you for bringing that up and look forward to getting your feedback what i want to test now more specific a weapon system

and the submarine launched that is being debated. i want to make sure we are clear on the direction and understand opportunity costs so it would likely be from the class submarines and have a significant change to the security system and that is you wind up in a conflict in the western pacific. one of our great advantages is

our submarine force. the nuclear armed launch missile program is worth the trade-offs? confirmed, what direction in regards to the integration of this missile? think we needed for deterrence? >> appreciate the time spent an office. i've not been in the program which makes it difficult to fight the senator to come up with what we hope will be the optimal answer review on the

program hopefully come up with the best solution. >> is a big one. in regards to a weapon system. another decision will have to be made at some time is whether to move forward with faf x so the navy version fighter. we need an asymmetric ability. my view in trying to penetrate what china has built is we need a capability that can find its way and. right now the f35 has fantastic

capabilities they are hard to see on the radar and they are not matched anywhere else in the world but china continues to build significant weapons but have greater range very, very rapidly so i'm not going to ask a question, i just want reassurance that you understand the challenge that we can't just replace this stuff in this unmanned situation from the corners of the administration were the thought is, we do not control the environment.

the chinese and some of those there are areas ahead ellie. >> use on this issue the foundational questions my employees. have you ever had verbal or sexual harassment?

>> no. >> have you ever faced discipline for this kind of conflict? >> i have not met to represent locale, the largest ao are in the nation. i'm glad you mentioned the dot, have elon musk with his chainsaw cutting government pogroms positions without any kind of criteria. this will hurt readiness? the question. >> that is a yes or no answer.

>> it's a hypothetical question i'm not privy to how they are doing got a lot of and personnel is the way to go 21 storage facility along with drinking water, 93000 people were affected and had to move to hotels and hurt the military why you, a distinction between something the navy was responsible for, the navy or air force or marines so seeking a lot to rebuild the community's

confidence so the senior dod leaders made correct decisions to permanently close the facility and ongoing efforts in the the task force i would like to get your through and it's not only adequate resources but also operations of the states government officials restore trust military. >> i'm committed to a full review related to pearl harbor

and all of these. >> this will be a major way. the navy is building pearl harbor to support construction project, the largest dod history significant cost overruns including 34 million from a billion-dollar increase just last year. i hope you are prepared to take steps to ensure the project remains on time and on budget

and i included a provision secretary of the navy to be confirmed to conduct research. >> thank you for the question. that is a astronomical to me and look forward to seeing that and visiting with you. >> it's going to be critical and just about two weeks after where i hope this will come in, a billing dollars more. >> the swift overrun and we got

to get this issue down. i hope this is the moment we can turn it around. >> thanks for the opportunity, i initiated. it is a good insight. i also want to say thank you to your family for what your in for an i appreciate their sacrifice as well. twenty-four senior dod officials enforcing our mouth and thanks

and the gigahertz band is typically the navy there conducting missile defenses. joint versus the basis and radars. it is on this spectrum before this to $50 billion it may not

even be possible. >> thank you for the question. i am aware of this. being able to expand our ability. the fear i have that some do not understand the president indicated what they have done and there is no need to do that.

that's why i continue to bring it up. about what could happen. based on the chairman's concern understand twice as much u.s. has done is also leveraged dramatically increase. >> there are a number of ways. that allows orders production

forward to you in this committee and logically advanced ways to help get our base in order. >> this would require two optimized numbers hoping that would be something. >> i would appreciate that. there's a growing potential involving multiple adversaries,

what steps would you take to execute and sustain operations across multiple regions? too, not just one. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> nobody has had a chance see it from gao and the investment

in the opening paragraph the programs are not achieving cost and they are not modernized and ready because the workers and infrastructure are out of reach yet the navy continues to expect different outcomes and it is expecting the outlays to improve and what motivates a different level of investment.

not without objection, it is so ordered. >> you are a nontraditional for this position and tradition is working and i explained to you it's always been in space but i've operated under the assumption on the resource size private sector will deliver a product successfully 11 wrong and not and we not only had a robust system only joints together in a bipartisan way april supplemental package such

as putting more money into the bucket, i have completely lost confidence that would solve the problem. so you are nominated for a position that doesn't seem to be. when the president asked you to the job he asked in discussions, what do you understand is in the priority and why you think you would be the right person and i thank you for the question. exp

for those reasons alone it is something that the fossil fuel industry should not be leaking.

the fossil fuel industry should be responsible about taking care of its leaks of a gas that is dangerous, poisonous and explosive. but in addition to that immediate danger, methane is also a really, really potent greenhouse gas. if you look at the effect over a 20-year period, methane in the atmosphere is 80 times -- 8-0 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. so we talk all the time about carbon emissions, carbon limits, carbon pollution. methane is actually 80 times more dangerous. so there are two reasons why the

fossil fuel industry should not be leaking large amounts of methane. first, it is dangerous, poisonous and explosive, and second, it's an 80-times worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. so how much methane is industry leaking and why did we do this measure in the first place? well, industry told epa for years that it was leaking about eight million tons, eight million tons of methane which all by itself is a pretty big

number. but it turned out that the industry was not telling epa the truth. turns out that once independent sources got a chance to spot methane leaks using, froins, satellites -- for instance, satellites -- this is a satellite image of a methane plume being released from a leak site. when they could find that and satellites can now do that, so we are beginning to know how much methane is actually being leaked, and particularly when you backstop the satellite information with information if aircraft where the readings can be more sensitive than from a satellite, turns out that what they were actually leaking is more like 32 million tons.

they were only disclosing a quarter of what they were leaking, and even that eight million that they disclosed was a pretty bad number. when you go to 32 million tons, that is a great deal of leakage of a gas that is dangerous, poisonous, explosive, and 80 times more powerful a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide. now, you would think that as an attribute of basic human de decency, these companies that are leaking methane would go and clean it up. it's the decent thing to do. but they didn't, obviously. they didn't even disclose truthfully and accurately what

they were leaking. and when we were confronted with a 32 million ton annual leak of poisonous, dangerous explosive methane, and its greenhouse effects on top of that, we tried to do something about it. so what did we do? well, we did two things. a little bit of carrot, a little bit of stick of the carrot was 1.5 -- $1.5 billion, $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars in flat out corporate welfare to the leaking oil and gas companies so that they could use taxpayer money to clean up the mess they

were making to deal with the pipes and the valves and the wells that they weren't properly maintaining and that were leaking turned out 32 million tons of methane. one can argue that that was a pretty poor use of taxpayer money, that a basic tenet of corporate responsibility should be you clean up your own mess, you take care of your own equipment. that's a basic tenet of human responsibility. i don't know why it shouldn't be a basic tenet of corporate responsibility. but the measure of 32 million tons of happyingage shows that -- of leakage shows that obviously those companies were not meeting that basic corporate tenet of responsibility. so along comes the $1.5 billion of free taxpayer money, corporate welfare to polluters and leakers for taxpayers to pay them to clean up the problem that they were causing. didn't love that, to tell you

the truth. but it came with an incentive as well. and the incentive was if you were still leaking methane after a certain period and if you were still leaking methane above a certain level, you had to be a big leaker yourself, it had to be a big leak like 300 tons per leak, and you had to be in the worst sector of the oil and gas industry. if those things were true, if you had big leaks and you were a big leaker and you were in the worst performing sector of your industry, then you would be assessed a fee for the leakage, which would be an incentive in addition to the free $1.5

billion the industry got to go out there and fix the darn pipes and valves and wells and stop the leaking. what we're doing today is saying to this industry you can keep the $1.5 billion. we gave you that. whether you used it to clean up or not, i don't know yet. i don't think the jury is back on that, but they did get the $1.5 billion. but the part where you have to pay if you're still polluting after all of this beyond industry standards, that's what we're stripping out today. this congressional review act measure specifically helps the segment of the oil and gas industry that is not even meeting oil and gas industry stan standards for controlling leaks.

i think it's a pretty reasonable test to impose on industry leakers that they at least meet their own industry standard for leaking. this isn't some arbitrary standard that government has imposed. this isn't something that came out of a green new deal. this is the industry's own standard for responsibility about leaks. and you pay this fee if you don't meet your own industry standard for taking care of your equipment properly and avoiding leaks of a dangerous, explosive, poisonous greenhouse gas 80 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. so that's where we are. and that's what we're at today.

