We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
24Senate Resolution 334: Supporting the Designation of the Week of August 25 Through August 29, 2025, as the Third Annual "National Community Health Worker Awareness Week"
25Senate Concurrent Resolution 19: Recognizing the Need to Improve Physical Access to Many Federally Funded Facilities for All People of the United States, Particularly People With Disabilities
Thirty-eight bills and four resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 2387-2424, S.J. Res. 68, S. Res. 333-334, and S. Con. Res. 19.
Pages S4623-25
Measures Passed
Congratulating the Florida Panthers: Senate agreed to S. Res. 333, commending and congratulating the Florida Panthers on winning the 2025 Stanley Cup Final.
Pages S4584-85
Authorizing the Use of Emancipation Hall
Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 39, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medals awarded under the Harlem Hellfighters Congressional Gold Medal Act.
Page S4685
Danish Constitution Day Celebrations
Committee on Foreign Relations was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 267, honoring the deep and enduring friendship between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States on the occasion of Danish Constitution Day celebrations, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S4685
Measures Considered
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act: Senate began consideration of H.R. 3944, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, after agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Pages S4577-81, S4585-88, S4588-98
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 90 yeas to 8 nays (Vote No. 428), Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.
Page S4588
Lohmeier Nomination: Agreement
Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Matthew Lohmeier, of Arizona, to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Pages S4617-18
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 49 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 433), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4617
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for further consideration of the nomination at approximately 10 a.m., on Thursday, July 24, 2025, post-cloture; Notwithstanding Rule XXII, Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 11:30 a.m., and if cloture is invoked on the nomination of Richard Topping, of Ohio, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, all post-cloture time expire at 1:45 p.m., and Senate vote on confirmation thereon; provided further if cloture is invoked on the nomination of Emil J. Bove III, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, all post-cloture time be expired and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination, at a time to be determined by the Majority Leader, in consultation with the Democratic Leader, no earlier than Monday, July 28, 2025.
Page S4685
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 52 yeas to 41 nays (Vote No. EX. 426), Arielle Roth, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information.
Pages S4581, S4685
By 51 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 427), John Hurley, of California, to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
Pages S4581-82, S4685
By 49 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 430), Zachary M. Bluestone, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Pages S4598-S4606, S4685
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 49 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. 429), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4598
By 49 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 432), Aaron Szabo, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Pages S4606-17, S4685
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 48 yeas to 47 nays (Vote No. EX. 431), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4606
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: 4 Air Force nominations in the rank of general. Routine lists in the Army, Navy, and Space Force.
Page S4685
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S4626-28
Record Votes
Eight record votes were taken today. (Total--433)
Pages S4581-82, S4588, S4598, S4606, S4617
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 9:11 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 24, 2025. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4685.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 70 of 167 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3944, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Madam President, every year, we get what is called Medicare's ``Trustees Report.'' I come to the floor to comment on that.
We all know that Medicare is very much a part of America's social fabric. For decades, Medicare has provided seniors and people with disabilities access to routine and lifesaving care at their local hospital, doctor's office, and pharmacy.
The trustees reported, as they do every year, that the Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be depleted by 2033. This is 3 years ahead of the projections that came out in last year's report.
This results from higher than expected expenditures, the growth in inpatient hospital and hospice spending.
Also, for now, the eighth year in a row, the Trustees have issued what they call a funding warning. This is because Medicare's outlays for its two trust funds are expected to exceed its dedicated revenue by 45 percent.
When Congress established this combined funding warning report in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, we intended--here in the Senate--for Congress and the President to respond with solutions.
We should listen to this actuarial report, get on the job, and do something to preserve the Medicare program. Now, we all know that we talk more often about Social Security running out of money.
I want to preserve and strengthen the Medicare program for future generations, just like I would say the same thing about the Social Security program. The only way to make these critical programs sustainable is to follow the Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill model.
This goes back to 1983, when the Social Security system was running out of money. Ronald Reagan--a Republican--Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House--a Democrat--got together and said: We can't let that happen.
And they made sure it didn't happen. And what they devised that I had a chance to vote for in 1983 or 1984--whenever it was--they fixed it for 50 years because that is 50 years coming to 2033 when Social Security, likewise, will run out of money.
Now, I have come to the conclusion that when you have a President Biden and a Candidate Trump both running in 2024, that they aren't going to do anything to fix Social Security.
Why isn't it being done? I have come to the conclusion that it is not being done because we don't have any Ronald Reagans or Tip O'Neills in Washington, DC, or in our government anymore.
So they did it in a bipartisan way, and Congress should step up the same way to deal with this Medicare issue that I am talking about. But there is no reason to leave Social Security out of that debate as well.
So I get back to some role that I played in the Medicare issues of 2003 when I led the effort to modernize Medicare by establishing the prescription drug program, because prior to
In the first decade of the Medicare Part D program, the Federal Government spent--can you believe it--36 percent less than what was projected to be spent as we wrote this legislation. And it also improved access to prescription drugs for millions of seniors.
Separately, Senate Republicans, through the One Big Beautiful Bill, strengthened Medicare. We did that by ensuring that Medicare resources are going to Americans instead of illegal immigrants and those not here permanently.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will save the Medicare system $5 billion. Now, that is a spit in the ocean compared to what we face with this 45-percent overrun that the trustees talked about.
A step in the right direction, of course it is, but it is no substitute for what is really needed in this town--a bipartisan cooperation and Presidential leadership, either Republican or Democrat, that is needed to address our long-term Medicare funding challenges.
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.
Madam President, during the month of June, U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded a total of 9,306 encounters at our southern border--9,306 for the entire month of June.
It is difficult to overstate just how much progress this reflects. Under President Biden, monthly encounters at our southern border were often well over 200,000 per month. During December of 2023, Customs and Border Protection recorded a staggering 301,981 encounters at our southern border or 32 times as many as were encountered last month.
The previous three Junes under President Biden saw more than 130,000, more than 140,000, and more than 200,000 encounters. And now we are at 9,306--9,306--fewer individuals than the Biden administration sometimes saw in a day.
It is really incredible, and this isn't a one-off. During President Trump's first full 5 months in office, monthly numbers at the southern border have never exceeded 12,500 encounters.
What we are seeing here is a President committed to fulfilling his responsibilities; namely, enforcing the law. It is too bad the previous administration didn't see fit to try it.
But it is a new day. And Republicans in Congress are committed to supporting and continuing the administration's good work, and that starts with a generational investment in border security that we made this July in the One Big Beautiful Bill. That includes funding for border barriers and technology, including finishing the border wall. It includes funding for additional patrol agents, for additional detention space, for additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
The Acting ICE Director was on ``Face the Nation'' the other day, and he had this to say:
Leaving aside the intolerable fact that ICE agents are facing such hostility for carrying out their essential public safety mission, it is not acceptable that we don't have enough ICE officers to do the job that they need to be doing, and our bill goes a long way toward ending that problem.
We also included Department of Justice funding to hire more immigration judges to address the massive backlog in immigration cases--a backlog made exponentially worse by the Biden administration's policies.
Immigration cases should be decided in weeks or months--not years, and our bill will help move toward that goal. One of the most basic responsibilities of the Federal Government is providing for our Nation's security, and border security is an essential part of national security.
The chaos at our southern border under the Biden administration was an invitation to terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous individuals to enter our country. It placed an incredible burden on our Border Patrol agents, many of whom were pulled off the essential work of guarding the border to process the flood of illegal immigrants. And it placed a big burden on border cities and nonborder cities as well who struggled to deal with an influx of migrants.
President Trump has turned the situation around, and the One Big Beautiful Bill will ensure that his administration has the resources it needs to continue its work of enforcing the law and protecting our country. It will also ensure permanent improvements in our immigration system and border enforcement that will, I hope, last for long after President Trump leaves office.
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.
Now, Madam President, we have a little over 20 legislative days left for Republicans to get serious about funding the government. That is not very much time. As always, the best way forward is this: bipartisan cooperation.
Senate Democrats, for our part, are working in good faith to counter the devastating actions of the Trump administration on the American people, and in this case, the bill reverses DOGE cuts to veterans. That is a very good thing. These DOGE cuts were so cruel to our veterans.
Ultimately, Senate Republicans will have to join us to save all of our constituents from the proposals we have seen from the administration and from the House Republicans.
Now, yesterday, the Senate took the first vote on the MILCON-VA bill. This bill is not perfect, but it is a good step forward. It reverses some of the terrible cuts from DOGE against our veterans--our veterans who defend us, who risk their lives for us, who volunteer to serve their country, and, then, when they need help, cut, cut, cut--cruel, mean, un-American. The Senate version, thank God, is significantly stronger than the House version in protecting our members.
My colleague from Georgia has done good work shepherding this legislation on the Democratic side. We hope to have a good process for this bill on the floor. Republicans should allow amendments and a robust floor process. This bill shows the process can still work, but much, much more needs to be considered.
But Senate Democrats know we can't take anything for granted and will expect our colleagues to show their commitment to bipartisanship on all future appropriations bills, because for weeks--for weeks--they have tainted the Senate with their partisan reconciliation tax bill and the rescissions package.
This process won't work if they listen more to Donald Trump and Russell Vought than to the needs of the American people back home.
Mr. President, now, meanwhile, yesterday was truly a sorry sight in the House of Representatives. The ghost of the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein is haunting our Republican colleagues, so much so that Speaker Johnson decided to cut bait and send the House home to escape discussions about Epstein, instead of doing their jobs like grownups and making progress on appropriations.
By shutting Congress down early, Speaker Johnson has assured that August has become the ``Epstein recess,'' because this issue is going to grow and grow and grow the longer House Republicans dodge this issue. Now, maybe they declared the ``Epstein recess'' to give Trump time to prepare papers for the pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell. Speaker Johnson shouldn't be skedaddling out of town early. If the Speaker thinks he can make the Epstein escapade disappear by sending folks home early, he has got another thing coming. So, again, the Speaker should not send people home early to avoid dealing with the Epstein issue.
The American people have a right to know what happened, but, instead, Speaker Johnson created the ``Epstein recess.'' Speaker Johnson created that ``Epstein recess.'' It is an awful decision. It is derelict of their job in terms of keeping the government funded.
Mr. President, now, on FEMA, after the heartbreaking tragedy in Texas, I called for accountability to determine if Donald Trump's cuts played any role in hindering the rescue effort. The White House reacted by calling us liars. They said it was a ``depraved lie''--Trump's words--to question if Donald Trump's actions harmed rescue efforts. But, sadly, the more we learn, the more we see that Donald Trump and Kristi Noem are the liars, and there is very little doubt DOGE cuts made things worse at FEMA and affected what happened in Texas.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the head of FEMA's urban search and rescue unit resigned. The reason he stated is that Donald Trump has created chaos at the Agency. The former worker said Donald Trump's cuts, bureaucratic obstacles, and abysmal response to the flooding in FEMA influenced his decision. He specifically cites, as have many others, Kristi Noem's decision requiring her personal approval on every purchase of more than $100,000.
Remember, experts have said that this stupid policy was responsible for getting rid of hundreds of call center staff for 5 days after the Texas flood. Thousands of calls to FEMA from flood survivors went unanswered, according to internal documents. That is unacceptable. That is incompetent. But this is the consequence of Donald Trump's terrible policies.
So Donald Trump may have called those of us who criticized FEMA's cuts--FEMA's DOGE cuts and their effect on Texas--he may have called those of us who did that liars to avoid responsibility, but, in fact, he is the liar here. His actions at FEMA have caused chaos, staff shortages, delayed response. It puts people's lives in danger moving forward.
And, unfortunately, these DOGE cuts are going to have many other dire consequences for the American people. Donald Trump may try to deflect blame, but he is the one who implemented these horrible cuts across the board.
