[Pages S237-S241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        LAKEN RILEY ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 5, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the 
     United States with theft, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Thune (for Ernst/Grassley) amendment No. 8, to include 
     crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the 
     list of offenses that, if committed by an inadmissible alien, 
     require mandatory detention.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.


                      Commodity Credit Corporation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will speak for a couple minutes in 
morning business.
  I am an advocate, through the farm program, of having an absolute 
limit on the amount of money that one farmer can get from the farm 
program so that we target toward medium- and small-sized farmers so we 
don't subsidize very big farmers to get bigger. I got such a 
legislation through the House and the Senate in previous Congresses, 
and, would you believe it, even though it was exactly the same language 
in both Houses and that isn't supposed to be touched by the conferees, 
the conferees diluted it to not a very meaningful limit.
  Well, I am still concerned about limits. So today, I come to the 
floor to say, as one of its last official acts, the Biden Department of 
Agriculture decided to disregard the wishes of Congress by using its 
authority under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation's charter 
to increase payment limits for specialty crop farmers from $125,000 to 
$900,000 under the Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops Program.
  This increase cost American taxpayers over $650 million without a 
vote of the Congress. Had this been the desire of Congress, it would 
have been included in the continuing resolution passed just weeks 
before.
  Article I of the Constitution is very clear. Congress has the power 
of the purse. It is time that we stop the abuse of that power by the 
executive branch, whether that is Republican or Democrat.
  So getting back to what I said when I opened my remarks. I am going 
to be pursuing in the 5-year farm bill, this year, that same cap on 
what one family farmer can get, and we are going to take additional 
action to make sure that we reform the Commodity Credit Corporation's 
law to make sure that the executive branch Secretary of Agriculture 
does not have the authority to just willy-nilly put out money at the 
drop of a hat.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S238]]

  



                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                                  S. 5

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the first bill that a new majority 
considers is an indication of its priorities. The American people are 
rightly concerned about the illegal immigration crisis in this country, 
and they sent a clear message in November that they want to see it 
addressed. That is why the Republican majorities in the House and the 
Senate have made it our first order of business to take up the Laken 
Riley Act. This bill is a small but critical step for resolving the 
Biden border crisis--the first of many, I might add.
  The Laken Riley Act is not a complicated bill. It says that an 
illegal immigrant involved in a theft-related crime must be detained. 
That means, if someone who is in the country illegally--in other words, 
who has already broken our laws--commits a robbery, he or she will be 
detained.
  If this bill had already been law, the illegal immigrant who killed 
Laken Riley would not have been on the streets the day that he murdered 
her. When he was cited for shoplifting, less than 5 months before that 
day, he would have been detained, and Laken Riley might still be alive 
today. That is what we are trying to do here: prevent another tragedy.
  Unfortunately, it seems that even a simple and straightforward bill 
to detain criminal illegal immigrants is too much for some on the left. 
Some of our Democratic colleagues have spent the week searching for a 
reason--any reason--to justify voting against this bill.
  For starters, we have heard that this bill would cover too many 
illegal immigrants. The admission that there are too many individuals 
on our streets who have committed a crime after coming into the country 
illegally is an argument for this bill, not against it.
  We have also heard that Immigration and Customs Enforcement lacks the 
detention capacity for the number of individuals that this bill will 
require to be detained. Well, if resources are scarce, the answer is to 
provide those resources. The answer is not to let criminals continue to 
walk our streets.
  Republicans believe that keeping criminal illegal aliens off our 
street is a good investment, and we are currently working on a bill 
that will provide ICE with additional agents and additional capacity.
  We have also been told that this bill will overwhelm ICE, such that 
there won't be enough space to detain violent criminals. Once again, 
this is not an argument against the bill. It is an argument for giving 
ICE more resources and for quickly deporting criminals.
  These arguments say a lot more about Democrats' unwillingness to 
crack down on illegal immigration than they say about this bill.
  Look at the vote that we took on Wednesday. We adopted Senator 
Cornyn's amendment to require illegal immigrants who assault a police 
officer to be detained. Staggeringly, under current law, this is not 
the case. But 2 days ago, 25 of our Democratic colleagues could not 
even bring themselves to support detaining an illegal immigrant who 
assaults a police officer. That is right. More than half of the 
Democrats in the U.S. Senate apparently don't believe we should have to 
detain these individuals.
  I think that is out of step with the American people. For sure, it is 
out of step with the American people.
  The American people want to see an end to open borders and the chaos 
they have brought to communities around the country--communities like 
Athens, GA, where Laken Riley was murdered last February.
  Laken Riley's death was a tragedy, and it was preventable. The bill 
we are considering today may prevent a similar tragedy from affecting 
another family.
  Laken's loved ones have had to suffer the heartbreak of losing their 
daughter, their sister, their friend--a bright light in their lives. 
But her mother and stepfather said of this bill:

