Congressional Record

Mr. President, this is a moment of great importance in the history of this republic. The bill before us today is not merely a legislative act; it is a declaration that the American people will no longer tolerate discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It embodies the promise of equal justice under law that has been the foundation of our democracy. This legislation has been forged through the most extensive debate in the history of the United States Senate. We have spent 83 days considering its provisions, hearing from witnesses, and wrestling with the profound moral questions it raises. I believe that when the roll is called, the Senate will speak with a voice that honors the sacrifices of those who have struggled for equality. Let us be clear about what this bill accomplishes: it prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, in employment, in federally assisted programs, and it strengthens the protection of voting rights. These are not radical ideas. They are the fulfillment of promises made a century ago in the aftermath of our Civil War.

Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans. This legislation will hold insurance companies accountable, lower costs, expand coverage, and improve care for millions of families across America. For a century, American leaders have spoken of the need to provide access to quality, affordable health care for every citizen. President Theodore Roosevelt, President Harry Truman, President Lyndon Johnson, and President Bill Clinton all recognized this fundamental need. Today, with the leadership of President Obama, we will make their vision a reality. This bill will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. It will end the shameful practice of denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will close the Medicare Part D doughnut hole for seniors. And it will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade.

Mr. President, I rise today as the lone voice of dissent against this legislation. Let me be clear: the terrorist attacks of September 11 were an unspeakable tragedy, and I fully support efforts to bring those responsible to justice and to prevent future attacks. But I am concerned that this bill goes too far in sacrificing the liberties of the American people. The PATRIOT Act expands the government's ability to conduct surveillance on American citizens with minimal judicial oversight. It allows for so-called 'sneak and peek' searches where law enforcement can enter your home without your knowledge. It permits the government to obtain library records and business records without showing probable cause. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. I fear that in our rush to respond to the terrible events of September 11, we risk undermining the very freedoms that make this nation worth defending.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is not about partisanship or political advantage. It is about the rule of law and whether the President of the United States is above the law. The evidence demonstrates that the President committed perjury before a federal grand jury and obstructed justice in a civil rights lawsuit. I understand that some of my colleagues believe that the President's conduct, while reprehensible, does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I respectfully disagree. The framers of our Constitution placed the impeachment power in the House of Representatives as a check against executive abuse, and they understood that perjury—the deliberate, willful giving of false testimony under oath—strikes at the very heart of our system of justice. No person, regardless of their position, regardless of their popularity, is above the law in the United States of America. If we fail to act today, we send a message that the powerful can lie under oath with impunity.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak against this rush to war. The resolution before us would grant the President sweeping authority to use military force against Iraq—authority that I believe the Constitution reserves to the Congress alone. We are being asked to vote on the most solemn question a legislature can face, and we are being asked to do so hastily, without adequate deliberation. Where is the evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States? We have heard much about weapons of mass destruction, but the evidence presented to this body has been ambiguous at best. The doctrine of preemptive war that underpins this resolution is a radical departure from more than two centuries of American foreign policy. I have served in this body for over four decades, and I have never seen the Senate so willing to abdicate its constitutional responsibility. The power to declare war is not a mere formality—it is a solemn obligation that the framers deliberately vested in the legislative branch as a check on executive power.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has asked Congress to act swiftly to guarantee the right to vote for every American citizen. The events in Selma, Alabama have shocked the conscience of this nation and demonstrated beyond any doubt that existing laws are insufficient to protect the fundamental right of suffrage. This bill establishes a clear and enforceable mechanism for protecting voting rights. It authorizes the Attorney General to send federal examiners to register voters in jurisdictions where discrimination has been most severe. It suspends literacy tests and other devices that have been used to deny citizens their right to vote based solely on the color of their skin. The Fifteenth Amendment to our Constitution, ratified nearly a century ago, guarantees that the right to vote shall not be denied on account of race. For too long, that promise has been hollow for millions of Americans. This legislation will make it real.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this provision of the crime bill. While I support strong measures to combat violent crime, I cannot support a ban on specific firearms that is based more on the appearance of weapons than on their function. This ban will do little to reduce violent crime while infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The firearms targeted by this legislation are used in fewer than 2 percent of all gun crimes. The overwhelming majority of firearm violence involves handguns, not the rifles and shotguns covered by this ban. We should be focusing our efforts on enforcing existing laws, enhancing penalties for violent criminals, and improving our background check system. I have supported every significant piece of crime legislation in my decades of service in this House. But this provision is not sound policy—it is a symbolic gesture that will alienate millions of responsible gun owners while doing virtually nothing to make our streets safer.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and I do so with particular personal commitment. My brother Frank was deaf, and I witnessed firsthand the barriers that people with disabilities face every day—barriers not of their own making, but erected by a society that has for too long excluded them from full participation in American life. This legislation is a landmark civil rights bill for 43 million Americans with disabilities. It prohibits discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications. It will open doors that have been closed for far too long—not through special treatment, but through the simple removal of unnecessary barriers. The ADA does not guarantee outcomes. It does not promise jobs or mandate quotas. What it does is ensure that people with disabilities have the same opportunity to participate in mainstream American life as everyone else. It is, at its core, about basic fairness and human dignity.