Mr. President, let's get to a more general subject about how Trump operates.
By now, it is obvious that what Donald Trump uses as his MO, whenever he points the finger, whenever he launches insults at others--what he is really doing--is deflecting from something he knows he is guilty of himself.
I just said Donald Trump called us liars for asking about his role in cutting FEMA funding. It turns out he is the liar here.
And, yesterday, Donald Trump accused President Obama of treason, without any evidence, saying he tried to steal the 2016 election and tried to use the issue of Russia to smear him. This is delusional. Trump sounds unwell when he accuses Obama of treason.
But not only that, who was the one who we know tried to blackmail a foreign head of state to gain dirt against a political opponent? Who is the one? Donald Trump.
Who incited the violent insurrection against the U.S. Capitol to try and prevent the certification of the 2020 election? Donald Trump.
So when Donald Trump says President Obama tried to steal an election, we know Trump is lying. We know Trump is the one guilty of the crime, and he is trying to deflect from his own lawlessness by inciting a violent insurrection in the Capitol.
To accuse others of what he is guilty of doing is how Donald Trump operates. He has for decades. But the American people are seeing through it now that he is in the high position of President.
What he did with President Obama is not an isolated example. As I mentioned, Donald Trump recently called some of us liars for demanding transparency after the tragedy in Texas. But who spent months calling for the elimination of FEMA? Who has run thousands of FEMA staffers out the door? Who cut FEMA call center staff in the name of DOGE cuts? Donald Trump.
Donald Trump even recently called a Democratic Member of this Chamber a fraud and a crook and has threatened him with prosecution without any merit. But who was it that was found in court to have unlawfully inflated the value of his own properties? Who was the fraud? Who is the crook?
Who launched a fake university that was accused in multiple States of defrauding students with false claims about educational services? Who has built a reputation as a liar, a swindler, someone who always talks a big game but never seems to follow through? That is, of course, Donald Trump.
So we know the game here. When Trump points the finger, he is telling on himself for something he has been guilty of. That is his MO. This meritless accusation against President Obama is just another pathetic example.
Mr. President, on tariffs, last night President Trump announced another trade ``deal,'' this time with Japan. Like most of the deals announced over the past month, it was big on promises, short on details, and, crucially, provided zero relief for American families and small businesses. Whether it is this agreement with Japan, where tariffs are increasing to 15 percent, or earlier ones with Indonesia or Vietnam, where tariffs are increasing to 19 to 20 percent, the Trump tariff taxes are going up, not down. That means one thing: higher costs for the American family. Ask an American family if increasing their costs by ``only'' 15 percent is OK.
In the meantime--and, by the way, the media, oh, they say: Well, it is a great deal because it wasn't as bad as Trump originally proposed but is still very bad for the American people and raises costs 15 percent.
American people aren't going to buy that this is a good deal at all-- a good deal at all.
In the meantime, the Trump administration is granting greater access to advanced semiconductor technology, surrendering to China. Higher costs for families and small businesses--Trump's trade war has been and continues to be a huge failure.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about something critical to our Nation, and that is our Nation's security. And for me, national security demands and starts with border security.
We were through 4 years of open borders, high prices, pain for the American people. Well, with the signing of this Big Beautiful Bill into law, we are securing the border, we are finishing the wall, and we are supporting Federal law enforcement officers.
You know, we also passed, and President Trump signed into law, the HALT Fentanyl Act. It is now the law of the land, and, today, law enforcement finally has the tools that they need to crack down on drug traffickers. These policies are what will save lives here in America. These policies will make our Nation safer.
For 4 long years, Joe Biden and the Democrats flung open the border walls, and over 10 million illegal immigrants flooded into our country as a result of their irresponsible behavior. This invasion raised costs for American families. People saw it all throughout their lives. They saw it when they went to the doctor's office. They found it at the grocery store, and they found it in the housing market.
This invasion made our communities less safe. Innocent Americans are still suffering the consequences. Just this week, in New York City, an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer was ambushed--ambushed-- by two illegal immigrant criminals. They shot him in the throat.
Both of these illegal immigrant criminals had long criminal records. You say: How can that be, in America, that somebody with a long criminal record is out there on the street, shooting an officer of the law?
Well, both of these illegal immigrant criminals entered the country illegally under Joe Biden. They were arrested multiple times in New York City, the minority leader's home city--arrested multiple times. Immigration judges ordered deportations, but what happens in New York City, in the minority leader's home city? They were released due to sanctuary city policies in his hometown.
President Trump and Republicans have now made it a priority to enforce the law. Since taking office, President Trump has deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals. ICE arrests in my home State of Wyoming as well as my neighboring State of Colorado are now five times higher than they were during the same time period under Joe Biden.
A July poll by Harvard-Harris shows that three out of four Americans support President Trump's efforts to deport illegal immigrant criminals. The message is clear: Keep making our communities safer.
Illegal border crossings are now at their lowest level ever recorded. Zero--zero--illegal immigrants were released into our country over the past 2 months. Hard to believe but true--the number is zero. President Trump has successfully ended catch-and-release. By contrast, under Joe Biden and the Democrats, 10,000 illegal immigrants crossed our southern border on a daily basis.
Republicans promised the American people we would secure the border, and we are keeping our word.
The law we passed finishes the wall. It provides $75 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That gives our agents the resources they need to continue deporting illegal immigrant criminals. Our law allows and helps them hire, train, and retain Border Patrol agents. It even gives the agents a bonus. That is what we need to do to enforce the law.
Republicans are committed to help fight back against child trafficking. This is why our law funds $300 million to vet those who sponsor children who show up at the border without an adult. And we know it happened routinely during the Biden administration. I was there on the border during the night as children would show up without an adult.
A recent report from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General is clarifying to all of us who have read it. It is disturbing, and it is frightening. The report found that the Biden administration lost track of hundreds of thousands of these unaccompanied children. In over 80 percent of the cases, the report says, the Biden administration didn't even have accurate contact information for the sponsors.
In all, our new law is the most comprehensive border security investment in American history. It has invested in immigration enforcement and border security. Not a single Democrat supported these policies.
Democrats continue today to be the party of open borders and unsafe communities. They made our country weaker, they made our country poorer, and they made our country less safe. Things have changed now. Across the country, ICE agents are doing excellent work enforcing the law and keeping our communities safe.
Earlier this month, ICE conducted a lawful raid of a Los Angeles facility that produces marijuana. Federal officers arrested 361 criminal illegal immigrants. Many were convicted rapists, kidnappers, and child predators. Federal agents also rescued 10 children from forced labor at that marijuana production facility. Eight of them were unaccompanied minors who had been trafficked into our country and exploited.
Last month, ICE arrested 1,361 illegal immigrant criminals in Houston, TX. Those criminals were in our communities because of Democrats' open border policies. Now they are off the streets thanks to an administration that is committed to our Nation's security.
As law enforcement does its job, they are increasingly under attack. They are under attack, amazingly, from criminals, and they are under attack from the radical left. ICE agents have been demonized, doxed, and demoralized. Attacks against ICE agents have soared over 800 percent in the last year.
In California, as ICE agents rescued children from forced labor, a violent mob of leftwing activists threw rocks and even opened fire on them. Now, some Democrats in Congress downplayed it; they dismissed it; they defended the violence, as the Democrats tend to do. One Democrat even said the operation was, in their words, a ``misuse of federal resources.''
Let me be clear. Rescuing trafficked children is not a misuse--never a misuse--of taxpayer money. If the Democrats believe otherwise, they have truly lost their moral compass.
Law enforcement deserves our support, especially as they are protecting children and when they are getting dangerous criminals off the street. This is common sense. It is exactly what Immigration and Customs agents are doing, and they are doing it very well.
The American people have been clear. They want secure borders. They want safer communities. And that is what Republicans are delivering.
Mr. President, I will assure you, Republicans will continue to protect our children, protect our communities, and protect our country.
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. President, I am on the Senate floor today as we are beginning the process for this fiscal year of considering appropriations bills.
As this process works, there are 12 subcommittees in the Appropriations Committee. We report out 12 bills, presumably, and we are doing that. The first four are potentially being considered this week for consideration by the full Senate.
Sometimes there is criticism about the appropriations process, and people who are not members of the committee feel left out. I am pleased that we are on the Senate floor today, where every Member--all 100 Senators--has the opportunity to add their thoughts by offering amendments, certainly making comments--offering amendments, taking votes. We ought to make certain that every Senator has the sense that they are engaged in the process of determining how taxpayer dollars are spent.
I commend the majority leader Senator Thune for his commitment and his keeping of a commitment that appropriations bills would be considered on the Senate floor in his tenure as the majority leader. We are off to a start today, and I am pleased that is happening.
The subcommittee report--the appropriations bill that I want to speak just a moment about before we commence a vote at 11 is the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. It is one of the bills that fund a number of segments of the Federal Government.
As the name of the subcommittee suggests, it funds the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, and it has the word ``science'' in its title--Commerce-Justice-Science. Science is generally thought of as NASA, NOAA, and NSF, the National Science Foundation.
Our legislation that has been reported out of the subcommittee and reported now out of the full committee passed with every member of the committee on the Republican side voting in favor of it and about four-- I think the number is four--members of the minority party, Democrats, voting for this bill as well.
The attempt has been made to--as it takes 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation on the Senate floor by our rules--the attempt has been made to make certain that this is a bill that has bipartisan support, and it does.
This legislation is important to the country for a number of reasons, but I would highlight a few.
The Department of Justice in particular is where law enforcement--our battle against fentanyl, for example, our battle against crime that is rampant in many cities across the country,
This bill funds law enforcement at the Federal level and continues to encourage and provide resources for law enforcement--police departments in our local communities, sheriffs' departments in our local counties-- for their efforts to work together with the Federal Agencies--the DEA, the FBI. That is the way we fight crime and have success in this country, is State, local, and Federal law enforcement working together.
This bill also funds the efforts at the Department of Commerce, particularly in this case related to trade, as President Trump is negotiating with various countries for resolution of tariff issues. The Department of Commerce--and we know that Secretary Lutnick has been engaged in those negotiations--the Department of Commerce houses the Agencies that are responsible for trade policy and trade legislation in this country, including the actual trade Ambassador who negotiates trade agreements on an ongoing basis.
So this bill funds the Department of Commerce in a number of ways, but I highlight for my colleagues the importance of trade, learning just this morning--yesterday--that the United States--President Trump-- and Japan have come together in an agreement with regard to tariffs.
It also invests in science. It helps us meet our mission to get to the Moon, the Artemis Program. We have a goal of making certain the United States of America is on the Moon before the Chinese--returns to the Moon before the Chinese. This legislation funds NASA in a way to continue the efforts to support the Artemis Program and then reach further, as the President has indicated his desire to see the United States travel to Mars and explore further regions of outer space.
I highlight and offer my concerns and condolences to my colleagues from Texas in particular but across the country who have had weather- related circumstances that have caused tragedy across our Nation.
This Commerce-Justice-Science bill, in the science category, funds NOAA. We are making certain they have the resources to make certain we preserve and save life.
This all was done in a way that was designed to make certain that we met our responsibilities to the American taxpayer and that we were fiscally responsible.
Overall, with regard to the budget authority--the ability to obligate funds from the General Fund to the Treasury--what most Americans would consider to be Federal spending--because of offsetting credits and fee collections and rescissions--and we removed those. If they were there, we would have been able to spend at higher levels. But because we rescinded those opportunities, the decline in--let me say it differently.
Accordingly, as a result of those things being the case, the real increase in spending power at the Commerce-Justice-Science-funded Agencies is only a $270 million increase--or 0.037 percent--above the fiscal year 2025 levels. Almost all of the increase went to the census. Commerce-Justice-Science is responsible--the Department of Commerce is responsible for the decennial census, and we have begun our process of gearing up for the next census to take place, so we had to appropriate money for the census.