       There is no greater gift that could be given to her and our 
     country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through 
     this bill.

  Saving lives, that is what this is about.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                                  SALT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, a few words on SALT. A few days 
ago, the House Freedom Caucus made a ridiculous proposal that Congress 
should extend the SALT caps after they are set to expire this year by 
imposing a new cap on New York businesses, large and small, and the 
businesses in many other States. The proposal by the House Freedom 
Caucus is ridiculous, and I will come back to the floor at 11 a.m., 
after the vote, with more to say about it.


                                 Israel

  Mr. President, on the Middle East and Israel, this week has been a 
long time coming for the families of the Israeli hostages, for 
civilians in Gaza, and for countless people across the world.
  A little over an hour ago, Israel's Security Cabinet voted to approve 
the ceasefire that negotiators announced earlier this week. It will 
soon go to the full Cabinet for approval.
  Fifteen months after Hamas's heinous attack on October 7, it is 
welcome news that we are now at the brink of a cease-fire agreement 
that will reduce violence in Gaza, reduce harm to innocent civilians, 
and free many of the hostages. This cease-fire marks a hopeful turning 
point for Israel, for the Palestinian people, and particularly for the 
families of the hostages who have waited so long in agony. We will not 
rest until every hostage comes home.
  This agreement would not have been possible without months of 
steadfast diplomacy by the United States and our allies in the region 
and could not have happened and would not have happened until the 
threats of Hamas and other Iranian proxies like Hezbollah were 
radically reduced, which, thankfully, they have been.
  I want to thank President Biden and everyone in his administration 
who persistently negotiated for a year to make this agreement possible. 
I thank and honor all the families of the hostages, especially those 
who live in New York, for their courage and perseverance and boundless 
grace amid so much grief. Among the hostages are many New Yorkers: 
Omer, Edan, Sagui, Itay, Keith, Gad, and Judi.
  Getting to know the families of the hostages, hearing them share 
stories about their loved ones in captivity, about their hopes and 
their fears and frustrations and their perseverance will be something I 
will remember forever. Today, I promise them this: We will keep working 
to make sure every hostage comes home.
  Now, the task is to ensure that this temporary agreement paves the 
way to a lasting peace. This first phase is critical for bringing home 
all the hostages and preserving Israel's right to defend itself. We 
must make sure that the terrorists of Hamas can never again pose a 
threat to Israel or to the region. We must also do everything we can to 
deliver immediate and lifesaving relief to civilians in Gaza. For 15 
months, they have suffered unimaginable destruction. It will take all 
parties working together to make sure the Palestinian people can 
rebuild their lives with dignity, with security, and outside the 
terrible shadow that Hamas cast over the Gaza Strip, including using so 
many innocent civilians as human shields.
  I urge the Biden administration and incoming Trump administration to 
work together with all parties at the negotiating table to ensure the 
deal is implemented and followed through in its entirety.


                                  S. 5

  Mr. President, next, this morning, the Senate is scheduled to hold a 
cloture vote on the Laken Riley Act. A week ago, I joined with the 
majority of my Democratic colleagues in voting yes to bring this bill 
to the floor on the motion to proceed. We told Republicans we wanted to 
have a serious and productive and fruitful debate on this legislation, 
with the chance to vote on amendments to modify the bill.
  Democrats filed many amendments to the bill, but unfortunately our 
Republican colleagues and the Republican

[[Page S239]]

leader didn't reach an agreement with us. Two nights ago, we voted on 
two amendments, one from each party, and no more. Unfortunately, 
without more changes to address deficiencies in the bill, I will be 
voting no.
  We Democrats want to see our broken immigration system fixed. We 
worked with Republicans last year on the strongest immigration bill in 
a decade. While I do not support this particular bill, I stand ready to 
work with both sides to pass smart, effective, tough, and commonsense 
legislation to secure our borders and reform our immigration system.