today's vote only protects those worst industry performers who have not cleaned up their act and met their own industry standards. if there was ever an undeserving group for congress' solicitude, that's the group. they're not even meeting their own industry standards. they are comfortable with dangerous levels of leakage beyond what even their own industry recommends as a standard, and on they go. this is a little bit of a piece with the recent designation by the trump administration of what energy is. the trump administration just put out a definition of energy that doesn't include solar or wind. most of what came online and is slated to come online in 2025

has been solar and wind. it's the booming part of our energy economy. it's where the growth is and the jobs is and the innovation is. it's also a leading energy source in red states. if you look at who's best on solar and who's best on wind, you see states like texas. you see iowa. you see wyoming. they have considerable investment in solar and wind, but the trump administration won't even call solar and wind energy. so we are in this bizarre circumstance in which the fossil fuel industry which drives so much behavior in this body after $100 million spent on the trump campaign that we know of, problems of hundreds of millions

more secretly, has gained two big things. one, it completely -- a completely false definition of solar energy and wind energy as not energy, despite the fact that it's fully operation al, producing electrons, and was the largest source of new additions to the grid for 2025. and they just decree this is not energy. why the fossil fuel industry would want that is a pretty strong signal of how low that industry will go in using its power over congress. they will basically press the trump administration to claim that solar energy and wind

energy aren't even energy. it is a spectacularly foolish and false proposition, but bending the knee to the wishes of the fossil fuel industry appears to have no limits. this vote is the second expression of that subservience to fossil fuel. because of all the things that you could do, of all the things that would help grow america's energy markets, of all the things you could do to help take care of people who live near energy facilities or people who are being subjected to harm from climate change, of all the things you could do, probably the worst one would be to take the worst performers at leaking which should happen in the first place, who leak so badly they don't even meet their own industry standards, who for

years have been falsely saying that they leaked only a quarter of what they've actually been leaking, and they are the people they're going to come to the rescue of. they had two choices here so that they didn't have to pay the fee for being among the worst leakers and not meeting their own industry standards. one is clean up your darn equipment. fix your pipes. fix your valves. fix your wells. stop the leaking or at least reduce it to your own industry standard. if you do that, you don't pay this fee. or come to congress, use your power, the force of your dark money, of your influence, of your super pacs, of your

political control, and get that requirement removed so that you can continue to leak, continue to leak methane, a dangerous explosive and poison ous substance into your communities, continue to add this far more dangerous greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, and continue to meet no reasonable standard of corporate responsibility for taking care of your own gear and quitting the leaking. you know what they chose? they chose to come here, get a free pass, hall pass from republicans in congress, hall pass from the trump administration, so that they can continue to leak to their heart's content. never mind their culpability in not meeting their own industry

standards, never mind the harm that it causes. this is an industry that lives off a pollute for free business model. if this industry was not allowed to pollute for free, if it had to compete head to head with hydro, geothermal, solar, wind without the free right to pollute, we'd have a very different energy mix, and they know that. so they insist on protecting their right to pollute for free. but of all the little quadrants of the industry whose pollution for free we should be coming to the floor to defend, those worst leakers who aren't taking care of their own equipment, even to industry standards, are at the bottom of any reasonable person's priority list. and yet they are the ones we're

here to serve today. the backdrop to this is of course climate change, a term that the fossil fuel industry has so ingratiated itself with the trump administration that it is able to excise the term, a language attack, excise the term from official documents, a little bit like saying energy is everything except solar and wind. that's obviously false, provably false. in fact, a preposterous assertion. but when serving the fossil fuel industry, that's the stuff they make you do. and here you go with saying climate change isn't real. when exxon scientists talked about it being real 30 years

ago. we are driving down a path of polluter-funded falsehood that ends in very dangerous places. we have a pretty good idea of where it ends because scientists have been telling us where this goes for decades now. scientists in our major universities. i don't believe that there is a single state university, a state university with the name of the state in its name -- university of rhode island, for instance. i don't think there is a single state university in this country that does not teach climate change. that's how well-established climate change is as a factual

proposition. and what it's going to do has been known for a long, long time. the predictions are astonishingly accurate. and so here in the senate we heard all those predictions. the first hearing on those warnings was actually by republican senator john chafee of rhode island in his role then as chairman of the environment and public works committee, and he had a senior scientist from nasa, john hansen, come over and describe what the science was, what we knew about what was going on. so there is a long, clear, indisputable, scientific record warning us of what's coming. preview of coming attractions. but then it came here, and here the fossil fuel industry butted

in with enormous political force, turbocharged after the citizens united decision allowed that industry to spend unlimited amounts of money, and in the enforcement or nonenforcement of that decision, allowed that industry to spend those unlimited amounts of money secretly, from behind front groups and super pacs, where the public was denied the knowledge of who was trying to influence them. basic right of citizenship is to know who's doing what to whom. american citizens are supposed to police with their votes. that knowledge was denied them and that flood of industry pressure came into this chamber, and before you knew it, climate change was suddenly a partisan issue. if you wanted to be a republican, you had to deny climate change. it was pretty much as simple as that a as that. ask bob inglis from the house of

representatives if you tried to break that grip of the fossil fuel industry on the leadership on the republican side. the science was right all along. we failed at the politics because of improper fossil fuel industry influence, probably the most maligned and large-scale political influence campaign in american history. we yielded to it. we allowed ourselves to not heed the warnings and take the steps that would have put us on a pathway to safety. and now, having heard the scientific warnings, having failed at taking appropriate safety steps, we're now entering the third era, the era of consequences. when the stuff starts to hit the fan, and the warnings are coming

from all over. just about two weeks ago, the chair of the federal reserve testified to the senate banking committee that in 10 to 15 years it will be impossible to get a mortgage in entire regions of the country. how does that relate to climate change? that relates to climate change because climate change is creating changes in weather patterns that make it impossible for the insurance industry to predict risk. that is why insurance rates are quadruple the national average in florida, which is first and worst into this insurance crisis because of its storm and flooding risk, because it's on the path of so many hurricanes, because the gulf of mexico is warming so fast that it is powering worse storms, more heavily laden storms with rain onto florida's coasts.

and when you can't get insurance on your home and you go to sell it, you've got a problem because the buyer can't get a mortgage if your home is uninsurable. and what the chief economist of freedie mac warned, the mortgage giant, is that the climate change risk creates an insurance crisis, which rolls over into a mortgage crisis, which drives down property values so badly that it creates a 2008-style national economic crisis. those aren't the only warnings. reinsurers look at this climate mess as a business proposition. the insurance industry has to get the future right in order to do its business. and it knows that what the

fossil fuel industry is saying about what's going to happen in the future is a pack of lies. so they're raising their rates. the reinsurance companies are looking and saying, wow, this is getting way more dangerous. we are not going to reinsure without getting a lot more money. reinsurance rates have more than doubled since 2017. they're up as much as 40% in 2023 alone in some markets. so it's not just the voice of the fed. i.t. not just the -- it's not just the voice of the chief economist of freddie mac. it's the reinsurance industry. and go below the reinsurance industry to the insurance industry and look at the first and worst place -- florida. all the major insurers are out, pulled the plug, gone, done. pop-up insurers have come to fill the gap. 12 to 15 of them have gone bankrupt already, and when they

go bankrupt, they don't pay claims and floridians are left stuck behind an insurer that was not solvent. florida has to stand up its own homeowners insurance company, which now has a huge share of the market and an even bigger share of the risk because they've allowed the other insurers to come in and cherry-pick out the lower-risk properties. so florida is carrying a liability right now on homeowners' insurance that is greater than its entire state debt. if you want to look at the solvency of a state, look at what florida's risk is for its property insurance companies, citizens property insurance, and its backup fund that comes in when the pop-up insurance companies go bust and somebody else has to come in and pay the claims. the insurance industry, which has to look accurately at the future, is also telling us, this is deadly, deadly serious. there's an international

financial stability board whose job is to look at the world banking industry, the world banking sector, and warn of risks to the banking sector. they just put out a comprehensive report on the danger that climate change poses to the banking sector. it comes in a couple ways. one is the one i just described. when banks can't issue mortgages, they lose a huge revenue proposition. so they get hurt in the insurance-to-mortgage-economic c cascade. let's say you went from carrying a $4,000 carrying cost to a $20,000 carrying cost. the present value of $20,000 every year into the future as long as user he'll going to own that home -- as long as you're going to own that home diminishes the value of that home. it diminishes is not just for you and the next buyer, it

diminishes it for the next bank that's going to hold your mortgage. so the international financial stability board is warning banks around the world, look out. the climate crisis is coming at you and for your solvency. this was perhaps said best by the "economist" magazine in april which led with an article "the next housing disaster" and saying the disaster brought about about greenhouse gas emissions is shake ago.

a $25 trillion hit to the world's largest asset class. in the united states a new report by first street, with ace technical firm that looks at flooding risk for a whole variety of corporate clients but also publishes as well, they just published a report that climate change could erase $1.4 trillion in real estate value by 2055 -- ie, in the 30-year mortgage period, a $1.4 trillion hit to real estate values here in the united states. $25 trillion with economist global number. first teet is $1.4 trillion here in the united states. trillions are big, big numbers. and when it's hitting people in their most prized and valuable family asset -- their homes -- it is a very dangerous

proposition. here's what "the economist" said. the intending bill for climate harms is so huge, in fact, that it will have grim implications, not just for personal prosperity -- ie, the homeowner -- but also for the financial system. hence, the report from the international financial stability board about the need to shore up the international financial system. here's thousand goes down, they say. if the size of the risk suddenly sinks in and borrowers and lenders alike realize the collateral underpinning so many transactions is not worth as much as they thought, a wave of re-pricing will reverberate through financial markets. punchline -- climate change, in short, could prompt the next global property crash. instead of dealing with this, even as americans are already seeing their property insurance prices rise and double, are getting more and more nonrenewal

notices to get them off the company, what are we doing? we're helping out the absolutely worst offenders at climate leakage. and here's deloitte. i'll close with this. deloitte is a corporate consultancy. this is not green new deal. this is a corporate consultancy. if we allow climate change to go unchecked, it will ravage our global economy. for the united states, the damages to 2070 -- which was their prediction date -- are projected to reach $14.5 trillion, a lifetime loss of nearly $70,000 for each working american, and we're not even talking about that seriously. we are here instead to let off the hook that segment of the oil and gas industry that is the worst polluters, that doesn't even meet their own industry standards, and that can getaway from the -- get away from the knee we're meeting now by voting

down industry standards. this is a shameful moment for the snachlt i yield the floor.

. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader is recognized. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensedwith. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to speak for a little more than a minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, every american should be paying close attention to what's about to happen on the floor. in just a few moments the senate will vote on a republican resolution that is straight from the wish list of big oil and big gas. instead of spending floor time pushing legislation that will lower costs for american families, republicans are bowing to big oil and gas billionaires by trying to reverse the methane waste emissions charge.

which democrats passed in the inflation reduction act. donald trump and doge claim to care about efficiency, but republicans are undog a -- undoing a measure to reduce oil and gas waste and are making prices for the consumer go up. prices going up when they're saying they want prices to go down. the rule we passed has been one of our most important tools to lower energy prices, to hold big oil and big gas accountable, to keep excessive and harmful levels of methane out of our atmosphere which my friend mr. whitehouse has done such a good job on this issue. tells me it's 80 times as poisonous as co2. without this safeguard, big oil and gas can waste as much natural gas as they like and then past the cost on to consumers. why republicans doing this? well, it's simple.

they're putting the needs of big oil and gas companies over the needs of the american people, over the health of the american people and the health of our environment, our climate, our globe. and the consequences for the american people for their health and their energy bills are going to be very harmful. i urge my colleagues to think carefully one last time before voting to overturn it. a senator: mr. president. i ask unanimous consent for my intern ellie white to have permission to be on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. . under the previous order, all time is expired. the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 14, s.j. res. 12 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, and so forth. the presiding officer: pursuant to the congressional review act, the clerk will report h. j. res. resolution 35. the clerk: providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united

states code, for so forth. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: h. j. res. 35 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 and so forth. the presiding officer: the question tur -- occurs on the passage of the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto.

mr. cotton. the clerk: mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. today the committee will consider two matters promotion of coast guard samuel hopkins

center lieutenant commander in the nomination of deputy secretary of transportation. mr. bradbury's confirmation hearing last week expressed dismay that there have been fatal aircraft accidents here in washington, d.c., pennsylvania and alaska and in arizona, this week we had another distressingly close call chicago's midway airport a small jet on the ground into the runway without authorization as an incoming flight was landing. now more than ever it's essential for the department of transportation to have officials understand the systems are task with managing and can assess such incidents have a systemic cause. as a former general counsel of the department of transportation mr. bradbury will bring a deep understanding of how the department in a transportation system operates. he is intimately familiar with the department of past attempts

with the forward-looking and receptive leader, by cully raise questions in my of secretary duffy's decision to invite representatives from external organizations to visit the faa air traffic control system command center is our nominee reminds us it's often a good thing when bureaucracy is open to new voices and ideas to new efficiency. otherwise the tried-and-true approach will come tried-and-true. it boggles the mind to think of an air of autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence and yet the faa is still using paper printout floppy disk to manage air traffic. mr. bradbury knows that efficiency and safety go hand-in-hand. consider one exchange from the hearing last week.

we heard that newer cars are safer cars but after years of mandates and overregulation cars have become so expensive that the average cars year on the road is at a record high. i am glad mr. bradbury will similarly prioritize federal funding to infrastructure projects that provide the most benefits per dollar. americans are calling on the political class to cut out the bloat and get back to the basics like potholes and safety. these reasons for bradbury and urge my colleagues to do likewise. i turned to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman as you mentioned were here to consider the nomination of stephen bradbury to be secretary deputy terry of transportation to the promotion of one coast guard officer to be lieutenant commander i support that the coast guard nomination. when it comes to mr. bradberry i hope we understand that we cannot afford the system that fails us with the roads or in

the sky. it simply doesn't matter if you're not saving dollars if you're not saving lives. the last thing that we need someone who won't stand up to the industry or to aviation safety needs. what brings us here today as we must ask ourselves what kind of leadership mr. bradberry provide at dot. in a previous role he was involved in what i will call common sense requirements that were rolled back in his time. the chief prevented retirements for truck drivers will lucinda record number and safety requirements were raved. most troubling a proposed rule on safety management system for aviation manufacturers such as boeing with sidelines, after they crash the commerce committee with the causes of the crashes and we understood in the

committee's final report said intentionally withheld relevant information requested by the committee. i believe mr. chairman this families have expressed concern they specifically voiced concerns about mr. bradbury's role and withholding documents related to those crashes and the boys had delays in holding accountable to implementing a robust amount. during his testimony mr. bradberry mentioned that maybe one of the issues related to that was smaller manufacturers did not want those requirements. but easily could've change the rule then to say that it just applies to large manufacturers or could've later after the congress passed our law

requiring a new amount he was still there and could've helped speed up the process before he left. i do have concerns about his issue related to conflict of interest. i should just mention mr. bradberry was there on the watch also ruling back and obama era ruled that the department of defense should be required to have a dst out as a requirement. during the trump administration there was an appeal or a waiver that was granted to say that they did not have to turn on asd all the time. subsequently we have found that not only was that just an exemption for some time that the military in a letter to a colleague in n the house said oe 100% never turned it on. these are the things that get us into trouble when we don't understand exemption when we don't understand the rules and what we don't understand the details of what it takes to do

safety and stand up to those who are asking for those exemptions. i also asked them about the relationship between elon musk and the faa and to tell me as a lawyer where he would seek conflict of interest. i didn't ask him if he saw one today i asked him where he thought there could be a conflict of interest. i was very disappointed in his answer because he basically said he did not see the potential for a conflict. i do see potential for conflict given that spacex launch license or at issue in there could be at times when elon musk could intervene and demand for launch time. he clearly did not like it when he was denied the launch time and demanded that the faa administrator be fired. i also believe in the area that is recalled of 2 million test vehicles over concerns about autopilot feature because drivers failed on the word and

ended up in crash tests. tesla said they fixed it with the software update but nist is still investigating. what if elon musk said let's stop the investigation. i find it perplexing that mr. bradberry could not come up with a few bright whiny examples of where somebody could cross the line. so i hope my colleagues will understand that we have a lot of work to do on safety and i look forward to the hearing the chairman has scheduled on april 2 i believe with boeing in the manufacture from my state to look at what we can continue to do as a committee to improve safety and work together collectively on the big priority. i urge my colleagues to oppose mr. bradberry's nomination and i think the chairman and i yield back. >> thank you, i will say to the ranking member i think she and i have agreed on the wisdom of

revisiting the exceptions and i think given the tragic accident at reagan there is a compelling case to be made and we may see widespread agreement on that front. i recognize ranking member cantwell for emotion. >> mr. chairman i move that the nomination of samuel b half and steiner to be the lieutenant commander be reported. >> is there a second. >> second. >> all those in favor say i. >> all those opposing no. the motion is agreed to. i recognize that a wicker for emotion. >> mr. chairman i move that pn 13 dashed to nomination of stephen bradbury to be deputy secretary of transportation. >> is there a second? >> is there any discussion. >> the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

>> the motion is agreed to in the nomination reported favorably. i would not recognize any members of this committee wishing to make remarks. thank you to everyone for being here for the market. >> okay, if there are no remarks that concludes our executive session. we will move on to the subcommittee hearing which will convene momentarily.

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible] >> today were addressing an urgent and growing concern of cargo theft on the subcommittee. last fall pfl a third party logistics company in evansville one of indiana transportation hubs lost a $60000 shipment when the cargo was stolen by previously trusted carrier. for a small company, this kind of loss is absolutely devastating one the employees and customers ultimately bear, this drives inflation a time when inflation is top of mind of our constituents and undermines our rule of law. pfl is one of many companies who have fallen victim to a rising wave of cargo theft across the country and they're asking for congress to take action. they want us to work together with her industry to address

this and come up with concrete solutions. i am grateful to all the stakeholders present today for your participation. i look forward to hearing your perspective as we consider how to respond to this threat. since a covid pandemic cargo theft has surged across the country reaching by some calculation a decade-long high once carried out by crude criminals now with the rise of e-commerce this crime domain includes sophisticated domestic and international groups from china, eastern europe and mexico. they not only hijacked trucks and rob railcars but they exploit vulnerability and online transactions concocting elaborate schemes tricking businesses and third parties and

stealing or holding the cargo hostage. cargo theft is so difficult to spot and stop because it takes so many forms from fictitious pickups to fishing to identity theft, homeland security investigation estimates the annual law from cargo theft accounts for 15 to $35 billion annually. of course these costs are ultimately shouldered by customers when retailers raise prices to cover losses. these crimes are often committed by repeat offenders and very few one in ten according to the american trucking association result in arrest, the federal motor carrier safety administration which is responsible for regulating motor your under motor carriers doesn't have adequate protection in place to identify fraudulent actors or remove them from the system. nor does the agency have the statutory authority to assess civil penalties for violations of its safety or commercial