In addition to that, we found savings--reduced spending--by reducing bureaucratic and workforce funding at both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice.
My point is that within the allocation that we were provided by the full committee--by the chairman and vice chairman of the committee-- Commerce-Justice-Science is within its funding levels, of course, that they allowed us. While we prioritized the things we thought were most important, we also did so in a way that the increase in spending is less than 1 percent and certainly way less than last year and certainly less than the rate of inflation.
I know that the 11 o'clock hour has come. I am pleased to have conversations with my colleagues about moving this bill forward.
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
Mr. President, in the United States, we justly pride ourselves on being a nation of laws. This is one of the things that makes our country different from the rest of the world. Economists have written about the fact that, while there are many entrepreneurial or innovation societies and economies, it is the rule of law, the predictability, the enforcement of contracts, and the fundamental guarantees of rights that make us successful where other countries fail.
Unfortunately, we have seen the undermining of the rule of law, in the last 4 years, by President Biden's refusal to simply enforce our immigration laws. And my prediction is we will be paying the price not just in weeks and months but in years and decades for what has come to be known as the ``Biden border disaster.''
President Biden's policies betrayed the American people because of the lack of leadership in the face of a historic crisis--here, again, of his own making--at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Yesterday, I chaired a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary hearing entitled ``Biden's Border Betrayal: Criminal Aliens in America.'' At that hearing, we examined some of the false narratives that the mainstream media have peddled about President Trump's enforcement of our immigration laws.
We were honored to be joined by two Angel moms whose children were murdered by criminal aliens who never should have been in the United States in the first place.
Marie Vega joined us. Marie is the mother of Javier Vega, Jr., who went by the name ``Harvey.'' Harvey was a Border Patrol agent who was murdered by illegal aliens nearly 11 years ago. I am grateful to her for sharing her story, as painful as I know it must have been for her, and talking about the trauma that she, her grandchildren, and her entire family have experienced over her son's murder.
Our second guest was Tammy Nobles. Tammy was the mother of Kayla Hamilton, who was murdered by an illegal alien who was also a member of the MS-13 gang--one of the most violent gangs in the world. Kayla's murderer entered our country as an unaccompanied minor and was later released into the custody of an unvetted sponsor.
Mrs. Nobles' passion for ensuring this horrific tragedy won't happen again to more families was evident throughout the hearing. I am grateful to her, again, for sharing what had to be a very painful experience but one she did in honor of her daughter's memory.
Our third guest was Victor Avila, a former ICE Homeland Security Investigations agent who, along with his partner, was shot in the line of duty by Los Zetas. Los Zetas is a cartel operating in Mexico and in the United States occasionally.
Victor was seriously wounded that day, and his partner was killed. I have known Victor a long time, and he is a steadfast advocate of the rule of law and understands what is required if we are going to keep Americans safe.
These families and victims would never have had to suffer such devastating loss were it not for the criminal aliens who never should have been here in the United States in the first place.
It was a curious matter to me that our Democratic colleagues claim to be the party of compassion when it comes to immigration, but they would rather society and the media and Congress turn a blind eye to these victims of criminals who entered the country as a result of open border policies. That is not compassion. Some of the individuals ICE-- Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is what the initials stand for, of course--some of the individuals ICE has apprehended recently include murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and sex traffickers.
Our fourth guest was Sheriff Roy Boyd of Goliad, TX, a small, South Texas county. He described the horrifying details of human trafficking and criminal activities carried out by the transnational criminal organizations--this is organized crime--the cartels he has witnessed in recent years. He said during his testimony:
It is truly shocking to think about the sheer number of illegal criminal aliens who are currently roaming free in the United States.
Now, you would think, listening to some of my Democratic colleagues, that ICE is arresting gardeners, cooks, housekeepers--people who are basically just trying to earn a living. But the truth is, there are 291,000--291,000--criminal aliens in the United States who are under final orders of removal. That means they have exhausted all potential legal remedies to be able to stay here, and they have been found not qualified to stay, and they have been ordered removed, but they simply ignored that order by a court.
For this fiscal year alone, 213,000 criminal aliens with final orders of removal have criminal convictions, while another 78,000 have pending criminal charges against them. Even more disturbing is the fact that 282,000 of these criminal aliens are still roaming free, not being held in ICE custody.
I know Tom Homan, who is the border czar who is heading up these efforts, is working to chip away at this list of criminal aliens who are still present in the United States who are under final orders of deportation. But, again, to listen to the news or listen to some of the political rhetoric, you would think, again, that Tom Homan and ICE are detaining gardeners and cooks and housekeepers, when 282,000 of these criminal aliens with final orders of deportation are still roaming free.
Most aliens with final orders of removal have been in the immigration system for almost a decade. They have been litigating their claims in immigration courts, some for almost a decade, and many, if not all, were given the opportunity to have their day in court. Many of them just neglected to show up. They were given a notice to appear in an immigration court and if they had a bona fide claim to asylum, to present that to an immigration judge. But many of these individuals simply did not show up, forfeiting any right they had to claim they could legally stay in the United States. But all of this doesn't stop our colleagues from across the aisle from claiming that illegal aliens detained by ICE are not being given ``due process.''
We are blessed to live in America, no doubt, and I think sometimes we take for granted all the privileges we are afforded and all the rights we have as citizens. So it is worth asking the question: What sort of process are these illegal aliens actually due?
While the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to all individuals in the United
The idea that someone could break our laws, enter our country illegally, and then be entitled to all the rights and privileges of an American citizen is awfully far-fetched, and it is not the law. Let me be clear about what the law actually says: Aliens who already have final orders of deportation, who are being detained for the purpose of removal, have already had their due process.
I would encourage my colleagues on the left to reflect on this before continuing to use the buzzwords ``due process'' to mislead the American people as they discuss cases that appear sympathetic but where the process these aliens were entitled to has simply been exhausted, and they lost or they refused to show up in the first place.
The American people know what Democrats fail to admit: Deterrence-- deterrence--is a critical part of immigration enforcement and preventing the flow of aliens into the United States in the first place. In other words, if you know that it is likely that if you pay a coyote or a human smuggler $10,000 to smuggle you into the United States but you are unlikely to be able to stay, then you are probably not going to make the decision to make that dangerous trip in the hands of a criminal organization to come to the United States. That is part of what we talk about when we are discussing deterrence--the likelihood you would be unsuccessful, so you don't try in the first place.
I have been impressed by the way the State of Florida has stepped up to the plate by helping the administration open a detention facility known in the press as Alligator Alcatraz--well, whatever is necessary to provide detention facilities for people who have no legal right to remain in the United States because they have exhausted all of their legal remedies.
We have just provided significant additional resources in the One Big Beautiful Bill to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to build those detention facilities like the one in Florida, as needed, in order to detain people before they are repatriated or removed from the United States.
I am hopeful other States will step up in a similar way, and I am strongly supportive of creating those necessary detention facilities in places like Texas.
The American people voted overwhelmingly on November 5 for a President who promised to enforce our immigration laws, so it is only right that our States would work together with the Federal Government to facilitate the enforcement of those laws, that the American people voted for. I know they are thankful to President Trump for keeping his promises, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and Governor Abbott to ensure that this work continues in my home State of Texas. Together, we are making our communities safer.
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. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Matthew Lohmeier to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.
The Under Secretary is the second highest ranking official in the Air Force. This position is responsible for running the day-to-day operations of the Department and assisting the Secretary in leading the largest fleet of aircraft and space assets in the world. Most importantly, they are responsible for managing the hundreds of thousands of men and women who make up the Air Force and the Space Force.
I have deep concerns about Mr. Lohmeier's fitness to represent these men and women. While I appreciate his past military service, his record of troubling conduct in uniform, extreme partisanship, and animosity toward military members with whom he disagrees politically is, in my view, completely disqualifying to be Under Secretary.
His record of alarming behavior and statements is well-documented. In 2021, while serving as an Active-Duty Space Force officer in command of a large formation, he self-published a book titled: ``Irresistible Revolution: Marxism's Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.'' The book argued that Marxism is rampant within the ranks and leading to the collapse of our military and our society.
As he wrote:
While still on Active Duty and command, he went on a far-right podcast which was known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories to advertise his book. All this was done without the knowledge or approval of the Department of Defense. Mr. Lohmeier was immediately relieved of command when his book and podcast were discovered.
After leaving the Space Force, he has continued to write and speak about his extreme beliefs. Among his controversial statements, Mr. Lohmeier called the January 6 attack a government-led ``false flag and hoax at the Capitol.''
I would ask all of my colleagues who were there that day and who were in danger if it were a hoax and a false flag operation. I think, honestly, they would admit, no, it was an attack on the constitutional responsibilities of Congress to certify the election of the President of the United States. In that hoax, police officers were injured and killed, and many, many of us were terribly concerned about our safety and the safety of our staffs.
So, if you believe it was a hoax, then you agree with Mr. Lohmeier. If you think it was and is an attack on our Constitution and on ourselves, this is not the gentleman to be the Under Secretary of the U.S. Air Force.
He has appeared on dozens of podcasts and has made hundreds of social media posts about his distrust of American servicemembers, as he wrote in his book:
That is an interesting comparison--equating American soldiers with the members of the People's Liberation Army.
He went on to say:
U.S. Army, PLA--
Now, that is absolutely absurd. I don't think anyone in the United States or in the U.S. military will believe that our military will be transformed into a Marxist fighting organization equivalent to the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Yet that is what he is talking about, and I have read a great deal of his writing.
I had the opportunity and the privilege not only to attend West Point but to teach at West Point. I would question his understanding of Marxism and his understanding, frankly, of the character of the American soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and guardian. It is profoundly not only deficient but insulting.
Let me make one point clear: I am concerned that he has a deeply misguided and biased opinion of American military servicemembers and their leaders. If confirmed, he would lead an organization that, like this country, represents a spectrum of individuals--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--of all races and creeds and sexualities. Yet his language suggests that he regards many of these men and women as adversaries to be rooted out and purged from the force. I am very skeptical that servicemembers and civilians who do not share his political opinions can trust that they will not be targeted under Mr. Lohmeier's tenure. This could be a revenge tour in the Department of the Air Force--to get even with those he feels did not treat him fairly. That is not the type of individual you want in the position of Under Secretary of the Air Force.
During his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee,
Ultimately, the Under Secretary of the Air Force is a position that demands wisdom, composure, and character. Our military personnel and, indeed, the American people deserve nothing less. I do not believe that Mr. Lohmeier is qualified for this position, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the nominee.
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. President, as the Senate turns now to debate the bipartisan appropriations bill to resource military construction and the VA that Senator Boozman and I have assembled, along with all of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I would like to highlight what is included in this legislation.
This bill represents bipartisan support for our military servicemembers and veterans and their families. It enhances our military readiness and the quality of life for servicemembers while funding the delivery of care and benefits for our Nation's veterans.
Military construction funds are included for infrastructure that supports our servicemembers' quality of life at home and abroad and for the construction of facilities vital to our national security.
In the State of Georgia, for example, this bill includes resources to build a brandnew elementary school at Fort Benning, where there is currently a wait-list of more than 200 families trying to get into school on the base; resources to construct a new barracks at Fort Stewart, where housing has desperately needed upgrades following alarming reports of mold and pest infestation; resources to bring the F-35A flight simulators to Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta and accelerate the arrival of those aircraft to South Georgia; resources to replace the control tower at Robins Air Force Base, where our servicemembers are currently working in a tower with a leaking roof, no air-conditioning, and a broken elevator; resources for major upgrades at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, where they are continuing to prepare for the arrival of Columbia-class submarines.