                          Cabinet Nominations

  Mr. President, on Cabinet nominations, and Mr. Ratcliffe, if one 
thing is clear from this week's Cabinet hearings, it is that Donald 
Trump is not building a Cabinet to serve the American people; he is 
building a Cabinet to serve the special, big, powerful interests. The 
American people deserve to know if the President-elect's nominees will 
bring costs down and protect America or cut sweetheart deals for the 
most well-off Americans while making America less safe.

  Yesterday, I met with John Ratcliffe, the President-elect's nominee 
for CIA Director. I raised my concerns about some of his positions and 
challenged him to be rock-ribbed when it comes to the integrity of the 
CIA, a place where facts, not lies, must prevail for the security of 
America.
  I also told Mr. Ratcliffe about my very grave concerns regarding the 
nomination of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence 
because I believe her tenure could be colossally disruptive to our 
intelligence Agencies, where so many thousands work so hard, and many 
risk their lives to protect us. I told Mr. Ratcliffe that I thought it 
would be best if he told President-elect Trump that Tulsi Gabbard 
should not have the job. I also told Mr. Ratcliffe that he needs to be 
rock-ribbed and strong when she presents falsities about intelligence, 
which, given her past, she almost will inevitably do. Unfortunately, I 
found his answers about Ms. Gabbard to be insufficient.
  Candidly, Mr. President, the truth is that many of the President-
elect's nominees are just not fit for the job, not just Ms. Gabbard. As 
we continue with hearings next week on important issues like U.N. 
Ambassador, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of the Army, 
Democrats will continue to hold the President-elect's nominees' feet to 
the fire to show the American people who Donald Trump's nominees are 
really fighting for.
  Will Donald Trump's nominees focus on cutting costs or will they be 
more interested in cutting sweetheart deals for Big Business? Will they 
protect our communities or will they focus on protecting special 
interests? Will they serve middle-class and working families or will 
they serve the swamp? It seems all too likely the wrong answer on each 
of these questions might be very, very real.
  Should the time come that some of these nominees fail on the job--
which, given their lack of qualifications, sadly, seems likely--
Democrats will continue to make it clear that there were red flags all 
along.


                                 TikTok

  Mr. President, finally, on TikTok, we know a lot of things are up in 
the air with the TikTok ban scheduled to go into effect this weekend, 
but everyone--the Biden administration, the incoming Trump 
administration, even the Supreme Court--should continue working to find 
a way to find an American buyer for TikTok so we can both free the app 
from any influence and control from the Chinese Communist Party and 
keep TikTok going, which will preserve the jobs of millions of 
creators.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from Alabama.


                                  S. 5

  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, over the past week and a half, the world's 
greatest deliberative body has discussed and debated the Laken Riley 
Act. I have taken to the Senate floor multiple times, as have several 
of my Senate colleagues, to impress upon our fellow lawmakers just how 
important it is to pass this bill to protect American families, to keep 
criminals off our streets.
  The reason we are all here today is to consider the Laken Riley Act. 
And, really, it is out of a sense of duty, a moral obligation to honor 
Laken, her life, and her legacy--a life cut far too short at the hands 
of an illegal alien, who committed the most heinous crime we can 
possibly imagine, and a legacy that continues and will continue to live 
on.
  Laken Riley, as my colleagues know, was an exceptional 22-year-old. 
She was a beloved daughter, an extraordinary friend, a shining beacon 
of light who truly lived out her faith. She was a nursing student who 
wanted to help people. She had big goals and aspirations. She had hopes 
and dreams to strive for over the course of her life that will never 
have an opportunity to become a reality, and that is because of the 
Biden-Harris open border policies.
  Her killer was allowed to roam free in our country despite having 
been apprehended at the border and committing multiple crimes after 
being paroled into the U.S. interior. Then he reached the darkest 
depths of criminality and took Laken from this world 330 days ago.
  Last week, on this same floor, I read the words of Allyson and John 
Phillips, Laken's mother and stepfather. They described in 
heartbreaking detail the joy Laken brought to everyone fortunate enough 
to know her in their lives. They said:

       Not only did the people who knew and loved Laken lose a 
     beautiful soul. But so did our world.