regulation. at the state level cargo theft is underreported and often mis- categorized as simple property crime to effectively combat this evolving threat we must modernize our safeguard. i am hopeful together we can begin the process of establishing and implementing the safeguard reforms today. i look forward to a productive and meaningful discussion with our witnesses and they look forward to thoughtful questions and exchanges initiated by my colleagues. at this time i will recognize ranking member peters, i'm proud to serve with him in this capacity on the subcommittee. mr. peters i would like to recognize you to deliver your opening remarks. >> thank you chairman young it's good to be with you as you're

working on this committee and i look forward to our work together in the years ahead or the couple years ahead to do meaningful work there is a lot alot on her plate there are many priorities that i hope we can work together to tackle in a bipartisan way from improving roadway safety to strengthening innovation in the auto industry to addressing issues impacting our railroads and supply chain. working to reauthorize this transportation bill and deliver new roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects to our constituents. i want to thank the chairman today for holding the syrian on cargo theft, growing threat to american supply chain and consumers are what i think each of our witnesses for being here today i look forward to hearing your testimony and how we can address the significant threat. as we will learn today cargo theft takes many forms one constant is when goods are stolen consumers ultimately pay

the price and higher costs for everyday items. also hear about the consequences of theft on independent truckers and small businesses. it can be driven out of business by fraudsters looking to make a buck and beyond the economic role we want to highlight the real danger that cargo theft poses transportation workers, some of whom are real workers and truck drivers that have been threatened at gunpoint. 2020 cargo theft occurrences have shot up according to the industry reporting as well as agents complaints. a significant driver of this increased cargo theft is organized transnational groups and cyber criminals. criminals sitting in russia, china and across the world can now steal physical cargo in the united states by setting up fake businesses and manipulating our supply chain. you can hear from our witnesses today that this is a complex

interstate and international problem that requires more federal law enforcement. federal bureau of investigation, homeland security investigation and the u.s. attorney office can provide the resources and necessary to address and organize cargo. we know the federal law enforcement resources are stretched very thin. that is why i am also very equally concerned about the trump administration and the federal bureau of investigation and the department of justice. why am disappointed by a pushback on this from my republican colleagues in congress. >> when taking office, instead of increasing federal law enforcement which i believe is the first step that we need to take to address trancelike cargo theft and fraud.

president trump is prioritized politicizing and getting federal law enforcement included by let me give example, one firing much of the fbi senior leadership including the head of the criminal cyber response in service branch which is actually responsible for criminal cyber investigation worldwide. to firing the head of multiple critical fbi offices firing dozens of prosecutors across the country for working on january 6 cases in one case forcing the resignation of six prosecutors and one day when they refuse the president's request to abuse our legal system. three in situ a hiring freeze preventing law enforcement agencies from recruiting new tablet. they're asking for a law enforcement there is a freeze on new talent coming into law enforcement. in my home state of michigan defunded the state police by freezing resources for homeland security, terrorism and more.

five reassigning d.o.j. law enforcement officers as well as homeland security investigators to focus on immigration instead of investigating issues like cargo theft, terrorism and human trafficking. the list goes on. i don't believe that these issues that law enforcement are addressing cargo theft should be partisan in any way crimes in our free supply chain can harm consumers, small business and transportation workers and our economy. i cannot stay quiet about the dismantling of our federal law enforcement during a hearing where witnesses rightfully increase law enforcement issues at hand and no it is being attacked right now. ultimately to solve this issue i think we need to fund the police not follow what president trump is doing and defunded the police like by state troopers in michigan and others across the country we need to make sure we have the people, the field

agents the prosecutors to deal with the complex international cybercrime happening in the supply chain and this cannot happen if the attacks that we see at the department of justice continue and i would urge my colleagues across the aisle to join me in defending our law enforcement personnel. i also know the solution to rising cargo theft go beyond law enforcement in the direct jurisdiction of the subcommittee mr. chairman i look forward to hearing from witnesses at the federal motor carrier safety administration to crack down from the organizations impersonating motor carrier and shippers. i also know that the tsa will need resources and directions for congress and i hope they can work across the aisle to make that happen. especially as we begin sessions of the service transportation. finally, again i want to thank her witnesses for being here

today for your contribution to this critical national supply chain and literally form the basis for the american academy and we look forward to your testimony. we thank you for being here. >> thank you for your opening statement. we will get to our very distinguished momentarily. a response to your comment your emphasis on criminal activity and making sure we enforce the law of the land is certainly well received. i do wish i had heard more from my colleagues of the last four years with the take care clause was consistently not observed by the president of the united states and we had a weekend at bernie's for four years. when the president failed to enforce our border security now we are left with international criminal elements who have permeated this country in

dealing with the aftereffects of that. perhaps we can work together on that issue. i think the people of michigan register their opinions as did indiana that we need to secure our border. joining us today is chief will johnson special agent at the bnsf railway police department and second vice president of the international association of chiefs of police prior to joining bnsf he was the chief of police in arlington texas for eight years and is better police officer for 31 years, chief johnson you are recognized for five minutes, thank you for being here. >> good morning chairman youngs ranking member peterson members of the subcommittee thank you for speaking with you today on this important issue as mentioned my name is will johnson special agent for bns railway and ip are in my capacity as second vice president international association of chiefs of police

the iac p is the world's largest association of law enforcement executives, today's testimony reflects many police executives as a combat organize cargo theft in their jurisdiction. the facts to start strategic cargo theft in the trucking industry has increased 15 100% since 2022, 2025 it accounts for 33% of all cargo theft reported by cargo net. the association of american railroads estimates over 65000 theft occurred in 2024 representing 40% increase over the prior year. many of these cases suspects endangered the public by sabotaging real safety equipment so they can commit the crime. regardless of the mode of transit cargo theft crossing multiple state lines making jurisdictional coordination prosecution and data collection extremely difficult.

the lack of a data federal cargo theft enforcement hinders effective prosecution and food shippers have reported criminal tampering with chain of custody seals for u.s. food shipment has put the nations food security at risk. also caused inflationary food prices. finally frequent reports of arm suspects engaging in violent takeover style robberies or shooting firearms during the commission of the burglaries. in short cargo theft is not a low-level property crime. we generally observed three distinct suspect profiles in the commission of these crimes number one transnational organized crime members, to loosely organized street gangs in urban areas and three criminal opportunist, despite the challenges that each of these offenders represent police officers continue to make significant arrest. am i submitted testimony i outlined for recent examples for your review.

the nature of these crimes have evolved over the years and a whole government approach is required to address this challenge. the iac p does not believe that we have all the answers to this complex problem but we urge the subcommittee in the united states congress to consider the following eight action items as a starting point for stakeholdeh engagement to find effective solutions. number one we support the establishment of a federal supply chain crime coordination center and supply chain fraud and task force to address cargo theft in all aspects of the supply chain. to direct funding to dedicated federal prosecutors to tackle cargo theft cases, to modernize the fmc essay vetting process to include stronger authentication methods real-time carrier verification and implement controls around the sale or transfer of dot and mc numbers. increase criminal penalties for

cargo theft cases and allow all victims aggregated harm to be considered and the offenses. to encourage public-private partnerships between corporate security teams carrier monitoring services low boards, insurers and law enforcement to data sharing initiative and allow the prosecution venue to be established at the place of offense and also at the victim u.s. corporate place of residence. this would allow for improved prosecution and reportingss efforts. to provide law enforcement agencies with the resources to support an investigation into this complex and sophisticated criminal network and finally while the united states custom border protection has implemented changes to in bond shipment processes there is a need to ease the burden on crime victims by allowing cbp the authority to waive regulatory fines when cases are proven that theft had occurred. again the united states the icp

stands ready to work with this committee and the united states congress to develop and implement the solutions and to continue to raise awareness on this important issue. i'm happy to answer any questions now or at the end of all testimony. >> thank you chief johnson for that testimony in the recommendation associated with it and we will most certainly have some questions for you. our next witness is robert howell, senior vice president and chief supply officer for academy sports and outdoors. academy sports operates 298 storage in 19 states and their pre-distribution center texas, tennessee and georgia. mr. howe brings 25 years of experience in supply chain management we are grateful to have him here, mr. howe you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, thank you chairman young and members of

the committee and subcommittee for the opportunity to testify with you today. on the critical topic of cargo theft i am senior vice president chief supply chain offers are antiviral and responsible for distribution and domestic and international logistics. academy is a sporting goods and outdoor recreation retailer headquartered in texas a suburb of houston we employ 22000 members across 298 stores in 19 states including texas, illinois, indiana and ohio, we also operate distribution centers in texas, tennessee and georgia, we were founded in 1938 in san antonio today academy offers a broad outdoor apparel footwear, sports and max products including leading national brands and portfolio products. academy's mission is for us to provide fun for all and we fulfill this promise to localize a value that connects a broad range of customers, during

today's testimony i hope to increase the awareness of the impacts of cargo theft. organize cargo theft is rapidly growing and broader regions. in fact the supply chain network on the road and on the rail. like many retailers the first ship from a point of origin to the distribution centers in the interstate network, this allows us to efficiently merchandise and our stories and the products with a competitive price they appreciate and when they need them. my 25 year in the supply chain i've never seen cargo theft is problematic there's been a dramatic increase in the last two years. these types of increase include interception identity theft, double brokering and cyber fraud. there is a cargo theft network comprised of bad actors illustrating increasing levels of sophistication and the past cargo theft should be represented as a bad actor stealing a truck where duplicity loosely obtaining dot motor

carrier. today's environment is rapidly progress in the experience of cyber theft of online credentials and assistance perpetrators that cut doors on trucks so they don't break the security seal, stealing product fraudulently editing transportation documents reattaching the doors in one transaction while eluding prosecution. recently we had a shipment with private-label swimwear it was intercepted on his way from nevada to the texas distribution center. as you can imagine this is critical this time of year for the season and unfortunately we had to react when it was stolen and repurpose and reposition product throughout our network. you can imagine that takes incremental cost and treatment of claim under transportation but we had to get the product available for customers in time for the season. if we did not get the product there, not only would our customers not be able to get the product that they need but we risk losing the customers royalty and losing the relationship with the customer.