Across the country, family housing for servicemembers operated by private companies has long been a disaster, as evidenced by my investigation of conditions for families living on post at Fort Gordon.
That is why this bill rejects the administration's proposed cuts to oversight of privatized family housing and provides additional resources for construction of new family housing. These are young men and women, as you well know through your service, Mr. President--many of them 19, 21, 23 years old--who signed up to serve not for money or for glory but out of their love for our country. Their entire families make sacrifices on behalf of our Nation, and they should not have to sacrifice safe, clean housing, and high-quality schools.
For years, the Department has neglected quality of life, health, and safety for enlisted servicemembers, and that neglect extends to those servicemembers' families. But this bill provides necessary and overdue investments in military quality of life.
Now to the VA. Let's be clear that these programs, services, and benefits are not a giveaway; they are the Nation's obligation to those who have put their lives and health on the line and made tremendous sacrifices and family sacrifices in defense of the United States.
For the VA, this bill provides resources to support healthcare for more than 9.2 million veterans and disability benefits to nearly 7 million veterans, survivors, and their families.
Instead of continuing senseless mass firings of VA personnel, this bill provides funding so that the VA can recruit and hire to fill long- term clinical vacancies that are contributing to long wait times for care in Georgia and across the country.
Asserting our constitutional power of the purse, this bill mandates specific funding levels for rural health, women's health, caregivers, research, and veteran homelessness prevention programs, in some cases, including required spending levels for those programs for the first time in legislative history.
It also provides funding for the VA to address the claims backlog related to toxic exposures and the implementation of the PACT Act, to continue providing education benefits to veterans, and to help secure VA home loans. All of these critical resources will better ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the care and benefits they have earned through their service.
This bill also provides necessary funding for the American Battle Monuments Commission, the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, and the Armed Forces Retirement Homes, as well as Arlington National Cemetery.
As ranking member of the subcommittee, I was pleased to work closely with Chairman Boozman to build a strong bipartisan bill that reflects input from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not just on the Appropriations Committee but across the entire Senate. And I thank Senator Boozman for his collaboration and for his bipartisan work in good faith, and I extend that gratitude to Senators Collins and Murray.
Every Senator, in both parties, has had the opportunity to advocate for their State's interests and priorities, and Chairman Boozman and I have worked together to address, to the best of our ability, every Senator's needs and concerns.
Now, this bill earned bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee because it equips the VA to make good on America's sacred promise that our servicemembers and veterans will have the resources and support they have earned through their service to our country. I encourage colleagues to come and speak with me directly about any questions or concerns with this legislation so that we can set up votes and get this bill passed in the Senate as swiftly as possible and ultimately enacted into law.
This is a bipartisan bill that was built through thoughtful deliberation, hard work, and compromise. That is how the appropriations process should work, not on the basis of party line but in the spirit of bipartisan collaboration and the national interest.
So let's deliver for the American people, the people of Georgia, our servicemembers, military families, and veterans, with the resources they need, on time, responsibly, and on a bipartisan basis.
I urge a ``yes'' vote to proceed to the bill.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, today I rise to announce a resolution commending and congratulating the Florida Panthers on winning the 2025 Stanley Cup Final.
Last month, our State--the great State of Florida--along with loyal fans nationwide, came together to cheer on the Florida Panthers as they fought hard to secure a victory and bring home the cup to Florida.
And they cemented their place as back-to-back champions. This incredible effort marks the second cup won
The whole Panthers' roster obviously contributed to this win, but we wanted to thank the staff and the coaches and all of those who supported the team on and off the ice. This success could not have been achieved without everybody who contributed.
We watched that team compete with resilience and grit to keep the Stanley Cup where it belongs, which is, of course, in the great free State of Florida. Our entire South Florida community celebrates with the entire State, who all kept faith in this team. Everyone's encouragement throughout the season ensured our Panthers were ready to bring home the championship when the time came. The win was well deserved, and it was a great end to an amazing year.
So with that, I thank the Presiding Officer for accommodating my request to pass a resolution on behalf of the Florida Panthers.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 333, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 333) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Collins and Murray, as well as my Democratic counterpart on the MILCON-VA Subcommittee Senator Ossoff in presenting the fiscal year 2026 and 2027 for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Military Construction.
It is important to remember that we followed tradition in crafting the bill in a very open and a very bipartisan way. So it is built on a strong foundation and deserves the support of our colleagues.
This bill takes into consideration the needs of our veterans, their families, and our servicemembers. And within that framework, we have created a thoughtful path--a path forward for both Departments and their related Agencies.
This bill provides $153.5 billion of discretionary spending. Of that amount, the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided $133.3 billion in discretionary funding. When combined with the $49.8 billion from the Toxic Exposures Fund, veterans' medical care will be funded at a total of $163.6 billion in fiscal year 2026.
Our bill funds priority accounts to prevent veteran suicide as well as increase rural access to healthcare through significant investments for the Office of Rural Health.
Additionally, we allocated approximately $23 billion to support critical mental health issues and programs to prevent veterans' homelessness and provide funding for innovative medical research.
The bill also funds mandatory veterans' benefits, which are earned benefits that include disability pensions, employment training programs, and educational benefits.
We also make advanced appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for certain accounts, including $122.3 billion for veterans' medical care and $262.1 billion for mandatory veterans' benefits.
In addition, we are delivering $19.8 billion to support military construction and family housing units, which are important to both readiness and morale. Our bill will give the Department of Defense the resources it needs to project power globally, enhance our warfighting capabilities, and train our forces.
Importantly, we provide $1.9 billion to improve housing and quality of life for servicemembers and their families.
I also want to note that the bill includes robust funding for related Agencies, which include the American Battle Monuments Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Arlington National Cemetery, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Funding at these priorities at these levels represents solid bipartisan work to provide the resources necessary for our veterans, their families, and the servicemembers defending our Nation, which was evident with the passage of the measure in the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 26 to 3.
I want to again thank Senator Ossoff as well as Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray for their hard work and collaboration. And also a special thanks to our staff who worked so, so very hard to put the bill together.
Mr. President, America is a great nation. Just look at the record. When it comes to the discovery of new drugs and pharmaceuticals, we lead the world. But we also pay the highest prices in the world for the prescription drugs. The very same drugs made in the United States is for sale in Canada at a fraction of the cost. The same thing is true in Europe.
What is going on here?
Our country is producing drugs, paying more for them than other customers around the world--the problem is so glaring that even President Trump has identified fixing this issue as a priority. Bipartisan feeling--change it, reduce the price of drugs.
Why is the United States such an outlier? One of the major reasons-- if you watch television, you see it every single day. The United States is one of only two industrialized countries in the world that allows people to advertise drugs on television.
This is a trivia quiz. What is the other country? New Zealand. Two countries in the world that allow advertising of prescription drugs on television--you know, the ads with the catchy jingles, flashy images of patients rock climbing, golfing, dancing, parading.
Big Pharma spends $6 billion a year to flood the airwaves with ads for the latest wonder drug--$6 billion.
Why? Why would they spend all this money to advertise drugs and say, Talk it over with your doctor? They spend such astronomical sums to promote their drugs because it increases their profit margins.
Big Pharma thinks if they hit you hard enough and often enough with ads on television, not only will you be able to pronounce but spell Xarelto, but you will also tell your doctor: That is my favorite blood thinner. I have seen that ad over and over again.
Don't take my word for it.
The American Medical Association said:
When President Biden announced 15 drugs that Medicare would negotiate for discounts, most Americans knew the names, maybe even knew the jingle: Ozempic, Trelegy, Ibrance, Otezla.
Sound familiar?
Pharma spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year so you are supposed to ``ask your doctor'' about these drugs.
The result, Medicare spent $22 billion last year alone on these four heavily advertised medications--$22 billion. With these advertisements, Big Pharma is betting they can squeeze every penny out of you and our healthcare system.
Just last week, I released a report about the new telehealth advertising scheme launched by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. With online promotions and new websites, Pharma is urging patients to ``click here'' if you want to speak with a doctor. But those telehealth doctors
Pharma is funneling patients to their chosen healthcare providers to influence prescriptions for costly drugs. This raises concerns about conflicts of interest and inappropriate prescribing of drugs. All of this is a result of Pharma's rampant advertising spree.
Since 2017, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to crack down on this TV advertising. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley--now on the floor to join me--has been my partner in this effort. When you turn on the evening news, one-third--one out of every three--commercials you see are for drugs from prescription drug companies. It is the same when you stream your favorite show or scroll on social media.
Americans see an average nine pharmaceutical ads every single day. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information--often at rapid machine gun pace--but kept in the dark about one crucial fact that is essential to this conversation: The drug companies want to tell you everything, including the warnings as fast as they say them, but they don't want you to know one thing. They don't want you to know the price.
Because of outrageous drug prices, millions of Americans are faced to ration doses, skip refills, making cost of transparency absolutely essential.
I want to put an ad up here, which some of you may recognize.
In 2023, Illinois company AbbVie spent $350 million on TV ads for Rinvoq, an eczema and arthritis drug. Nowhere in the commercial do they tell you the cost as publicized and released by the drug company-- $6,100 a month for this drug.
A lot of good news, if you are going to go out canoeing and white water rafting, but they won't tell you it is $6,100 for Rinvoq.
It is time to end Big Pharma's secrecy. If they are going to advertise a drug, they need to also declare to the American public how much it costs.
It is basic. No gimmicks, no tricks, just the truth by advertising the very same drug that the drug companies publish at the fictional price.
Our commonsense plan to require price disclosures in direct-to- consumer drug ads has already passed the Senate one time before. Senator Grassley and I worked together in 2018, because we knew that 88 percent of the American people support what we are doing--disclosure of price and reduction of the cost of drugs to consumers.
In fact, because of our work, President Donald Trump made a statement.
The President said--
That is what the President said on May 8, 2019.
Vice President Vance previously cosponsored the measure Senator Grassley and I support, while Health Secretary Kennedy has railed against drug advertising and suggested our price disclosure policy has his support too. So this is a bipartisan undertaking.
Big Pharma hates being honest with patients about the price of drugs; they fear it is going to cut into their profits. Patients in America, American citizens and others, deserve lower drug prices.
The Trump administration has called on Congress to rein in these deceptive drug advertisements, but Big Pharma is looking for one Senator--if they can just get one Senator to come down here on the floor and object to the passage of this commonsense bill. I hope we can pass it right now to deliver real relief at the pharmacy counter.
I am now going to yield to my partner in this effort, Senator Grassley, before I make a motion.
I want to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership in this area the two or three times we have attempted to do this. One time, I think we were successful, but it is still not law.
I would like to put this in the simplest form I can by saying that watching television all the time, prices are showing up all the time for this product or that product. I don't know how many times I see that something costs $9.99 or $19.99 or that the price of an automobile is $26,000. But when it comes to prescription drugs, presumably there is something very sensitive about this that they don't want to tell us what it is going to cost. Of course that irritates me, but most importantly, it is not fair to the consumer.
Today, we have a President, we have a Vice President, and we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services all on record supporting this commonsense measure to require prescription drug ads to list the price of a drug. In fact, I discussed this with the HHS Secretary prior to his confirmation, and he told me he thought it could be done by regulation. It is my understanding they are studying doing it by regulation, and I would say hurry up and get it done because whether it is done by law or whether it is done by regulation, this is something that should be done.
I want to say that I think my colleagues know that lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of mine--no more than it is Senator Durbin's. Without their prescription medication, millions of Americans would not survive.
As a nation, we are blessed to live in a country where investment and innovation unlock cures and treatments--some of them we even refer to as miracle cures. But the escalating prices of prescription drugs are a consuming concern for millions of Americans, including in my State of Iowa, where they bring up this very subject regularly at my county meetings.