  This didn't have to happen. Jose Ibarra shouldn't have been anywhere 
near Laken on February 22, 2024. He should have never been in the 
United States. And once he had committed a crime on multiple occasions, 
he should have been detained by ICE until he was removed from our 
country. If he had, Laken would still be with us today. That is why we 
need to pass the Laken Riley Act.
  As elected representatives, our greatest responsibilities are to 
listen to the will of the American people and to keep the American 
people safe and secure. And on November 5 of last year, the American 
people made their voices heard, and they were very clear. They told all 
of us in Washington that they would no longer put up with the crimes 
like the one Jose Ibarra committed, the one that stole Laken from her 
loved ones.
  The American people delivered a verdict, and they deserve results. We 
have irresponsible, open border, soft-on-crime policies, and that must 
end. It is our duty to turn their cries into action, to respond to the 
clear message that they sent, to honor the charge they delivered. That 
is the purpose of American democracy. And just as the purpose of our 
democratic Republic is to turn the will of the people from desire to 
law, the purpose of our government--the most basic function our country 
has--is to protect its citizens.
  That is what the Laken Riley Act does. It will help ensure other 
families will not have to endure the pain a criminal illegal alien 
inflicted on Laken and her loved ones. This bill will prevent countless 
nightmares so daughters like Laken can go on a jog and not have their 
dreams forever stolen from them.
  I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill, and I am 
grateful for Senators John Fetterman and Ruben Gallego, who have 
decided to sign on as cosponsors. I am heartened to see so many of my 
Democratic colleagues come out in favor of this commonsense, 
straightforward legislation.
  But we can't lose focus now. We are so close to the finish line, so 
close to delivering results for the American people, for the voters who 
sent us here, and for Laken and her family.
  So now, to my fellow Senators, let's do right by the American people. 
Let's heed their call, help keep them safe, and pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to 
speak to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. We are now entering the vote that is referred to as 
cloture--or close debate--but we can still consider amendments by 
unanimous consent.
  I came to the floor yesterday to point out that there is a deep flaw 
related to children in this bill, and both the majority leader and the 
floor leader have

[[Page S240]]

expressed support for an amendment process. So I am asking to work with 
me and with my leadership that we might examine this challenge.
  The challenge is specifically that children, without being charged, 
without being convicted, are required to be arrested and imprisoned--or 
not arrested but imprisoned after an arrest with no chance for appeal.
  My colleagues expressed the belief that the Flores agreement somehow 
provides protection, but the experts on Flores have said that is 
incorrect because a bill trumps an agreement, it trumps a rule, and 
Flores was about children coming to the border, not children living in 
our community.
  Furthermore, a family with a parent who is required mandatory 
imprisonment without appeal is suddenly swept away from their children. 
Realize we should care about all those children left without a parent 
at their house, but that is both citizen and noncitizen children. So 
let's not pretend this flaw only affects folks who are undocumented; it 
affects our citizen children as well. But, again, we should care about 
both sets of children thriving.
  So I ask help from the majority leader and the floor leader. If we 
have a dispute on legal interpretation, let's bring those lawyers 
together and understand if they are ships passing in the night or is 
there a misunderstanding that we can correct or clarify.
  With that appeal for additional amendments by unanimous consent, 
which I will continue to negotiate for, I thank you, Mr. President.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 1, 
     S. 5, a bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United 
     States with theft, and for other purposes.
         John Thune, John Barrasso, Steve Daines, Bill Cassidy, 
           Katie Britt, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, Ted Budd, Jim 
           Banks, Dave McCormick, John Cornyn, John Hoeven, Rick 
           Scott of Florida, Roger Marshall, Tommy Tuberville, Ron 
           Johnson, Dan Sullivan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 5, a 
bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody 
aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 35, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McCormick
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Peters
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sheehy
     Slotkin
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--35