Mr. President, this legislation represents a careful balance between competing interests that have stymied immigration reform for decades. It addresses the problem of illegal immigration through a combination of employer sanctions, increased border enforcement, and a one-time amnesty program for undocumented immigrants who have been contributing members of our communities. I know that the amnesty provision is controversial. But we must deal with reality. There are an estimated three to five million undocumented immigrants living and working in this country. They are raising families, paying taxes, and contributing to their communities. To pretend they do not exist, or to suggest that we can deport millions of people, is neither practical nor humane. At the same time, this bill sends a clear message that future illegal immigration will not be tolerated. The employer sanctions provisions create, for the first time, meaningful penalties for businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Mr. President, today the Senate takes a giant step toward ensuring that our senior citizens can live their later years with dignity and security. For twenty years, the Congress has debated whether to provide health insurance for the elderly. Today, at last, we act. The statistics are staggering: half of all Americans over the age of 65 have no health insurance whatsoever. Those who do often pay premiums they can scarcely afford, for policies that cover only a fraction of their medical expenses. Illness in old age too often means not just suffering, but financial ruin—not just for the sick, but for their families. Medicare will not socialize medicine, as its opponents have claimed. Patients will continue to choose their own doctors. Hospitals will continue to operate independently. What will change is that no American over 65 will have to face the terror of catastrophic illness without the means to pay for care.

Mr. President, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 represent the most comprehensive revision of our nation's clean air laws in over a decade. This legislation addresses three critical environmental challenges: urban air pollution, acid rain, and the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. The acid rain provisions of this bill employ a market-based approach that should satisfy both environmentalists and those concerned about economic costs. By establishing a system of tradable emission allowances for sulfur dioxide, we harness the power of market incentives to achieve environmental goals at the lowest possible cost. Make no mistake: this legislation imposes real costs on industry and on consumers. But the costs of inaction are far greater. Air pollution contributes to thousands of premature deaths each year, damages crops and forests, and degrades the quality of life in our cities. The American people have made clear that they want clean air, and this Congress has an obligation to deliver it.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest Americans of the twentieth century, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who has announced his retirement from the Supreme Court after twenty-four years of distinguished service. Before ascending to the bench, Thurgood Marshall argued thirty-two cases before the Supreme Court, winning twenty-nine of them. His greatest triumph was the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the doctrine of 'separate but equal' and launched the modern civil rights movement. That single case did more to transform American society than any piece of legislation enacted in the twentieth century. As a Justice, Thurgood Marshall was the conscience of the Court. He brought to the conference room the perspective of those who had been excluded from the halls of power, and he reminded his colleagues that the Constitution belongs not just to the powerful, but to the powerless as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. Only the most combative combatants combating the grief and shock of the terrible events of September 11 could fail to understand the desire for swift retaliation. As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore. I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. This is a broad authorization for the use of force that gives the President a blank check. It is wrong to give one person—any person—such sweeping authority, regardless of which party occupies the White House. This resolution will pass overwhelmingly, and I understand the reasons why. But I believe that history will judge this moment, and I hope that we will have the courage to reassess this authorization in the months and years ahead. We must respond to terrorism, but we must do so thoughtfully, with a strategy that addresses root causes rather than simply striking out in anger.