There are many reasons for the high cost of prescription drugs. It could be the lack of competition and abusive practices. It could be opaque and powerful drug middlemen that we call pharmacy benefit managers and a lack of transparency on prices.
By the way, I just mentioned PBMs. There are at least 65 to 70 Senators that are cosponsors of 1 or more bills--at least 3 bills that exist out of 3 different committees--that want more transparency with PBMs, and somehow, we ought to be able to get that up. Hopefully, we will be successful before this year is out.
So I am working in all three of these areas I just told you about to advance bipartisan solutions. When voluntarily choosing to promote medications over the airways, manufacturers are already required to disclose safety and side effects. Yet, for many patients, price plays a primary role in clinical adherence.
There is a lot of value in knowing a prescription drug's list price. This is the most accessible and standardized price of a drug, which is set by the manufacturer itself.
Despite efforts by Big Pharma to stop our bill, I am confident that the American consumer will continue to demand the kind of price transparency that they deserve. President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Secretary Kennedy will also continue to fight with us.
If critics have solutions to make our bill better, come to the table, present your ideas, and work with us.
Also, I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. He is a friend. He may be against this bill today, but he is very much an advocate for PBM reforms.
I thank you, Senator, for doing that.
The Finance Committee, along with several other committees in the Senate, has a bipartisan PBM reform ready to pass the Senate.
The President made it clear that he wants to see PBM transparency and accountability, and we must tackle the cost of prescription drugs through more competition, PBM reform, and, of course, through the sunshine on drug prices that Senator Durbin and I are proposing.
Take a look at the agenda of the U.S. Senate. Tell me an issue that 88 percent of the American people agree with. Tell me an issue where you have bipartisan sponsorship: Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; I am ranking member of that committee--a Republican, a Democrat supporting it. Tell me an issue where you have President Trump supporting our position and a Democratic Senator like myself on the floor espousing the same position as the President of the United States. Tell me an issue that is more timely than the affordability of prescription drugs. I can't think of another issue that fits that mold.
I want to make a motion. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 229 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Reserving the right to object, I am the chairman of the Finance Committee, the committee they are trying to pull this bill out of. The fact is that I completely agree with the objective of my colleagues on the floor today that we need to get transparency in the prescription drug pricing system.
Americans deserve a transparent, affordable, and accessible prescription drug market. Far too often, the current system fails to meet those needs. It is not only, though, because we haven't got ads on TV saying the list price of the drug--I don't have an opposition to just doing something like that--but it is much more complex. Vertically integrated health plans, pharmacy benefit managers, and other intermediaries suppress competition, pocket valuable drug discounts, and increase prices for consumers--all unrelated to the list price of the drug.
Last Congress, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, advanced a number of our bipartisan proposals to reform our broken prescription drug supply chain. Senator Grassley has just referenced those proposals, and he is a strong ally and advocate of those. These policies would ensure that patients, not middlemen, benefit from the negotiated price of drugs--not the price you see if you just look at the list price, the negotiated price of the drugs. With bipartisan support and cooperation, we can pass that package by the end of this year, but we need bipartisan support to move forward and do it.
While well-intended, the proposal before us today risks confusing patients further by requiring disclosure of list prices in advertisements that no consumer should pay--none. A drug's list price includes none of the discounts, rebates, or other price concessions found in net prices, which continue to decline even as other prices grow.
Rather than broadcast and validate a list price, Congress should ensure that patients can share in the savings reflected in the net pricing points, enabling both increased transparency and reduced out- of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter.
What I am saying is that this is complex, and we are working and have a working solution. I stand ready to work with the administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on an effective method to increase transparency and access to relevant information that patients need to make important choices about their own health but not to pull a bill out of our committee when we are already working in committee to get the right and most effective solution put into place.
For those reasons, I object to my colleague's request.
The Senator from Idaho is my friend. We have worked together in the past; I am sure we will in the future. But I want to tell you something. He professes deep concern about whether senior citizens are going to get confused if we tell them the actual price given by the drug company itself. He thinks it is too confusing for them to understand that that price means anything at all.
Do you know who disagrees with him? The AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons. They represent American seniors, and they endorse the Grassley-Durbin bill. They believe that seniors can understand completely how much the cost of the drug is even if it can be discounted under the insurance coverage of your policy as well.
The list price is the proper method of disclosure because the drug companies create the list price. We are not imposing a price on them; it is a price they have to publish. It is an objective, factual figure. Many patients do indeed pay this price when they don't have copays.
Let me say a word about what it means in the real world. In 2022, 19,000 seniors in the State of Idaho paid an average of $570 out of pocket on a drug known as Eliquis--a pretty well-known drug. Another 6,000 seniors in Idaho paid on average $607 out of pocket for Xarelto-- the one that is impossible to explain. Both of these blood thinners are among the most heavily advertised medications.
We are talking about a dose of transparency in the State of Idaho and every other State so that 25,000 seniors in Idaho can save money by knowing up front what costs they may face and make informed treatment choices.
Why are we afraid to ask the drug companies to disclose a price they publish in private--at least to some sources--and not tell the American consumer? If they had to do that, we think the American consumer would think twice about falling for these ads.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, today, I will be voting to move ahead with the first spending bill for fiscal year 2026.
Now, there is no doubt that the path forward on appropriations this year has been made extremely challenging by President Trump's flagrant lack of regard for Congress and our laws, and it has not been made any easier by the unprecedented partisan rescissions package that Republicans passed last week. But we cannot afford another slush fund, full-year CR, and we cannot accept the draconian cuts being pushed by Trump and House Republicans. So we do need to chart a different path forward and pass full-year, bipartisan spending bills that invest in folks back home and make sure Congress and our constituents have a say in Federal spending. The way, of course, to ensure that happens is through a bipartisan appropriations process.
So I am very glad that, thanks to the senior Senator from Georgia, working across the aisle with his partner, the senior Senator from Arkansas, we were able to negotiate and report out of committee a good bill to fund our military construction needs and the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2026.
As the daughter of a World War II veteran, the programs we fund in the MILCON-VA bill are very personal to me. Doing right by our vets and getting them the care they need and the support they were promised is a moral obligation, which is why I am pleased to say the MILCON-VA bill we are voting on delivers the funding needed to live up to our Nation's commitments to our veterans and makes crucial investments to support our servicemembers and our national security.
The bill includes essential funds for VA care, including rural health, women's health, medical research, and the caregivers program I have long championed, and for the first time, it puts funding levels for those important programs in statute. It also expands the pilot I started to make sure that childcare is not a barrier to any veteran who needs care and increases funding to address veteran homelessness and mental health needs.
When it comes to supporting our servicemembers and their families, there are investments for nearly 300 construction projects, including new family housing construction and child development centers.
There are also investments to bolster our footprint in the Pacific and support our NATO projects. These are incredibly important to our soldiers, to our veterans, and to our national security.
No doubt there is more I would like to see done in this bill. It is not, of course, the bill I would have written on my own. But I do hope Republicans will work with us now to consider critical amendments to improve the bill and make sure the administration actually delivers for veterans, something I think it has certainly failed to do on many fronts over the last few months.
There is also some discussion of adding two other funding bills that we have negotiated and reported out of committee to make this a minibus package. These are solid, compromised bills that reject the truly draconian cuts proposed by President Trump and
Now, for that to happen, I hope Republicans will work with us to ensure, once again, that there is an opportunity to debate and amend all three bills.
So I am a ``yes'' vote on moving forward today with debate of the MILCON-VA bill, and I hope we can keep this process moving because passing our appropriations bills is the best way we can make sure Federal spending reflects the needs we are hearing about in our States and actually solves problems for people at home.
No one wants a shutdown, and the way we avoid that shutdown is by working together. That is not a secret, not a surprise; it is a reality we all know. As the majority leader noted recently, the math tells us that it takes 60. It takes bipartisan cooperation. Unfortunately, Republicans have been chipping away at that cooperation, especially with the rescissions vote last week.
But, to be clear, if Republicans continue cutting bipartisan deals with more rescissions, that is not cooperation. If Republicans try and jam through another slush-fund CR, that is not cooperation.
So for anyone considering the partisan route, you cannot write a bill without talking to Democrats and then act surprised when Democrats don't support it. You want our votes; you work with us. And this bill today that we are considering shows that is possible. So I want to applaud the bipartisan work of the senior Senators from Georgia and Arkansas to get us to this point, and I hope all of our colleagues can take that lesson to heart as we move forward with consideration of this bill and our work on bipartisan bills to fund the government and avoid a shutdown.
Let's stay focused on that instead of embracing Russ Vought's vision for a Congress that is more partisan, less powerful, and less able to make life better for the people we represent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the Bluestone, Szabo, Lohmeier, and Topping nominations; further, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Zachary M. Bluestone, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, 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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) would have voted ``yea.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 47, and the motion is agreed to.
Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a true example of what we at home call the Oregon Way. At a recent open-to-all townhall meeting--I have held more than 1,100 of them--and this one was in Union County, and I was pleased to run into my friend Tim Cook. He is the president of Clackamas Community College, over 250 miles away on the other side of our State from my hometown in Portland.
I was glad to see him, and still my curiosity got the better of me. I had to ask why he was so far from home. Here is Tim's story.
He has been in the process of running to every one of Oregon's 17 community colleges to raise awareness for community college students about how challenging it is for them to meet the basic needs that they have to address as students.
Tim kicked off his ``Running for Oregon Community College Students'' campaign at Treasure Valley Community College in Ontario on the Idaho border. He plans to run 32 miles each day to reach each community college in our State.
He is on track to complete this 1,500 mile--let me repeat that--1,500 mile journey by August 11.
Tim told me he was inspired by so many students that have shared their stories with him about the hardships--particularly the financial hardships--they have endured while attending school.
That includes William Morehead, a Portland Community College student who said he has had virtually no family support, and he had no help as a young adult yearning for an education.
So there he was with zero support, and William decided he could make a better life for himself through training and education. He signed up for welding classes and attended regularly. He did that while living in his car.
Despite these roadblocks, he persevered and graduated with an associate's degree in welding and had a 3.9 GPA. He was nominated to serve as the student commencement speaker at graduation.
Now William is learning AI ethics, and he said recently:
The story I tell about William isn't unique. Many young, promising Americans are not living up to their best potential and not for a lack of trying, but there has really been a lack of support.
When adults lecture young people to ``pull yourself up by your bootstraps,'' they often miss the point that some students were never even provided with the boots. They didn't have the boots to yank themselves up.
Getting any degree is expensive enough, but it is even further out of reach for so many young people when you factor in everything a student needs to succeed beyond tuition--things like transportation, housing, food, books, access to technology, and an array of other necessities.
Many talented and promising students can't fulfill their potential and suffer in a system that lacks the potential to see that and see it and get them the opportunity for them to get ahead.
And now, with deep cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid under the Republicans' disastrous recent budget bill, coupled with high housing costs and rising prices from the Trump tariffs, the safety nets for students who fly solo are being slashed.
Donald Trump and DOGE are even trying to take a sledgehammer to funding for key programs like JobCorps, which help young people get the resources they need to secure a degree and a good-paying job.
So President Tim Cook is running not for office, but he is running for his students. He is pounding the pavement in the summer heat to highlight that when students' basic needs are met, they can focus on their education and create a brighter future for themselves, their families, and their communities.
That is why I am here on the floor today. I want to be part of sending Tim a powerful message that Congress agrees with him and must not leave students behind. The world's next Einstein--and I say this to all my colleagues--may be in your town, scraping together a way to earn an education and make a positive impact on the community and the world.
Let's help light the beacon of opportunity for those students. For America to be great, we have got to make sure that everybody in our country gets a fair shot. So I will close by saying I am gratified by the passion and insight that Tim Cook and other Oregonians are bringing to this cause.