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coons
     Fetterman
     McConnell
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
35.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Texas.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, I highlighted some of President 
Biden's final actions as he leaves--parting gifts, if you will. Today, 
I would like to highlight another of his parting gifts. And I use that 
in parentheses or with quotations because they really are a slap in the 
face for the American people and American taxpayers.
  This past Monday, the Department of Education canceled student loans 
for 150,000 borrowers. This is not really a cancellation of those 
loans. It is just a transfer of the responsibility to taxpayers and 
wiping the slate clean for people who actually agreed to borrow this 
money so that they can attend schools.
  Then on Wednesday, just 2 days ago, the Biden administration 
announced an additional cancellation of $4.5 billion for 261,000 
borrowers.
  The President's actions this week and the last week of his Presidency 
brings this total taxpayer bailout to $183.6 billion.
  Now, remember in June of 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-to-3 
decision that the Department of Education lacks the authority--the 
legal authority--to implement these across-the-board student loan 
cancellations. But the Biden administration, never to be one that 
actually obeys the law, has continued to ignore the ruling of the 
Supreme Court, issuing blank check after blank check to borrowers to 
let them off the hook from paying bills that they agreed to pay in the 
first instance.
  This policy is not just illegal; it is profoundly unfair. It is 
unfair to the families who have sacrificed and saved to send their own 
children to college. It is unfair to the students who worked multiple 
jobs during college to avoid accruing large amounts of debt. And it is 
unfair to all the graduates who have worked hard and paid off their 
loans. Finally, it is unfair to Americans who have forgone a college 
education because they couldn't afford the cost. And now they have to 
pick up the tab for those for whom President Biden has canceled their 
debt.
  Any family with a mortgage, a car payment, or credit card debt knows 
there is really no such thing as canceling the debt. Somebody is going 
to pay. Every dollar that was borrowed will, eventually, be repaid by 
somebody. It is just a matter of who that someone is. And, in this 
case, it is the American taxpayer.
  It is really a slap in the face, a kick in the teeth--you choose your 
metaphor. But it is no surprise that the American taxpayers have 
rejected the direction in which President Biden and his administration 
have taken the country. They voted for a new direction on November 5.
  But that just makes it even more offensive that a lameduck President 
would proceed full speed ahead with more student debt cancellation 
after being told ``no'' by the Supreme Court and being told ``no'' 
again by voters on November 5.
  Back in May, along with my colleagues Senator Ernst and Senator 
Cassidy, I introduced a congressional resolution of disapproval that 
would have overturned the Biden administration's reckless and unfair 
student loan socialism. Of course, the Democratic-controlled Senate did 
not bring that CRA--the Congressional Review Act--up for a vote. But 
now with Republicans in the majority, I hope this is something we can 
and will address.
  Student loan socialism would be a great opportunity for the 
Department of Government Efficiency--headed by Elon Musk and Vivek 
Ramaswamy--to take a look at it because there is nothing less efficient 
and more wasteful and more unfair than taking billions of dollars from 
taxpayers who didn't go to college to pay for those who did and who 
agreed to pay the money back but simply now will not have to do so.
  The vast majority of Americans don't benefit from this student loan 
socialism. And 87 percent of Americans don't have student debt; so the 
13 percent who do are now foisting that responsibility on the 87 
percent. If you look at

[[Page S241]]

those who do benefit, it becomes even more clear how little sense this 
makes.
  Even the progressive Brookings Institute pointed out that blanket 
student loan forgiveness benefits those who are better off by income, 
by education, and by wealth.
  Unsurprisingly, those with student loans are more likely to have 
higher paying jobs. If we look back at the institutions and not just 
the individuals who are benefiting from these massive taxpayer 
subsidies, which is what they are, we will also find that this is 
anything but an efficient use of American taxpayer dollars.
  Over 100 colleges and universities in the United States, including 
Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and Princeton, are currently under 
investigation from the Department of Education because of their 
mishandling of incidents of anti-Semitism on their campuses since 
October 7, 2023.
  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the 
basis of ethnicity for institutions that receive Federal funding. So 
the complaints of anti-Semitism in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 
Israel have in some cases amounted to violations of Federal law.
  Many of these colleges and universities are rushing to enter into 
settlements with the Biden administration before the Trump 
administration takes office on Monday, which, of course, is not 
surprising.
  President Trump has made clear that taxpayer support for those 
universities that failed to end anti-Semitic propaganda that has run 
rampant over the past few years, that that taxpayer support will end.
  Now is not the time to reward these institutions with widespread 
incentives to continue raising their tuition by canceling student debt.
  If we want to address the affordability of college--an important 
topic--widespread student loan socialism is not the way to do it.
  So as I said, for a variety of reasons, this would be a great place 
for the Department of Government Efficiency to shine the light on and 
for us to do something about in the coming days.
  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget pointed out that we 
could save the taxpayers as much as $550 billion by reversing all of 
President Biden's actions on student loan cancellation--$550 billion. 
So we have our work cut out for us. But one great place to start would 
be to end the Biden administration's reckless student loan socialism.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Equal Rights Amendment