Mr. President, two years ago the American economy teetered on the brink of collapse. A financial crisis that began on Wall Street spread to Main Street, costing millions of Americans their jobs, their homes, and their savings. The question before us today is whether we will learn from that catastrophe or whether we will simply wait for the next one. This legislation creates a comprehensive framework for financial regulation that addresses the gaps and weaknesses that allowed the crisis to occur. It establishes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect Americans from predatory lending and deceptive financial practices. It creates an orderly process for winding down failing financial institutions so that taxpayers are never again asked to bail out Wall Street. I know that some of my colleagues believe that this bill goes too far, that it will stifle innovation and economic growth. I disagree. The greatest threat to our economy is not regulation—it is the kind of unchecked speculation and reckless risk-taking that brought our financial system to its knees.

Mr. President, I am proud to stand here today in support of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This legislation represents the kind of governing that the American people expect from us: Republicans and Democrats working together to solve real problems that affect every community in this country. Our infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our infrastructure a grade of C-minus. There are 45,000 structurally deficient bridges in this country. Millions of Americans lack access to clean drinking water. Our broadband infrastructure leaves rural communities disconnected from the modern economy. This bill invests $550 billion in new spending over five years to rebuild our roads and bridges, modernize our ports and airports, expand broadband access, and upgrade our water systems. It is fully paid for through a combination of repurposed funds, public-private partnerships, and other offsets—not through tax increases.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. This agreement, despite the promises of its supporters, will cost American workers their jobs, drive down wages, and undermine the environmental and labor standards that generations of Americans have fought to establish. NAFTA will create incentives for American companies to move their operations to Mexico, where workers can be paid a fraction of American wages, where environmental regulations are lax, and where labor rights are routinely violated. The result will be a race to the bottom that benefits corporate profits at the expense of working families. The supporters of this agreement tell us that it will create jobs. But the economic models they rely upon are based on assumptions that do not reflect reality. They assume full employment, perfect capital mobility, and no trade deficits. In the real world, NAFTA will mean closed factories, displaced workers, and devastated communities.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6th there was a violent mob assault on the United States Capitol in an attempt to stop the counting of electoral votes. There is no question that the President formed the mob, the President incited the mob, the President addressed the mob. He lit the flame. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I urge all members to vote their conscience. This is not a partisan question. It is a question of whether we are faithful to our oath of office, faithful to the Constitution, and faithful to the rule of law. Our duty is clear.

Mr. President, the legislation before us today is the product of genuine bipartisan compromise. The National Commission on Social Security Reform, on which I had the honor of serving, brought together Republicans and Democrats to address the most pressing domestic challenge of our time: saving Social Security from insolvency. Without action, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted within months. Millions of retirees who depend on these benefits—benefits they have earned through a lifetime of work—face the prospect of reduced checks. This is unacceptable, and it is within our power to prevent. This legislation extends the solvency of Social Security for the next seventy-five years through a balanced combination of revenue increases and benefit adjustments. It gradually raises the retirement age, it makes a portion of benefits taxable for higher-income recipients, and it accelerates scheduled payroll tax increases. No one is entirely satisfied with this package, which is, I submit, a reliable indicator that we have achieved a fair compromise.