They understand the importance of investing in our kids because that draws a map to a brighter future for all of us. It may not be possible for everybody to run 32 miles a day for nearly 2 months, but as Senators, we can certainly make a difference.
This country needs more commonsense policies that put students first and prepare us all for a brighter tomorrow. That is what Tim Cook is bringing us.
Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support these educators and others for helping students.
Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues--and I know there is this temptation of the upcoming summer break, and folks want to get home to their families, but we have the opportunity and the obligation right now to pass this legislation for the Crime Victims Fund. Are we really going to miss this opportunity and this obligation when, in my State, a quarter of the victims of domestic violence were turned away from services last year?
These are the organizations--the child advocacy centers, the domestic violence agencies, the rape crisis centers--that respond to the needs of the most vulnerable, neglected, and abused people in our States.
We just spent last week defunding Big Bird. We spent an entire week defunding public television and public radio. And you mean to tell me that before we leave for the recess, we can't fund child advocacy centers, domestic violence agencies, and rape crisis centers? It is unacceptable. This has bipartisan support, and we should pass this legislation right now.
Here is what one organization in Georgia said if we fail to pass this bill. They said:
Mr. President, another organization in Georgia said:
Child abuse. Sexual assault. Death.
In the State of Georgia, where hundreds of foster children have been trafficked by sexual predators, these are the organizations that support them and women facing domestic violence.
This is a bipartisan bill led by Senators Durbin and Murkowski. It should have bipartisan support on the Senate floor right now. We should pass it before we leave for the summer.
Mr. President, I rise today to deliver my maiden speech. This is a proud and personal moment for me to represent my home State of Michigan as a junior Senator, alongside Gary Peters, and to follow in the footsteps of legendary Senators like Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin.
This maiden speech has been a longstanding tradition in the Senate. Every junior Member gets to deliver in their freshman year their vision for their States and what they plan to do in their time in office.
Thank you to my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have joined me and to my great staff and my interns, even my niece who came in. If you remember nothing else, I want you to remember two things: First, nothing is more important to me than the State of Michigan. I am a third generation Michigander. For me, Michigan is where it all started. Everything I have done in my life, everywhere I have gone, everything I have done, everyone I have met, it all started in Michigan.
It is where I learned the values that still shape me today: community, putting your head down and working hard, taking care of your neighbors when they are in need.
Nothing matters more than my home State, so this speech is my love letter to the State of Michigan. To stand here and represent the State that I love on the floor of the U.S. Senate is the greatest privilege of my life.
Second, my goal for my time in office is to address what I believe to be the existential threat of our time to my State and to all Americans: the threat of a shrinking middle class.
Now, I am a national security person by training. I am what is called a 9/11 baby. I happened to be in New York City on my second day of graduate school when 9/11 happened.
I was recruited into the CIA right out of grad school, and I served three tours in Iraq, alongside our military, before serving at the Pentagon.
I served proudly under Presidents both Democrat and Republican. I have come face-to-face with some of the greatest threats facing our country, but I believe, in my bones, that the single greatest threat today to our national security is not coming from abroad but coming from the very real threats that come from that shrinking middle class.
So my goal as a Senator is to deliver for Michigan's middle class, to expand it, to secure it. That mission is personal. Michigan is where my family achieved that very American dream. My great-grandfather, at 13 years old, came through Ellis Island not speaking English. He ended up starting a meat company, moved to Michigan, and built an iconic hot dog that Michiganders have enjoyed for 60 years.
Michigan has been the place where hard work means something. It was where the middle class was literally invented, it was where you could work at an auto plant and afford the car that you were building. That was a revolutionary idea at the time; it shouldn't be revolutionary now.
So as a U.S. Senator, my highest priority is to help make Michigan a place where that American dream is achievable again. Today, too many Michiganders are falling out of that middle class; too many families can't get in at all. I lived on my family farm in Holly, MI. Growing up, I was surrounded by families whose path to the middle class ran through Michigan's factories, our farms, our small businesses.
We are people who build things and grow things; people proud of their role in manufacturing America's future, our cars, our tanks, our food; people who, like my great-grandfather, were prepared to work hard for success and often achieved it.
But over the years, I have watched younger generations of those same families live a very different story. Parents can't provide for their kids what was provided to them. That fishing cabin up north that dad had, the son can't have. A trip to Disneyland, can't do it.
Across Michigan, there are so many families who feel like hard work doesn't seem to be enough anymore. No matter what your political views are, it is just a fact that the middle class has shrunk over the last 40 years. And I have seen firsthand what happens next.
When people feel like they can't get ahead, when they can't provide for their kids what was provided for them, they feel anger, they feel shame. They lose their dignity, and they look for something or someone to blame.
In a multiracial, multi-ethnic experiment in democracy, people end up blaming people who don't look like them or speak like them or pray like them. I have seen this up close and personal how that kind of anger and suspicion can tear communities apart.
If you want to understand how we got to this moment in our politics-- this angry, vitriolic, polarized moment in
This is my North Star. It will guide my work in the Senate. OK, so how do we do that? Our government certainly needs to change. I don't think it is hard to understand that our government is not working for a majority of Americans--not just Republicans, Democrats as well. We have to hear that loud and clear.
Fundamentally, I believe that government needs to get back to the basics. No one cares about your trick plays if you don't have your fundamentals right. Government needs to set the conditions for success, and Michiganders and Americans need to work hard to achieve that success.
These basics are jobs that pay you enough to save every month, healthcare you can actually afford, a home you can call your own, schools that prepare our kids for the workforce, energy to power our lives, an environment we can pass on to our kids, and safety and security from fear. That is it.
First, on jobs, we need job creation for Michigan's middle class to create the jobs of the future. Imagine that the middle class is basically a ship at sea. For the better part of 40 years, it has been taking on water, and now we are about to hit a category 5 hurricane in the form of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has the potential to change our economy more than the internet did. Think about that.
Productivity will go up, jobs will be gained, but jobs will also be lost. Maybe not Michigan jobs at first. Entry-level college jobs like paralegals or accountants are probably first on the list, but change is coming, and we need to be ready.
Job creation in the era of artificial intelligence means supporting our small businesses. Small businesses employ half of all Americans. They are intrinsic to the American dream. It is about betting on yourself. And we need to own the fact that it is hard to start and succeed as a small business. We need to make life easier for Michigan's small businesses.
Second, we need to bring critical industries and critical supply chains back home to the United States. Michiganders understand this better than most because of what we do, our manufacturing, no foreign country should ever have a veto on our economic security. We should always make critical items here in the United States, and I want to bring as many of those jobs and industries back to Michigan.
And, finally, let us say it very clearly: We need an immigration system that actually works and is key to our economy. Immigrants are critical for our labor shortages in our factories, in our hospitals, in our firms. More than that, we are a nation of immigrants. I am standing here today because my great-grandfather left fear, persecution, and death at 13 years old and found a place in America.
So we need an immigration plan that brings legal, vetted immigrants into our countries, key to our economy, sometimes more, sometimes less; and we need to have border security that literally makes sense. Without immigrants, there is no America, and without immigrants, our economy will not thrive.
Second, on healthcare, is there anyone in America who thinks healthcare is working? Is there anyone in America who thinks we are paying too little for healthcare? Is there anyone in America who is missing the ground swell of anger because we cannot provide the healthcare we need to our parents and to our children?
Few things are as fundamental. There are just, in my mind, few systems as broken as healthcare in America in 2025. And we all know it.
This is, again, extremely personal to me. It is why I ran for office in the first place. Of all my time spent in war zones, in dangerous places, nothing was harder than my mom being diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer when she did not have insurance.
There is nothing worse than that desperate feeling when your parent, that first parent to get sick, needs emergency tests and emergency surgery, and the same moment that you are fighting to get those things, you are struggling just to fill out the paperwork so she won't go bankrupt.
We are at a breaking point. We must change our healthcare, and this is as good a time as any. Every American deserves access to healthcare they can afford, regardless of your job, regardless of your income or your age. So I support a nationwide public insurance plan at a reasonable price for every American.
Second, we have got to be able to afford the medicines that we are prescribed. Is there anyone who thinks that we are paying too little for our drug prices? We need, in every part of our healthcare system, to be able to negotiate the price of our drugs. It is like Costco; you buy in bulk, you get a lower per unit price, and we are prohibited from doing that across the country.
Why? Because I have never seen an issue in Washington more polluted by lobbyists and corporate PAC donations than this issue. I have never seen an industry with more control over elected leaders than on the issue of healthcare.
Right now, I am one of six Senators who doesn't take corporate PAC money, 6 out of 100. It should be 100 out of 100. The middle class does not have a lobbyist, but they sure have the leaders that they elected.
On housing, there is nothing more foundational to the American dream than having a home of your own. It is as fundamental to us as Americans as apple pie.
Right now, the average age of a first-time homeowner in America is 40 years old, completely different than in generations before us. This is not a good story. Today we could declare, in this body, a housing state of emergency. We need 4 million units of housing built in our country. That is a national strategy, yes, but I want Michigan to be ground zero for responding to the urgency of that need.
On education, we need schools that actually prepare our kids for the future. So much of what we were able to do as a middle class was because people could afford the education in front of them. If you wanted to go to college, you could, but in Michigan, if you wanted to work with your hands, succeed, go on, become rich, only if you had a high school diploma, you could do that. There were job options for you.
We need an obsessive focus and reorganization of our job training Federal programs. We have 17 different organizations doing job training. It is broken. We need to focus on trade schools and apprenticeships and an education system that prepares us for what is coming.
On energy, we all know we are using more energy. Every single one of us in this room right now are using more energy than we did 10 years ago. Modern life is demanding it, but supply isn't meeting demand. And Michiganders are seeing that hitting their wallets every single day. If you don't plan now, it is going to get worse, rolling blackouts and brownouts in a decade.
And what I am asking for is not a renewable energy plan or a fossil fuel plan, it is an ``all of the above'' energy plan. Natural gas, you can't do it without it. Nuclear, batteries, renewables, solar, hydropower, new stuff that is in creation right now, we need all of it. And we can't be willing to scrap certain energy because it is woke. Anyone who disagrees with that is just scoring political points and doesn't give a damn about people's electricity bills.
On the environment, I am committed to protecting the environment, especially our water. In Michigan, clean water and the Great Lakes are not partisan, it is our heritage. It is in our blood. No single Michigander lives more than 6 miles away from a lake or 82 miles from a Great Lake.
We all know the sound of water hitting the beach or how the light looks up north. Our water is why people raise their kids in Michigan. And sharing that legacy with our kids is the dream that every Michigander has. We have the responsibility of being the stewards of the Great Lakes.
So when our water is threatened, when our kids are poisoned, when they can't swim in contaminated lakes, it is not just a health issue, it is a security issue: Lead, PFAS, invasive species in our Great Lakes, these are threats to us as Michiganders, and it is my job to fight these threats.
And last, can we just say climate change is upon us? Twenty years ago it
Safety and security, finally. Every Michigander has the right to live free from fear, to feel safe in their own home, and in the country they love. That is what got me into public service in the very beginning right after 9/11. Shootings in our schools and our businesses are a threat to our lives. Our government and our computers, our personal data shouldn't be hacked--neither should our cars or our homes.
And we should get to know and understand always who is coming across our border. We are a border State in Michigan. Every country in the world has a right to know who is coming inside its borders.
So in the Senate, I am going to spend my time protecting American citizens, as I have always done. For that, we need the best military in the world, one that understands the threats that are coming around the corner, not just the threats of the past.
We need to be able to control our own fate. That means not letting our national debt be controlled by countries like China.
And we need to understand that, to make people safe in America, we need a strong leadership role in the world, because the next 100 years are either going to be dominated by the United States of America or by China.
And while we make mistakes every single day, and I will own that--I served in Iraq, and I saw it close up--I will take American leadership over Chinese leadership any day of the week.