apart from the cost of lost merchandise, this resulted additional cost on us, shipment delays and also the impact on the consumer. this type of fact with a variety of stakeholders, third-party service providers brokers and carriers are attentive to the issue when products are stolen we are notified by the third-party providers and we launch an investigation with authorities and activate the mitigation team, we then seek financial restitution for the cost of goods and results in lost sales for companies that can also be reflected an increase cost for more secure transportation additionally we had to intervene in making investment tracking and tracing technology, gps as well as enhance cybersecurity to protect the delivery of our information. cargo theft disrupts how we operate our business. in addition to the impact on merchandising inventory management, distribution from the teams as they work to

replace the stolen merchandise, it also creates a need for additional time and resources to pursue the exploration and implementation of additional and how solution, most importantly once again cargo theft impacts the customer when goods are stolen in transit we lose individual sale. potentially that customer has the ability to put loyalty on long-term, this exacerbated by the fact that some goods are seasonal a limited time or limited available products and we cannot easily replenish those goods. the lost sales can reduce sales tax revenue for the local communities that we serve. partnering with industry leaders like the retail industry leaders association enables us to stay on top of best practices to help protect academy sports and outdoors, there is a need for greater support for coordination, communication with collaboration among local, state and federal agencies as was the private sector to mitigate the impact of retailers brokers, carriers and customers.

thank you for the opportunity to share our experience and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much for being here in our next witness today is adam blanchard mr. blanchard's principal and ceo of tanager logistics in double diamond transport, mr. blanchard founded his company in 2014 and he currently operates 90 trucks and employees of over 20 freight brokers, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, senator young. subcommittee members thank you for the opportunity to testify my name is adam blanchard on the cofounder and ceo double diamond transport of logistics. our trucking company was launched following a conversation i had with a close friend around my kitchen table. we put our first truck on the road in 2014 and we formed our brokerage shortly thereafter. like most small business owners we face daily challenges yet we were blessed with an exceptional

team together we persevered and built the company and everyone in your organization can be product we created dozens of jobs in the san antonio, texas area, today we operate about 90 trucks - 280 trailers. a year ago our american dream turned into a nightmare with some criminals stole our identity. by capitalizing on her name he told us the reputation to confirm imposing the logistics the terminal brokered of unsuspecting motor. to deliver the cargo into money one example they divert a full truckload of energy of retail value well over six figures over a thousand miles from california because my company's e-mail the driver tricked him to believe he

had made the request of chance rotation on her way what you don't need ungulate. our risk as well trying to counter their sophisticated technique to mimic our website e-mails and operation. even at this very moment to tanager logistics are listed on the official website my company and an imposter we provided this evidence to fm ca that they refused, simultaneously we were on the receiving end of misdirected rage for muddy carriers who would also been scammed through no fault of our own we were blacklisted by factoring companies for fraudulent invoices and nonpayment to those non- carriers. we sought to report these crimes they kept hitting dead ends with the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. my insurance copy would not get involved because technically we did not have any crime in place. the texas to program public safety informed us that this was not their jurisdiction. the fbi recorded our information but never returned our call, the department of family security met with us but refused to

investigate. we did our due diligence but the message was clear you are on your own we might be on her own but were far from alone cargo theft is rapidly becoming a crisis. costing the industry after $35 billion annually. strategic theft has risen 15 100% since the first quarter of 2021. the average value per theft is now over $200,000. cargo theft comes in many forms whether it's imitating a legitimate company filtering goods over time, breaking into part tractor-trailers are double brokering fraud these are complex multijurisdictional crimes often involving organizational theft groups, yet there is no unified dedicated federal response. thieves emboldened by the lack of investigation and prosecution are growing the size and sophistication of the theft operation. but there are a few common steps

that congress should take to canada's first direct fmc essay the federal motor carrier administration to remove illegitimate carriers and brokers from a safer website the industry should be able to trust the safer publicize only legitimate entities so we can make informed decisions when betting business partners. sackett passed the safeguard supply-chain act which would establish a task force dedicated to cargo theft. third past the household good shipping consumer protection act which would strengthen penalties against bad actors and protect consumers. currently criminals view trucking is a low risk high reward target. we must invert that calculus. when we were finally able to contact the thieves used to our identity the mere threat of law enforcement involvement was enough to deter them, the bad news is if they're not scamming us they are scamming someone else trucking is a tough business. we have no shortage of written determination but our industry

is not equipped to deal with organize theft groups on her own. we need help from federal agencies and law enforcement with the resources and advanced technologies in technical capability to take this on. we implore congress to provide resources and direction to pursue criminals who are exploiting small businesses that family spent years, decades or even generations to build. thank you for the opportunity before you today i look forward to your questions. >> think you mr. blanchard. we will look forward to posing some questions we are sorry about your troubles you did a great job of personalizing those and making those real to us. our, final witness louis po is the executive vice president for the owner operator independent driver association before joining.

>> excuse me. >> mr. peel was a truck owner operator for nearly 23 years and he earned the million mile with safe drivers award, you are recognized for five minutes. >> as chairman young, ranking member peterson members of the subcommittee. i'm the executive vice president owner operator drivers association i have over 30 years in the industry. i'm nearly 23 of those working in idaho would be the small business tracker. and as soon as i have to adopt million miles and prior to that i was a truck driver in the united states army and still hold my seat to the state. wiley is the largest national trade association representing small business truckers and employee drivers. we have approximately 150,000 members who acumen lew leone 240,000 pieces of equipment or operate. the mission is to promote and protect the interest of our members and any issues that impact their safety and success which is increasingly including

freight fraud in trucking freight fraud is so easy to commit it doesn't even take a savvy or experience criminal. as you can tell from this panel of professionals everyone from shippers, motor carriers, brokers are the targets. often the perpetrator of these crimes are based internationally far beyond the region of the american forest and agency. certainly these cases of theft occurring within our industry most of the problems small business truckers face are being scammed by fraudsters or twiddle my brokers. there are several factors contributing to this recent exclusion of freight fraud freight rates over capacity, we had increase tension in a greater so except ability among small trucking businesses. advanced technology and the lack of the federal oversight and

enforcement is also created an environment for fraudulent actors can try. unfortunately small trucking businesses are both the most vulnerable to fraud in the least likely to be able to recover from it. most commonly motor carriers are held responsible for the loss of the cargo due to fraud with costs ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds or thousands of dollars per incident. several ida members have lost the entire business after falling prey to the single case of freight fraud. this is not a hyperbole it only takes one scam to completely ruin a small trucking business. fraudulent activity include double brokering, criminal exposing is legitimate brokers, rerouting schemes identity theft, purchase of authority by fraudsters and more. truckers are doing all they can to protect themselves whether limited in their capabilities for example oid member doesn't have the resources to identify

most of the sophisticated scammers they lack the authority to ensure brokers are complying with existing transparency regulations while there systems in place can help combat fraud, the federal government would support to shippers, motor carriers and brokers as needed, the first step congress must take to improve this condition is passing senate bill 337 which is a bipartisan legislation introduced by senator fisher and duckworth, this bill which is supported by a wide variety of industry stakeholders gives the federal motor carrier administration the authority to level civil penalties against fraudsters. it also requires brokers who register with the physical address. this is something carriers have had to do for years. it's a minor change we could have a major impact on protecting motor carriers. congress must also use this oversight to ensure existing

programs can help prevent fraud or better prioritize. this includes improving fmc essay national consumer complaint database or mcc db which elvis advocated for years. congress must also support regulatory efforts that are currently underway such as insurance compliance with the broker bond requirement and create a new registration system. additionally if fmc essay fails to produce a final rule in the existing broker trends congress must compel the agency to do so. since i began my testimony is small business tracker has likely fallen prey to fraud that could jeopardize their entire business. that is how commonplace freight fraud is becoming an trucking, we believe we've identified several critical steps congress and fmc essay must take to weed out fraudulent actors and look forward to working with these in answering your questions

throughout the hearing. >> thank you you bring important perspective to this hearing in the safe driver record. truck railroad freight as we know is overwhelmingly the primary target of fraud, 98% of respondents identify truck load freight as the most vulnerable mode. the subcommittee oversees the fmc essay and i would like to better understand how bad actors are acquiring u.s. dot numbers, mc numbers and other business identifiers to carry out their illicit schemes under the guise of legitimacy. mr. blanchard. in your opening statement you described how a bad actor posed as ten enjoyed logistic to steel shipments and added the counterfeit company to the fmc a safety and fitness electronic records were safer website to appear legit.