Mr. Speaker, the War Powers Resolution is Congress's answer to the unchecked expansion of presidential war-making authority that led to the tragedy in Vietnam. For too long, Presidents have committed American forces to hostilities abroad without the approval of Congress, in clear violation of the constitutional design. This resolution does not strip the President of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. It acknowledges his power to respond to attacks and emergencies. But it requires that the President consult with Congress before introducing American forces into hostilities and that he obtain congressional authorization within sixty days. The framers of our Constitution were deeply skeptical of concentrated power, particularly the power to wage war. They deliberately divided the war power between the executive and legislative branches. The War Powers Resolution restores the constitutional balance that has been eroded by decades of presidential overreach.

Mr. President, the telecommunications landscape in America is undergoing a revolution. Cable television, telephone service, and computer networking are converging into a single, interconnected industry. Yet our laws governing telecommunications date from 1934, a time when radio was still a novelty and television was a dream. This legislation opens the telecommunications market to competition by removing the artificial barriers that have kept telephone companies, cable operators, and other providers in separate boxes. It will benefit consumers by driving down prices, improving service quality, and accelerating the development of new technologies. I want to address concerns about media concentration. This bill includes provisions to prevent excessive concentration of media ownership while recognizing that the old rules were designed for a world of scarcity. In an era of hundreds of cable channels, countless internet sites, and emerging digital technologies, the danger of information monopoly is far less than it was when three broadcast networks dominated the airwaves.

Mr. President, yesterday our nation suffered the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Thousands of our fellow citizens have been killed. Thousands more are injured. The heart of our financial district lies in ruins, and the Pentagon—the very symbol of American military strength—has been scarred. In the hours since these attacks, I have spoken with the President, with the leadership of both parties, and with officials throughout the government. I want the American people to know that their government is functioning, that their elected representatives are united, and that we will not rest until those responsible for these acts of barbarism are brought to justice. But today, first and foremost, our thoughts are with the victims and their families. With the firefighters and police officers who rushed into burning buildings to save others. With the passengers of Flight 93 who fought back against their hijackers. With every American who is grieving today. We are one nation, united in our sorrow and in our determination.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment, which would write discrimination into the founding document of our democracy. The amendment before us would define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, denying millions of Americans the fundamental right to marry the person they love. Throughout our history, the Constitution has been amended to expand rights, not to restrict them. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race. The Nineteenth Amendment extended suffrage to women. This amendment would reverse that proud tradition by using the Constitution as an instrument of discrimination. The proponents of this amendment argue that they are defending traditional values. But the most important American value of all is the principle that all people are created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the law. That is the value we should be defending today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the healthcare crisis facing rural communities across America. In my district in southern Minnesota, residents are traveling longer distances to see doctors, waiting longer for emergency care, and watching their local hospitals close one by one. Since 2010, more than 130 rural hospitals have closed nationwide. Rural Americans are more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease than their urban counterparts. They face higher rates of opioid addiction with fewer treatment options. And the shortage of healthcare providers in rural areas continues to worsen. I have introduced legislation that would expand telehealth services, increase incentives for healthcare professionals to practice in underserved areas, and provide emergency funding to keep rural hospitals open. We cannot allow geography to determine whether an American lives or dies.