So, in conclusion, let me just say that we all know--everyone here knows--that we are going through an extremely tough time in American politics. We know that, when people look back on this period in history, they are going to say: That was the moment that Americans were turned against each other, when neighbors turned against each other.
But it is not the end, and it is not always going to be this way. As Michiganders, we understand how to survive bad times by rallying together, by helping one another, by living up to our Midwestern values, and getting back into the fight.
As elected leaders, and certainly as a Senator, I have a responsibility to chart the path through the dark tunnel and into the light, not by just complaining and whinging that it is all bad but by charting a strategy from beginning to end on how we get through this moment.
And we will. For God's sake, people, the Detroit Lions are going to win the National Championship and the Superbowl, and they were in the toilet for years.
So it is my privilege to stand on behalf of my State here. It is the most important thing I have ever done. It is the most impactful thing I will ever do. It is my job, as that next generation of leader, to change the course of this place and this country, and I commit to you I will not let you down.
Mr. President, when it comes to one of the most basic necessities in life for people--housing--both political parties have failed. Both political parties have failed.
Housing costs more than ever today, with the median home costing five times as much as the median income for your average American. First- time home buyers are fewer and older than ever. One in four renters is being forced to spend more than half of their income on rent, and homelessness is plaguing more people than ever before.
This crisis was not inevitable; it is a problem that the government has created. There is not enough housing in this country because we have made it virtually impossible to build housing. Ask anyone who has tried to build anything--a shed, a patio, an accessory dwelling unit for their in-laws. They will tell you that the moment you try to do something, there are endless procedural hurdles and regulatory barriers that immediately get in the way--exclusionary zoning; minimum lot sizes; height restrictions; requirements for multiple staircases; environmental reviews; dozens of public meetings, where the grouchiest people in your neighborhood can stop the most virtuous project in your neighborhood; extensive permitting paperwork; years-long battles with community organizations and boards. And if you want to expedite your permit, you can pay a permit expediter. If you have 10 grand, they will put your thing on the top of the pile.
Nobody should like this system.
I cannot think of something so essential to American life--housing, whether you rent or you want to own--so essential to American life where the government has created the shortage on purpose, and then it strokes its chin, confused as to why there is a shortage. There is a shortage because of us. There is a shortage because of the government itself making it hard to construct the thing we all say we want.
But the good news is this: If the government got us into this mess in the first place, it can help to get us out. Mainly, that means getting out of our own way and not preventing the very things we say we like.
A lot of progressives in my own party like to say ``We are for housing. We are for clean energy. We are for transit and infrastructure,'' but you can't be for something if you don't want it near you. If you are for housing, you have to see the housing. If you are for clean energy, you are going to see a windmill or wind farm or a nuclear powerplant somewhere.
As we envision a just and sustainable and wealthy country, we have to actually make the things that make us more sustainable and wealthy. There is nothing progressive about preventing a nurse or a firefighter or a teacher or a small business owner from actually living in the community in which they work. There is nothing progressive about making people drive an hour to work or, in Hawaii, forcing people to leave the State.
Lawn sizes and building heights don't make neighborhoods; people do. Yet you will often hear people who oppose new housing say things like: We want to preserve the unique character of the neighborhood.
And this is something that I am embarrassed to say I didn't know until I came to the U.S. Senate. I didn't understand what those words mean and where they came from. They are echoing a dark time in American history of the Jim Crow era. It was a time when communities specifically codified into law language that prohibited Black people and other racial minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods. The racial covenants would literally say:
That is from a covenant in St. Louis from 1949. And there were contracts just like that one in neighborhoods all across the country. Then, racial covenants were outlawed, but their legacy continues today because what happened was the racists, after this was outlawed, figured out a proxy for race. They figured out a way to keep people separated, figured out a way to keep people out of their neighborhoods, figured out a way to make housing more constrained. And that is exclusionary zoning. That is minimum lot sizes. That means you need interior staircases. All of these things that sound virtuous--safety, sanitation, environmental review, historic preservation--all of those things actually matter, but understand that they are being weaponized against the working class. They are being weaponized against the working class.
I am not sure if this is permissible under the rules, but I am looking at a bunch of Senate pages, all 16 years old, trying to figure out: Where am I going to live when I get a job? Do I have to live with my folks and for how long? Am I going to be able to move to a suburb or a city or stay in my hometown? Where am I going to live?
So how do we fix it? First of all, government has a role that is not just getting out of the way. On the financing
But the truth is that the throughput capacity of the system is being constrained by the government itself. We could allocate $3 trillion to affordable housing, and if it is still hard to build a house in an individual neighborhood, all that money would get stuck. Actually, the State of California tried that. They allocated an enormous amount of money to housing, and they didn't get very much built.
The county of Maui, many years ago, said: No new housing unless it is affordable--which kind of lands on the ears in a wonderful way, right? No new housing unless it is affordable. Do you know what happened? There was no new housing at all for a full decade.
So we just have to embrace, on the left--the reason I care about this is because I think it is the single most impactful economic policy that we could implement, to make it easier to build housing for working people, for students, for the disabled, for the elderly, for the entrepreneurs, for cities, for towns, for rural neighborhoods. This is important because I care about that.
Now, if you are a conservative, the basic principle is almost even more simple, which is: It is your damn property. You should be permitted to do what you want with your property within certain safety boundaries and all the rest of it.
But if it is your property and you have a quarter of an acre and you want to build an accessory dwelling unit for your kids because they are adults and they just had a baby, you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want with your property. But we have inverted the presumption so that it is your neighbors that get to decide what you get to do with your property.
So if you are a private property rights person, you should love the idea of deregulating the housing market. If you are a progressive and you see how much people are struggling right now, you should love the idea of deregulating the housing market.
We need to reform land-use laws for upzoning to allow higher density, reducing minimum lot sizes, deploying manufactured homes, enabling single-room occupancy development wherever multifamily housing is allowed. We know all this works because it is working in certain places.
It is hard to keep any issue out of the partisan crossfire. It really is. It is hard to keep anything out of the partisan crossfire. Everyone retreats to their own corner and starts talking past each other and trying to light the algorithm on fire.
Our ability to come together, use common sense, and find a way forward will affect how people live and succeed for generations to come.
Just this week, Senator Banks and I introduced legislation to incentivize local governments to build more housing near federally funded transit projects. Senator Young and I introduced the YIMBY Act, the Yes in My Backyard Act, which encourages localities to cut onerous regulations and adopt pro-housing policies.
We can and we do disagree about almost everything, but on this, we should all be able to agree that in the richest country in the history of the world, people should not have to worry about having a roof over their heads. We can fix this, and we must.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, the Trump corruption of the Environmental Protection Agency continues apace, so I am here today in opposition to the nomination of Aaron Szabo to serve as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation over at EPA.
The Constitution provides the President the power to nominate ministers and officers of the United States and the Senate advice and consent power over his nominees.
I think we probably agree that the Constitution means something, that advice and consent is not a mere rubberstamp. But when a nominee comes before your committee, they should provide straight answers to questions. Well, this nominee dodged our questions and then doubled down with more obfuscation when we gave him a chance to clarify through questions for the record. That alone should be sufficient reason to withhold consent until proper answers are obtained.
This character Szabo is credited by name as a contributor to the EPA chapter of Project 2025, the extremist, rightwing, fossil fuel-funded blueprint for dismantling the Federal Government, which President Trump is now dutifully implementing. Some of the environmental highlights from Project 2025? Weaken the Clean Air Act by reversing the endangerment finding. Purge the Agency and bring to its staff ``trauma.'' In case you aren't keeping score at home, EPA Administrator Zeldin is already hard at work on these.
Szabo was an advisor to the America First Policy Institute--the Trump-aligned think tank funded by fossil fuel and aligned with Big Oil interests. He worked as a lobbyist, pushing the interests of major polluters like members of the American Petroleum Institute. Well, chief on the wish list of his former clients is rescission of the EPA's endangerment finding. That is a 2009 evidence-based determination that greenhouse gases are, in fact, harmful to human welfare and the environment. When that rule was adopted back in 2009, it had actually already been settled scientific fact for decades that greenhouse gases harmed the public and the environment. Now, 16 years later, the evidence has only gotten stronger, and the looming economic dangers of climate collapse have only gotten more evident. The only people who benefit from repealing the endangerment finding are the planet's biggest polluters--Mr. Szabo's former clients.
To me, Mr. Szabo's recent work and professional affiliations should also render him unfit for the role to which he has been nominated. Is this really what we want for the EPA? Is this really how we protect clean air--by helping polluters rule the roost?
It gets worse.
When questioned at his hearing about his ties to Trump's donors' extreme anti-environmental agenda, Szabo provided obfuscatory answers. He acknowledged that he was a contributor to Project 2025, which he could hardly fail to do since his name was on it, but he stated that he kept no records--no records--of his contributions to that effort. He was asked whether he had no records because he never had any or because he had deleted them. He couldn't answer. He bumbled, stumbled, bobbed, weaved, dodged, and, ultimately, refused to answer, although he did concede that some of the advice he had provided was written advice.
Following up with subsequent QFRs on the topic, we got from Mr. Szabo a sudden response, albeit one that does not seem credible, particularly in light of his previous inability to answer the question.
He wrote:
Seriously? Szabo had plenty of time to provide that response during his confirmation hearing, but he never mentioned anything of the sort. His contribution to the anti-environmental portion of Project 2025 is hard to connect with any issues of family, privacy, and security.
To be clear, this is not entirely about whether you approve or disapprove of Project 2025. What is relevant here is the extreme degree of evasiveness in answering or, more exactly, not answering our questions. Senators are constitutionally obligated to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees. So we should demand better than this in the people we confirm to serve in the most senior positions in our government. The current status of ``dodge `em'' in our nomination hearings is a disgrace.
Beyond Mr. Szabo's own questionable qualifications and his deceptiveness and his troublesome testimony, we also cannot ignore the full-on corruption of the EPA on behalf of Trump's polluting
See no evil. Hear no evil.
The Trump corruption train rolls on, and to allow one of the architects of the EPA section of that fossil fuel-funded Project 2025 free rein to dismantle an office that is so central to the Agency's core mission and to the protection of all our constituents will do nothing to help anyone except the interests of the polluters who fund President Trump and, if I may add, the Republican Party.
I will vote no on his nomination, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same for a multiplicity of good reasons.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. President, in November, President Trump and the Republicans really received a very powerful mandate from the American people. They wanted to make certain that our border was going to be secured and that we were going to strengthen the economy, get inflation under control, rein in wasteful government spending, get ourselves back on track, and make America great and prosperous and safe and secure once again.
By passing the One Big Beautiful Bill, we delivered on this mandate by securing the largest tax cut in U.S. history, including reduced taxes on tips and overtime, a $6,000 bonus deduction for seniors, and the permanent extension of President Trump's 2017 tax cuts. It also reduces the burden of the death tax for millions, providing critical relief for family-owned businesses and for so many of our Nation's farms and farmers. It bolsters our Armed Forces with a $150 billion increase in military spending. It provides the largest ever investment in border security so that we can, indeed, complete building the wall and also hire new Border Patrol agents and officers. It strengthens Medicaid by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It restores fiscal sanity by eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars in far-left spending, and the list goes on and on.
These are all enormous wins for Tennesseans, whom I represent, and, indeed, for all Americans, but our work here in this Chamber is far from over.
At the top of the list, we have the need to confirm President Trump's nominees. The President deserves to have his team in place to enact his agenda, but instead of working with us to carry out the will of the American people, our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to obstruct at any cost. Right now, we have 130 pending--pending-- nominations of people who have been through committee. Their paperwork is in, and their questions are answered. All they need is a vote in this Chamber. There is absolutely no reason that we should have this backlog, especially when you look at the importance of these nominations: U.S. ambassadorships to the Vatican, the Netherlands, Chile, Greece, and the European Union; seven Federal judgeships; U.S. attorneys; Under Secretaries for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and the Navy; the Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. That is just a brief, partial list.