can you describe how bad actors are able to insert themselves so easily into the supply chain, maybe elaborate on that. >> they are able to do this now through a hold multiple to dove ways we have experienced everything from what i stated in my testimony where they are spooking our e-mails and representing themselves on behalf of our company they are also instances out there were individuals are purchasing mc dot numbers on the black market that's a major issue that we have to address and the fmc essay must do a more efficient job in our opinion of ensuring that they go through those companies that are authorized to transport freight in the united states and remove those that are illegitimate. >> cavity visibility and to how these purchases that you reference might occur the so-called dark web are there individual criminal agents that

will visit people in person and make the transactions or do you know back my understanding is this is occurring on various websites. i don't know if it's necessarily happening on the dark web but certainly on different platforms that are available. >> i don't even know what the dark web is it is this thing that we all hear about. for the record, do any of our other witnesses have any visibility into how those transactions are made. >> one other point that we might add to that we have seen instances where companies that are going out of business actually auction off their number the mother to hollywood auction off equipment that they are no longer using. individuals could buy this number through a business liquidation process and already have an established footprint

and assume illicit operation under a previous legitimate that is one example that i heard from the field. >> that's an important contingency to keep in mind. back to mr. plaintiff when you approach dot about the fake logistics company listed on the safer website what did they say it seems puzzling to me that they would not remove the fictitious one, what did they say. >> when we reached out to the folder metal they informed us that unless there is a third party or another group out there that is actively using rmc or dod number that they did not have the ability to investigate any further into this other company that was representing us, the concern i had with that we provided them the information that we knew at the time first

the individual that was behind the other tanager logistics from our investigation was determined to be somebody from africa and we also did investigation internally and through our attorneys that determine the address that was listed on the safer website provided by the fmc essay was a residential address in ohio of a woman that had no affiliation to logistics whatsoever. >> you thought those overlap of facts look suspicious. >> yes we did because to be fair to fmc essay there are many instances in which you have companies with the same name that have operating authority. certainly were not here to interrupt that for the fmc essay to involve themselves but if there are facts sufficient to provide them enough information that there is likely an active fraud situation going on we believe it would be helpful for congress to direct them to do so. >> i would get to my colleagues question momentarily. let me get to where i hope we

end up with many of the lines of inquiry, what should congress consider to ensure fmc essay is equipped to root out rampant fraud that support legitimate motor carriers and brokers, you listed off a number of things that maybe you could connect what we just discussed to a solution or two. >> s editor. in my opinion what is very important to provide the collectives and resources as needed with the fmc essay to increase their cyber capability. one issue that we sing constantly they are following further further behind the sophistication of the common organizations. we even had an instance in which our profile that was hacked and somebody changed our address and phone number in an attempt to engage another fraud that fortunately we had stayed on top of to prevent but they need to be the group, the quarterback

unified federal group of agencies and law enforcement in order to address these issues and in order to create a database and a repository of data so it can be coordinated appropriately amongst not only civil law enforcement, the state law enforcement and also increasing the cybersecurity that they have two prevent these things from happening. >> that strikes me as reasonable and bipartisan and something senator peterson i can work together. i'm just kidding. were actually really good friends. believe it or not. [laughter] would any of you like to add to mr. blanchard's suggestions? about what we can do to address these situations. i know you offer recommendations in your statement but a situation i mr. blanchard's, do

any of you have additional thoughts about how we could address that and equip fmc essay to be more helpful or other authorities? >> i think the question of the new is particularly important. as an individual who focus on providing services to victims for the better part of 30 years it is really disappointing to me to sit with the same colleagues that have been victimized and had no way to have had the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. the joint resolution is passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of education, linda mcmahon, of connecticut, to be

secretary. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president i speak with -- mr. president, i speak with senior citizen all over vermont and, in fact, in many parts of the country. and just last night we held a telephone town hall in vermont and in our small state, 34,000 people were on the line. and i think the reason for that is there is a great deal of anxiety among people in general and seniors in particular regarding the republican budget proposal that was passed the other day in the house. and seniors and americans all over this country have reason to be concerned. at a time of massive income and

wealth inequality, the budget would give other $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%. that is billionaire and the wealthiest people in our country. and in vermont and all over this country, seniors are asking, well, how are they going to pay for that trillion dollar gift to the 1%? and the answer is, it's not complicated. they have made it clear. republicans will be making massive cuts in health care, nutrition assistance, affordable housing, and education. these are precisely the programs that working families and kids and the elderly and the sick and the poor most depend upon. mr. president, the republican budget would cut medicaid by

$880 billion. the center on budget and policy priorities has estimated that if these cuts are implemented, up to 36 million americans, including millions of children, would have their health insurance taken away from them. and let's be clear. when we have republicans in the house passing a budget to make massive cuts in medicaid, we're not just talking about throwing millions of kids off of the health care they need. we're also talking about massive cuts to community health centers where some 32 million americans receive the primary health care that they need. and where seniors -- where community health centers receive 43% of their funding from

medicaid. so a cut to medicaid, a massive cut to medicaid is a cut to community health centers, is a cut to the services of 32 million americans receive, including many, many seniors. mr. president, at a time when we have a major crisis in nursing home availability in vermont and all over this country, let us understand that medicaid provides for two out of every three seniors who live in nursing homes. a massive cut to medicaid is a massive cut to nursing homes and the people who utilize those homes. how many seniors would be thrown out of nursing homes if the republicans cut medicaid by $880 billion? nobody knows. but it would be a disaster for working families and their parents, that is for sure. but it's not just medicaid cuts

that seniors are worried about. today, mr. president, nearly 22% of people over 65 years of age are trying to survive on an income of less than $15,000 a year. that is an unbelievable and horrific reality. imagine anyone in america in any part of this country, let alone a senior citizen, trying to survive on $15,000 a year or less. and i don't know how anybody can possibly do that, especially seniors who have health care needs and need prescription drugs, need to heat their homes more than the general public. and it's not just seniors trying to get by on $15,000. half of our nation's seniors are trying to get by on $30,000 a year.

the bottom line is that in the richest country in the history of the world, you've got millions and millions of seniors today, people who helped build this country, people who raised us, these are people who are barely getting by in the near 2025. mr. president, according to the organization for economic corporation and development, the oecd, the united states now has the dubious distinction of not only having one of the highest rates of childhood proefrt in the industrialize -- poverty in the industrialized world, we also have one of the highest rates of senior poverty compared to other nations. in america today, according to the latest oecd estimates, 20% of seniors are living in poverty, compared to 89h9. --

9.5r% in ireland. that is a dubious distinction. that is something we should not be proud of. that is a crisis we should be addressing. in addition to the poverty that millions of seniors in america are experiencing today, about half of older workers, these are people in the workforce right now, people between the ages of 55 and 64 have no retirement savings at all. you're 60 years old, you have worked your entire life and half of people in that situation, from 55 to 46 have -- to 64 have no retirement savings at all. and as bad as all of that is, many of my republican colleagues have proposed to make a bad situation, a tragic situation

even worse by cutting social security. some want to cut benefits, others want to raise the retirement age and then there are some who simply want to privatize social security and give it over to wall street. well, mr. president, i strongly disagree. i don't believe at a -- that at a time when millions of seniors are struggling to keep their heads above water, i don't believe now is the time -- in fact, never is the time to cut social security benefits. instead of cutting social security and giving tax breaks to billionaires, congress must expand social security so that every senior in america can retire with the dignity and the respect that he or she deserves. further, importantly for the

younger generation, we must also make social security solvent for generations to come. so that is the goal. the goal is to say to seniors all over this country, in the richest country on earth, we're going to address the fact that many of you can't quite figure out how to buy the food you need, heat your homes, get the prescription drugs you need, you are struggling. you helped build this country. you are our parents and grandparents. we stand with you. and that is why, mr. president, i have introduced legislation today with ten of my colleagues, senators warren, merck, welch, padilla, smith, van hollen, markey, booker, gillibrand, and whitehouse to accomplish both of those goals. this legislation would make social security solvent for the next 75 years. it would lift millions of

seniors out of poverty, and it would expand benefits for seniors and people with disabilities by 2,400 dollars a year. i know where a world here in washington with the government is run by billionaires, 2,400 dollars doesn't seem like a whole lot of money, but if you're trying to get by on $15,000 a year, you can't afford to heat your house or buy the prescription drugs you need, 2,400 dollars will help. how will we do this? at a time of massive income and wealth and economy, this legislation demands that the wealthiest people in america, the billionaires, and others, start paying their fair share of taxes. today, absurdly and unfairly, a billionaire pays the same amount

of money into social security as somebody who makes $176,000 a year. billionaire pays the same amount into social security as somebody who makes $176,000 a year. and that is because there is a cap on the social security payroll tax. what does that mean? it means if you make up to $176,000 a year, you pay 6.2% of your income in social security taxes, but if you make ten times more, $1.7 million a year, you pay just.62% of your income in social security taxes. and if you make a billion dollars a year, you pay nothing more to the social security fund than someone making $176,000. now, that may make sense to somebody, probably to the billionaire class, but it does not make sense to me. this legislation applies the

social security payroll tax to all income, including capital gains and dividends, for those who make over $250,000 a year. under this bill, the 1% of households -- 91% of households in our country would not see their taxes go up by one single penny, not one penny for the bottom 91%. not only is this legislation good public policy, it also happens to be precisely what the american people want. according to a data for progress poll, 81% of the american people, including 79% of indep independents support expanding social security benefits. so in passing this legislation, it is not only good policy, it is precisely what democrats,