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to read into the Record a 
statement from President Joe Biden, issued this morning on the Equal 
Rights Amendment.
  He said as follows:

       I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 
     50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be 
     discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation, 
     must affirm and protect women's full equality once and for 
     all.
       On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became 
     the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
       The American Bar Association has recognized that the Equal 
     Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be 
     formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I 
     agree with the ABA--

  President Biden said--

       and with leading constitutional scholars that the Equal 
     Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.
       It is long past time to recognize the will of the American 
     people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and 
     country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of 
     the States have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of 
     the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and 
     protections under the law regardless of their sex.

  Mr. President, in response to this, I issue the following statement:
  The Equal Rights Amendment is literally a century in the making, and 
over the years, generations of Americans have done their part to move 
it forward. They have marched on Washington, they have met with 
Congressmen and Senators, and as of 2020, they have crossed a crucial 
threshold--ratification of the ERA in 38 States. That is the exact 
number of States needed to certify it as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution.
  It is past time to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex in 
our Constitution. The President's announcement sends an important, 
overdue message to women and girls that they are equal under the law.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a moment of historic importance, and 
it is the culmination of a century of effort to bring equality into the 
American Constitution with the 28th Amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Will the Senator withhold his 
request?
  Mr. DURBIN. I withhold my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                                  SALT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last fall, Donald Trump went to Long 
Island, NY, and claimed he would ``get SALT back.'' That is good news--
very good news--because it was precisely Donald Trump and congressional 
Republicans who created the SALT cap to begin with.
  These harmful policies double tax hard-working New Yorkers. They have 
hurt so many middle-class families--teachers, firefighters, police 
officers, construction workers--particularly in higher cost areas like 
Long Island and the Hudson Valley of New York.
  So it is good that Donald Trump and some Republicans have seen the 
light and that they have heard from vociferous Long Islanders, and now 
they are changing their minds about SALT. But let's not forget, these 
costly SALT caps are set to expire at the end of the year.
  So to our friends on the other side, if you actually want to lower 
costs for Long Island, Hudson Valley, and other families across the 
country, all you have to do is do nothing at all on SALT caps. Let them 
expire, which they will right at the end of this year, and then they 
are gone for good, all of them.
  Yes, if Congress simply says do nothing about SALT caps, all of it 
will go away, and that is what we should do. But instead of ensuring 
that New Yorkers will get SALT back, the House Freedom Caucus wants to 
impose a whole new round of SALT caps. They want to place new SALT caps 
on New York businesses small and large and want to push an increase in 
the SALT tax on New Yorkers.
  The House Freedom Caucus is a group of very powerful, hard, hard 
right Republicans. The House Freedom Caucus's SALT plan will increase 
costs across Long Island and the Hudson Valley almost immediately.
  I have got only one response to the House Freedom's SALT proposal. As 
we say in Brooklyn, forget about it. Forget about it. There is no 
scenario under God's green Earth that New York taxpayers will ever 
accept another unfair SALT cap like the House Freedom Caucus proposes. 
New York families, from Long Island to the Hudson Valley and across the 
State, have suffered long enough at the hands of broken Republican tax 
policies.
  I will do everything I can, first, to remove the entire SALT cap tax 
and, second, to never let a new proposal that for the first time 
imposes the SALT cap on businesses small and large to be put into 
effect. I am going to do everything I can to fight this dastardly 
proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________