Mr. President, this legislation represents a landmark bipartisan commitment to improving education for all of America's children. I want to commend President Bush for making education reform a top priority, and I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft this legislation. The No Child Left Behind Act is built on four principles: accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater flexibility for states and school districts, and a commitment to proven educational methods. For the first time, we will require states to test students regularly and to report results by race, income, disability, and English proficiency. This transparency is essential. For too long, we have allowed the achievement gap between wealthy and poor students, between white and minority students, to persist behind a wall of averaged data. This bill tears down that wall and demands that every school be held accountable for the progress of every child.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court of the United States. When she takes her seat on the bench, she will be the first Black woman in the 233-year history of the Supreme Court to serve as a Justice. That is not merely symbolic—it is a testament to the progress of this nation and to the extraordinary qualifications of this nominee. Judge Jackson's record speaks for itself. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College and cum laude from Harvard Law School. She served as a federal public defender—an experience that gives her a perspective sorely needed on our highest court. She served on the United States Sentencing Commission and has spent nearly a decade as a federal judge. Today is a day for celebration. Not because of politics, but because of the enduring promise of America—the promise that in this country, talent, hard work, and dedication can carry anyone to the highest levels of achievement.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Inflation Reduction Act. This legislation represents a common-sense approach to lowering costs for American families, reducing the federal deficit, and investing in American energy production. I want to be clear: this is not the Build Back Better Act. This is a different bill, focused on the issues that matter most to the people of West Virginia and to Americans across the country. This bill allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time ever, capping out-of-pocket costs for seniors at $2,000 per year. It extends Affordable Care Act subsidies that have helped millions of Americans afford health insurance. And it makes the largest investment in energy and climate in American history. Critically, this legislation reduces the federal deficit by approximately $300 billion over ten years. It is fully paid for through a 15 percent corporate minimum tax—ensuring that the largest corporations pay at least some federal income tax—and through enhanced IRS enforcement targeting wealthy tax cheats.

Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to right a wrong that has persisted for seventeen years. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has forced thousands of patriotic Americans out of our military—not because they failed to serve with distinction, but because of who they are. Since 1993, more than 14,000 service members have been discharged under this policy. Among them were Arabic linguists, intelligence analysts, and decorated combat veterans—people whose skills and dedication our military could ill afford to lose. The policy has not enhanced unit cohesion or military readiness; it has undermined both by forcing service members to lie about their identities. The military leadership, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, has testified that this policy should be repealed. A comprehensive Pentagon study found that the risk of repeal to overall military effectiveness is low. The time for action is now.

Mr. President, I first introduced the DREAM Act in 2001. For nearly a decade, I have been fighting for these young people—young people who were brought to this country as children through no choice of their own, who have grown up as Americans in every way except for their legal status. These are students who have excelled in our schools, who want to serve in our military, who dream of contributing to the country they call home. They did not choose to break any law. Many of them did not even know they were undocumented until they applied for college or a job and discovered that a shadow hung over their lives. The DREAM Act provides a path to legal status for young people who came to this country before the age of 16, who have been here for at least five years, who have graduated from high school, and who are willing to attend college or serve in the military. It is not amnesty—it is an earned path to citizenship for the most sympathetic group of undocumented immigrants in this country.

Mr. President, I rise today in grave concern about provisions in this defense authorization bill that would allow the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge and without trial. This is not a partisan issue—it is a constitutional issue that should concern every member of this body, regardless of party. The Sixth Amendment guarantees every American the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to be informed of the charges against them, and the right to counsel. These rights are not contingent on the nature of the accusation. They are fundamental protections that distinguish our republic from the authoritarian regimes we oppose. I ask my colleagues to consider this: if we allow the government to detain citizens indefinitely based solely on an executive determination that they are a threat, what limiting principle remains? What prevents a future administration from defining 'threat' so broadly as to encompass political dissent?

Mr. President, I will admit to you that I have had moments in the last ten years when I wondered whether this day would ever come. Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in my state, there have been over 3,500 mass shootings in the United States. And until today, Congress has done nothing. This bill is not everything I wanted. It does not ban assault weapons. It does not institute universal background checks. But it is the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly thirty years, and it will save lives. It enhances background checks for buyers under 21. It provides funding for state crisis intervention programs, including red flag laws. It closes the boyfriend loophole in domestic violence gun restrictions. I want to thank my Republican colleagues who had the courage to engage in this negotiation. This bill proves that on the issue of gun violence, progress is possible when both sides are willing to put the safety of our children ahead of political convenience.