republicans, and independents want. thereof, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 770, which was introduced earlier today, that the bill be regarded read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. a senator: reserving the right to object. i rise to discuss senator sanders request for the senate to pass his social security expansion act. before i do so, i want to respond to a couple of points made. the accusation was once again made that republicans were trying to cut taxes for billionaires. the reality is that republicans are trying to stop a tax increase on all americans. the tcja is going to expire at the end of this year and if it

is not stopped from expiring, every american will get a tax increase and those in the lower income categories and middle-income categories will share $2.6 trillion of that tax increase. mr. crapo: that's what the tax fight's about. continuing what i call the politics of the fair in terms of the reforms we're bringing, it was that we're going to cut medicaid and stop financing community health centers, and i have not seen such a bill in this congress in the house or senate. we are debating how to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse, we are not looking at how to cut benefits in medicaid. today was the first time on the floor i heard we were looking at community health centers. i wasn't aware of that either. the bottom line here is we are trying to pay attention to our $37 trillion national debt by

weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse. we'll have disagreements about how to do that. but this is definitely not going to be all the things that are be brought up that are accused in order to stir people up and scare them and tell them that we should not pay attention to our national debt. now, with regard to social security, we can all agree on the importance of social security which provides monthly benefits to millions of seniors and individuals with their disabilities and their families. i also agree with my colleagues on the other side that congress must act to preserve and strengthen social security to ensure that it's there for current beneficiaries and future beneficiar beneficiaries. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, if no action is taken, the combined social security trust funds will be exhausted within the next ten years. meaning the program would not be able to pay the full amount of benefit, currently -- benefits currently promised. however, i disagree with my

colleague's approach here today. and they have disagreed with our approaches. we have competing ideas about how we should address this issue. addressing social security solvency will require thoughtful discussion about a variety of policy options that culminates in a bipartisan solution, not a crammed down of a different solution that we haven't even had the opportunity to have a discussion in the finance committee about. instead my democrat colleagues are pursuing a live u.c. of a bill that has not received consideration before the full committee and has never had a republican cosponsor in the house or the senate. this bill would also raise taxes on certain workers making less than $400,000, something my democratic colleagues have previously promised not to do. for these reasons i object.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. peters: mr. president, i rise in opposition to linda mcmahon's nomination to serve as secretary of the department of education. all across america from small towns like grand moray to cities like grand rapids, public schools serve as the bedrock of our communities. as a product of michigan public schools, the son of a public schoolteacher, and having watched my own three children attend public schools, i know firsthand the importance of public education. education is the cornerstone of academic achievement, career development, and life-long learning in our society. a strong public education system is critical to not only our nation's economy but community,

safety, social mobility, and the health of our democracy. we need a secretary of education who values and respects public education and the millions of teachers and faculty who support the system. we need a secretary of education who will support critical funding streams, like head start for early education, idea for students with disabilities, and a school meal program that ensures that no student, no student goes to class hungry. that is why we cannot allow mrs. mcmahon to run our department of education. instead of working to protect funding for the programs that support our students, improve classrooms, and help recruit the hardworking teachers that we so desperately need today, mrs. mcmahon has made it clear that she has, well, other priorities. during her committee hearing, she blatantly supported efforts

to dismantle our education system, including taking funding away from our public schools and using it to make investments in private schools. mrs. mcmahon and others have tried to sell this as, quote, school choice, but we know, we know that it is basically a voucher program that will ultimately give private schools the ability to handpick students and close their doors to everyone else. private schools have no requirement to serve students with disabilities, students with mental health needs, or homeless students. we've already seen private school voucher programs fail in states that have actually ifrp m.b.t.sed them -- actually implemented them like louisiana where students accepted vouchers experienced significant declines in their academic performance. worse than learning loss caused

by the covid-19 pandemic and hurricane katrina. so-called school choice does not meet the needs of our students and american voters overwhelmingly agree. a 2024 poll found that less than a quarter of americans support increased funding for school vouchers. meanwhile, 68% of americans want to boost public school funding to better support teachers and give our students and children the education and career opportunities that they certainly deserve. under mrs. mcmahon's plan, we would be letting private schools decide who is educated and who is not. but unfortunately we know that these private institutions will always prioritize their bottom line and the needs of students and families will be second. if confirmed as secretary of education, the quality of our american education will

certainly decline and our children will ultimately suffer the consequences. i would urge my colleagues to vote no on mrs. mcmahon's nomination.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized mr. padilla: mr. president, over the last few months, there's literally been more than 10,000 californians that have made it a point to reach out to me by phone calls, by letters, by e-mails to say one thing loud and clear. stand up for public education. there's students throughout california, teachers throughout california, parents throughout

california and i'm sure beyond in all of our states that are afraid that donald trump is going to decimate federal funding for public schools. and from what we've seen, they have every right to be concerned. only one month into office, the richest president in our history has teamed up with the richest man in the world to slash public funding across the board, including in education. they've already terminated nearly a billion dollars in contracts with education department alone. they've fired or placed on leave education department staff. these are hardworking americans dedicated to everything from protecting the civil rights of students to special aid -- excuse me -- special education to student aid. and they're making it clear that this is just the beginning.

president trump has bragged that he actually wants to eliminate the department of education, threatening the quality of education of 80% of students who go to public schools. colleagues, that's the situation. that is the context in which we find ourselves today as we consider the nomination of linda mcmahon to serve as education secretary. we could talk about linda mcmahon's qualifications or, frankly, lack thereof but i'm not shocked, because president trump isn't looking for someone with a background or the commitment to strengthen education in america. he's looking for someone to destroy it. president trump has said publicly that he wishes that mrs. mcmahon would, quote, put herself out of a job.

and it's clear that she's ready to do it. and to justify -- i know i've heard from countless -- i've heard countless accusations of department of education overreach or that the department is just too big. if we're saying this because of the budget cuts republicans are starving for to underwrite the tax breaks for the wealthy, let me remind us all that the department of education is the smallest agency in the cabinet by a lot. the department is responsible, though, for promoting equal access to education. ensuring protections and support for students with special needs. defending the civil rights of tens of millions of students. and, yes, managing the student loans and pell grants that students need to afford an

education just like i did when i was graduating from sanford high school trying to figure out how i was going to be able to pay for college. yet linda mcmahon and republicans in congress will try to sell us on the idea that education should be left to states and to local communities. tell that to the young student who is struggling to read by the fourth grade but whose schools don't have the resources they need to help them catch up. tell that to the parents of an eighth grader who is behind in math who fear that their child will never be able to make up the time that they lost during the pandemic. while it's true that state and local communities played the primary -- play the primary role in education, it's actually the federal government that helps close the gaps. that's part of what makes our country strong, the idea that no matter where you live, no matter

who your parents are, or what tax bracket your family is in, you have the right to a good education because after all, it's the surest path to achieving your american dream. and, yes, it's personal for me. as i mentioned, i'm a proud product of public education, a graduate of high school. go tigers. and upon completion of my high school education, i was accepted, had the blessed opportunity to attend the massachusetts institute of technology where i earned my degree in mechanical engineering. and that led to a better life and more opportunities, exactly what my parents worked so hard and sacrificed for. that's the american dream. and i know that by far i'm not alone. but that's why i find it

outrageous that mrs. mcmahon and republicans can so callously plan to take a chainsaw to the american dreams of so many current and future students. but today we're here to say that tens of millions of public school students are not line items on your chopping block. they deserve better. our country is better than this. and i urge all my colleagues to reject president trump's attempts to abolish the department of education and to reject linda mcmahon's nomination or any nominee who's willing to carry out his wishes. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from high shy recognize the ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today deeply concerned about the state of public education in our country.

public education is foundational. it allows people to get ahead. as simple as that. it's foundational. i've spoken before on the floor about the power of public education in my own life. as an immigrant from japan, i arrived in this country speaking no english. i started off by trying to learn how to count from one to, ten, very humble beginnings but it was the public education i received at schools like cocoa elementary and -- koko elementary and high school that enabled me, an immigrant from very humbled begins to learn english and to go on to college, law school, and ultimately the u.s. senate. we should all agree on the importance of a strong public education system for every student in our country.

an educated citizenry helps grow the middle class and drive economic success in red and blue states alike. support for public schools should not be a partisan issue. there are millions of kids who are attending public schools in every single state in our country. so it shouldn't be a partisan issue. but just weeks into the trump administration, public education is under attack. already chainsaw-wielding elon musk -- it's really hard to get rid of that image because he takes such delight in wielding that chainsaw and willy-nilly cutting all kinds of government programs that we rely on. but elon musk and his minions have started unilaterally cancelling contracts at the department of education without any transparency or

accountability whatsoever. and donald trump has made no secret of his desire to eliminate the department of education entirely. as part of his quest to cut government services we rely on to give trillions in handouts to his billionaire buddies. well, only congress has the power to eliminate the department of education in its entirety. that is not stopping trump infrastructure using -- trump from using every means necessary to weaken federal support for education. and as you heard from my colleague just previously, there is a lot of support for public education in our country. why? because most of the people in our country have to go to public schools. a person who will help him do this -- meaning totally weaken our public school system and eliminate the department of

education -- is billionaire linda mcmahon. as trump's secretary of education, she will dismantle the department of education from the inside out. president trump told her that he wants her to, quote, put herself out of a job by eliminating this department. since president trump only nominates people who are 100% loyal to him, we can expect linda mcmahon will comply with putting herself out of a job, which leads us to wonder why we are even giving her this job in the first place. a nominee tasked to end the very department that she is supposed to be leading does not need to have much by way of experience in leading or running such a department, which is the case with linda mcmahon. in her confirmation hearing,

linda mcmahon could not name a single requirement of the main federal law that supports k-12 education. she couldn't say whether teaching african american history -- teaching the history of our country is considered radical indoctrination by this president. think about that for a minute. she couldn't even answer a simple yes or no question about whether schools receiving taxpayer dollars should be allowed to discriminate against children with disabilities. mrs. mcmahon is totally unqualified to oversee the education of our nation's children. but donald trump doesn't care about that a -- about that. linda mcmahon will carry out

president trump's dangerous agenda to dismantle the department of education, privatize the nation's public schools and strip educational opportunities from millions of students across the country. in doing so, she will be 100% loyal to donald trump, above all else. she'll execute the plans laid out in project 2025 to eliminate funding for title 1 schools, which supports low-income students. we are talking about funding for 49,000 title 1 schools throughout the country. including 170 schools in my state of hawaii, 2,091 schools in florida, 7,500 title 1 schools in texas, and so many more. every single state has title 1 schools. 49,000 title 1 schools

throughout our country. project 2025, trump's blueprint, will have the secretary of education dismantle civil rights protections for students and weaponize the office of civil rights to advance trump's hateful far-right political agenda. then the secretary will come after funding for programs that help provide child care, after school care, school meals, and more. think about it. school meals. for many children that would mean taking away access to the only meal a day they can count on. why? not because she thinks these decisions will improve outcomes or benefit students. no, these attacks on the department of education are about one thing and one thing only -- finding money to pay for

massive giveaways to billionaires like mcmahon, elon musk, obviously the president, and their ilk. republicans are robbing our children's futures to line the pockets of their billionaire buddies. and they're robbing our country of future doctors, innovators, leaders, and more. mr. president, a strong education system is the foundation of a strong democracy, a strong economy, and a strong middle class. that's why democrats are committed to strengthening our schools and ensuring every child has the opportunity to get ahead, regardless of disability, income, or background. that starts with our rejecting linda mcmahon's troubling

nomination to lead the department of education, a department that she is going to start dismantling and indeed working herself out of a job. on behalf of students, teachers, and families in hawaii and all across our country, i urge my colleagues to think about it, to oppose this nomination. i yield back. ms. baldwin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin is recognized. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i rise today to speak on the importance of the department of education and my grave concerns about the nomination of linda mcmahon to be the secretary of education. president trump has made it clear what his directive is for linda mcmahon. it's to dismantle the department of education. and despite president trump stating that he has never read

project 2025, mrs. mcmahon repeatedly stating that she is not familiar with project 2025's proposals on higher education, it is abundantly clear that this administration is following project 2025 to a tee. project 2025 lays out a blueprint for ending the federal government's role in public education, starting with dismantling the department of education so that they can find the money they need to provide tax breaks for their billionaire friends. you heard me right. cutting public education dollars so that the richest can get richer. eliminating the department of education would be absolutely devastating for students, for teachers, and parents in wisconsin and across america. wisconsin stands to have $235

million in title 1 funding ripped away. wisconsin stands to have over $270 million in ieda funding, which is crit icle for special education, ripped away. what this means is wisconsin teachers stand to have needed resources for their classrooms ripped away. parents stand to have their in and out of classroom support for their children ripped away. and, of course, our children -- our children -- stand to lose out on the public education and opportunity to learn that they deserve, regardless of their zip code. look, we know we are facing a challenging time in the american education system. we know that as a nation we must turn the tide and ensure that

america is a global leader in educating our children, and i'm committed to working with parents, teachers, principals, and school districts to do just that. but we also know what won't help our children get a good education, and that's slashing the education budget. and we know what will help turn the tide -- critical, data-driven investments in our public education system to support our children, our teachers, our schools, and our communities. it is clear that mrs. mcmahon is being nominated for this role, not to help children but to do mr. trump's bidding. she comes to this role with very little experience in education, but she has a wealth of experience in trumpworld. she's never been a teacher, but she did donate over $20 million

to trump's campaign and organizations that are backing him. she's never been a school administrator, but she does sit on the board of directors for trump media and technology group. in this critical time, we need to be providing our students and schools with more support, not less. and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on her nomination. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from from arizona is recognized. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s.r.103, schmitzed earlier today. the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider motions to reconsider, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there

objection? objection is heard. mr. gallego: about one month before the war broke out, i traveled to ukraine with a bipartisan coalition of house representatives to meet with ukrainian soldiers. those soldiers we met knew they were up against the strongest military in the world, but they refused to back down when this came to fighting for their families, their freedom and their future. these soldiers are the reason why, against all odds, ukraine still stands strong. over three years, the scrappy little country of ukraine has grinded down.

they are doing it with our support. of but monday's vote at the u.n. undermined that and was a betrayal of ukraine america's allies, democracy, and everything we can stood for as a long. -- as a country. let's be clear on this. this is a war that russia started. ukraine did not ask for it. they did not ask to go to war with a nuclear superpower, and they did not ask for their cities to be reduced to rubble. they didn't ask for their children to be displaced and families to be torn apart. if ukraine had its way, this war would have ended years ago. what happened at the u.n. puts us on the same side as russia and north korea. that's not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. it sent a message to our allies and every other country that relies on the u.s. to stand up to bullies and defend them and

help them defend themselves, that america cannot be relied on to call out unprovoked aggression. it told them that they are on their own, that america's words mean nothing. if we can't stand up against these criminals, if we can't stand up against pariah states like russia, how can we expect the world to take us seriously as leaders of democracy? so this is why i'm introducing this resolution. i urge my colleagues to correct the mistake we made at the u.n. this week. stand with r our allies and condemn russia's invasion of ukraine. america does not stand with dictators and we never will and we shall never. with that, i ask for consent and vote on my resolution. a senator: mr. president. was there a unanimous consent request? the presiding officer: no, there

wasn't. mr. gallego: i ask unanimous consent -- mr. paul: mr. president, what was the consent request? the presiding officer: can the senator repeat the request, please. mr. gallego: i withhold my request. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i urge you to beware the temptation of holding both sides equally at fault. the presiding officer: the time has expired, senator. mr. schiff: may i have consent to speak for two minutes? the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. a senator: i object. mr. paul: if we could be done in two minutes. the presiding officer: senator ernst, you objected. withdrawn. the senator from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: i thank my colleagues for their courtesy to

speak on this resolution. i urge you to beware of the temptation of labeling both sides equally at fault. the temptation to ignore the facts of history and aggressive impulses of an evil colleagues. my colleagues, these are the words of ronald reagan almost 42 years ago to the day. imagine if you could see his party -- if he could see his party now turning its back on ukraine. sponsoring a u.n. resolution that would whitewash the start of the war evan gauging the most immoral equilavents and failing to assign responsibility to russia for its ruthless aggression. voting with russia and north korea against our long time friends and allies in europe and around the world, abandoning and insulting our allies as putin seeks to remake the map of europe. and what is this resolution in the united states about that we helped defeat? the u.s. has used its influence

and vetoes in the security council many times, but this resolution was offered by dozens of our close allies on the third anniversary of russia's invasion of ukraine. what was in it that was so objectionable to split the u.s. from its friends? the resolution made clear that russia started this war. it reaffirmed the sovereignty and independence of ukraine. it deplored russian aggression on women and children. it noted the threat to nuclear safety. it called for an end to the war and a just and lasting peace and withdrawal of russian forces from ukranian lands. none of this is in dispute. none. this was the resolution that the u.s., the leader of the free world, blocked at the united nations. can any member of this body point to a single problematic word in that resolution? of course not. the senate should stand by that resolution even as we must stand

by ukraine. today the white house and kremlin seek to rewrite the history of this war with falsehood and slander calling zelenskyy the dictator, ukraine the instigator and putin the hero. we need to do more than say something. we need to do something. slava ukraini. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the mcmahon nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nomination to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of linda mcmahon of connecticut to be secretary of education signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of linda mcmahon

of connecticut to be secretary of education shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks.

the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt.

mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan.

mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hawley.

mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran.

mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. ms. rosen.

mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schiff. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. sheehy. ms. slotkin. ms. smith. mr. sullivan. mr. thune. mr. tillis.

mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- banks, barrasso, britt, capito, collins, cotton, crapo, curtis,

daines, ernst, fischer, grassley, hoeven, husted, johnson, lankford, lee, marshall, mcconnell, moody, moreno, mullin, paul, ricketts, risch, rounds, schmitt, scott of florida, scott of south carolina, sullivan, tillis, tuberville and wicker. senators voting in the negative -- duckworth, durbin, gallego, hassan, hickenlooper, hirono, kim, lujan, merkley, sanders, schiff, shaheen, van hollen, and wyden. mrs. blackburn, aye. mr. kennedy, aye.

mr. fetterman, no.