Our Democratic friends are trying to slow down the process on these nominees as much as they possibly can. They lost at the ballot box. They have lost in the Halls of Congress. They have tried the courts, and they have lost in the courts. So obstruction and stalling are what they have left as they try to spite the President.
They might think that they are hurting just the Republicans or just the President, but, you know, what they are doing is hurting the people whom they are elected to represent. Every single day that goes by without these nominees being approved and getting to work on the job means those nominees are not able to work on behalf of the American people. Unfortunately, it is the people who suffer because Agencies are not fully staffed and can't make responses. You have individuals who need help with VA benefits or help with an Agency and an item of concern. At this point, they are understaffed.
With the recent disclosures from DNI Gabbard, we are learning even more about how President Obama and the Democrats manufactured the Russia hoax to try to derail President Trump's first term. I bring this up because their obstruction is nothing new. When they run out of different roadways and different avenues and different opportunities, they have got one thing left. As I have said, they have lost at the ballot box, here in Congress, and they have lost in the courts. So now what they do is try to obstruct.
We know from the documents that have been released concerning the Russia hoax that the Democrats were hard at work on this in 2016 and 2017 with President Trump's first term. For months, far-left activist judges undermined our Constitution by blocking lawful orders from the Trump administration in a brazen effort to decide nationwide policy. Their abuse of power only came to an end when the Supreme Court reined in those Federal district judges and said: No, you have no ability, and you have no right to issue nationwide injunctions.
More recently, we have seen Democrats try their best to obstruct a core part of the ``America First'' agenda, and that is securing our southern border. Americans want our border to be secure, and they want criminal illegal aliens removed from their communities. Across the country, ICE and Border Patrol agents have been hard at work in carrying out this mandate and arresting criminals who have absolutely no right to be here in our country.
Well, the Democrats are working to vilify and undermine our brave Federal law enforcement. We have seen congressional Democrats try to storm ICE facilities, including a House Member who faces Federal charges for assaulting a Federal ICE officer. They have smeared ICE agents who risk their lives to protect our country, comparing them to the secret police and Nazis. They push legislation that would prohibit officers from wearing masks, exposing them and their families to targeted harassment.
This is all happening as ICE officers face an 830-percent surge in assaults. That is correct--an 830-percent increase in assaults. Just this month, far-left criminals ambushed officers at an ICE facility in Texas, shooting one officer in the neck. Three days later, a man sent three people to the hospital after firing dozens of rounds at a separate Border Patrol facility in Texas.
These brave officers deserve our total and undivided support, and the American people deserve to have elected Representatives who protect their interests. That is what Republicans are working to do every single day. They are working to protect our Nation's citizens, and nothing--not even this obstruction that continues every single day by the Democrats--is going to stop us.
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.
Madam President, Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. This has been a redline for decades, going back to President Clinton.
The reason is because the results would be catastrophic. It would create an existential threat to our allies and partners in the region, such as Israel. Even worse, it would create a threat to our heroic servicemembers, at a time when Iran and its proxies have already shed blood and have that blood on their hands.
It would trigger a regional arms race, as countries threatened by Iran's persistent malign aggression seek their own nuclear deterrent. And it would lead to an even more assertive and aggressive Iran that would be emboldened
That is why Israel's recent military campaign against Iran, which culminated in successful airstrikes ordered by President Trump on Iran's key nuclear facilities, is so important. Iran is now as weak as it has ever been since the 1980s, probably weaker. The strikes have delayed Iran's path to a nuclear weapon by a few years.
But in order to seize this moment, the United States and our allies must impose maximum pressure to the highest extent possible to force Iran to permanently and verifiably end its nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich uranium. This is why the snapback of U.N. sanctions is so important.
Ten years ago, Iran made commitments under JCPOA, including reducing its enriching of uranium and its uranium stockpile, limiting the enrichment of uranium and its centrifuges, and allowing intrusive monitoring. As a result, the U.N. passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA.
In exchange for Iran's compliance, it provided for the eventual termination of all previous U.N. sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program after 10 years. It also sunset U.N. arms restrictions on Iran after 5 years and U.N. prohibitions on Iran's missile and drone activities after 8 years, both of which have now expired.
However, even before the prohibitions ended, Iran was blatantly violating them, sending suicide drones to Russia and weapons of terror to its proxies, like Hamas and the Houthis. These sanctions should not have been allowed to expire in the first place, especially when the price was destruction of European cities and the lives of American citizens threatened by Iranian weapons.
Under 2231, any signatory to the JCPOA--which includes the UK, France, and Germany--can trigger the snapback of these waived sanctions and restrictions if Iran is in ``significant non-performance of [its] commitments under the JCPOA.'' Not only has Iran blatantly violated these commitments, but it has done so repeatedly for 6 years, all without consequences from the U.N.
On top of that, in June, the IAEA, the world's nuclear watchdog, for the first time in two decades, declared that Iran had failed to comply with its IAEA safeguard obligations.
And how did Iran respond? By threatening Director General Grossi and effectively kicking out the IAEA's remaining inspectors and booting them out of the country.
From breaching the cap on its stockpile of uranium and enriching to 60 percent, to expanding its nuclear facilities, Iran has trampled on its obligations under the JCPOA.
So where does that leave us? The West has 87 days before we lose our ability to snap back tough U.N. sanctions on Iran. That opportunity permanently expires on October 18. But the real deadline is much sooner. The snapback process takes at least 30 days to fully complete.
Adding to the urgency, Russia is set to take over as President of the U.N. Security Council in October. This would allow Russia to use its position to delay the process and run out the clock. Iran knows this. Just yesterday, Iran held talks with Russia and communist China to discuss preventing the activation of the snapback. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Our European allies have said that they are prepared to trigger snapback by the end of August if no firm, tangible, and verifiable nuclear commitments from Iran are in place. This is being done in coordination with the Trump administration, which continues to pursue diplomatic talks with Iran.
I commend our allies for setting a deadline; however, this path is under a timeline that leaves little room for error. Unsurprisingly, the Iranian regime is resorting to its longstanding play book to delay, to delay, to delay and prevent snapback from happening.
Later this week, the Iranians are scheduled to meet with the E3 in Istanbul. There are rumors that discussions could center on under what conditions the E3 would postpone the snapback. But today, I stand to urge our European friends to hold the line and not to bend to Iranian threats or be fooled by Iranian assurances.
After 10 years, Iran does not need more time; it needs more pressure. A window now exists to completely change the trajectory of the Middle East for the better, but that window will close unless we convince Iran that its nuclear weapons program will never be tolerated, period. That is why this resolution urges the E3 to snap back sanctions as soon as possible. We must not let Iran off the hook.
At this point, I would certainly love to hear from my esteemed colleague from Idaho.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Ricketts for those very clear remarks that demonstrate exactly why this needs to be done.
I myself for a long time have hoped to see our European partners wake up to the extreme threat that we all face from a nuclear Iran. Today, we are 10 years on from President Obama's failed nuclear deal with Iran. Over the last 10 years, Iran has enjoyed unwarranted sanctions relief, and time is short before the opportunity expires to snap back sanctions, as has been described by my colleague from Nebraska.
This resolution would make it clear that the U.S. Senate understands the threats we face from a nuclear Iran and urges our UK, French, and German partners to immediately trigger snapback sanctions pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. We cannot afford to wait until the end of August. Initiating the snapback process would be right and a long-overdue move and would deny Iran the resources it uses for its terror agenda.
The 2015 deal flooded Iran with cash while allowing it low-level enrichment, a clock to simply wait out, no limitations on ballistic missiles, and nothing to rein in terror proxies. Years down the line, the sanctions relief Iran received from this deal directly funded Iran's terror proxies and led to Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel.
Iran's ejection of the International Atomic Energy Agency from its facilities marked the latest in a long chain of violations of Iran's nuclear commitments. These actions confirmed what we have known all along: The Iran nuclear program is not civilian, as they claim; it is the pursuit of a bomb to destroy Israel and threaten U.S. national security interests in the region.
The international community must not tolerate this activity any longer. The decision to initiate the snapback process is only the beginning. The U.N. Security Council must fully process and formally reinstate U.N. sanctions without delay. Furthermore, once sanctions are back in place, we must commit to their enforcement. Chinese purchases of Iranian oil and illicit oil smuggling through third countries have long violated existing U.N. sanctions. Once U.N. sanctions return, all member countries will have a duty to crack down on this illegal activity.
President Trump has once again instituted a maximum-pressure policy to bring Iran to the negotiating table. I hope our European friends will also take the next step to counter Iran's threat to regional and global security for good. This resolution will communicate with our European friends that it is the intent of this body to do so.
Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Idaho's remarks because they are spot-on with regard to what is going on here.
Under previous administrations like the Obama administration and the Biden administration, the strategy was to try to buy off Iran, to try to give them enough money to be our friend. And that is a failed policy. It has been demonstrated to be a failed policy.
Under the Trump administration's first term, where they applied maximum sanctions, they were able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. When that happened, Iran did not have the money to be able to fund terrorist organizations like the Houthis or Hamas or Hezbollah. When the Biden administration came in and opened up the valves for them to get their oil money again, that is when we saw this problem reoccurring.
To my colleague's point, if you look at what is going on, the enrichment
Maximum pressure is what works. It has been demonstrated to work in the first Trump administration. The appeasement of the Biden administration only encouraged them to fund terrorism around the world. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
So I believe that the European countries need to snap back these sanctions. This will help us in negotiations with Iran right now. As I mentioned, they are at their weakest state since the 1980s and may be weaker. So we must snap back these sanctions. This resolution will encourage our European allies to do that.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 81. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the Ricketts amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, diplomacy cannot be all stick and no carrot. There is no question that the recent U.S. strikes dealt significant damage to Iran's nuclear program. Yet it is still unknown whether the use of military force will induce the Iranians to come to the table. Instead, our attack may lead to the opposite effect--hardening the regime's opposition to U.S. demands. From the perspective of Iran's leader Ayatollah Khamenei, submitting to U.S. demands now would be perceived by Iranians as surrender.
It is unknown yet whether the combined U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities will lead to an end to their nuclear program or a sprint to the completion of a weapon. In fact, our attack on Iran may turn out to be a disaster. It is unknown. It may turn out that it could be the final catalyst for Tehran to double down on an effort to secure a nuclear deterrent to ensure that their country cannot be attacked with impunity again.
Now, we hear from the same voices in the establishment who were adamant that war would be a panacea that the imposition of more sanctions is the solution. The Washington establishment doesn't seem to be familiar with Einstein's famous definition of insanity.
Sanctions have been consistently ineffective at altering Iran's behavior in a manner favorable to U.S. interests. Repeatedly, as we put sanctions on, there has been no change in Iran's behavior.
Sanctions are often counterproductive. Sanctions immiserate the civilian population to such an extent that they rally around the regime in opposition to foreign interference. Some in this body maintain that sanctions will prompt the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the despotic regime that rules over them. That would be great, but history suggests otherwise. Instead, we may stoke the flames of nationalism by directing the ire of the people away from the Ayatollah and toward the United States.
Additionally, this resolution's purpose--to urge the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to invoke sanctions--is rich given that it was the United States that unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. So it is a bit inconsistent for us to be arguing that Europe should by all means apply and adhere to the JCPOA which we no longer participate in. If the United States is no longer a member of the JCPOA, what gives Washington the right to advise those who remain in it to invoke certain mechanisms within the agreement?
Washington's determination to worsen relations with Iran risks further military confrontation and diverts finite U.S. resources from other more pressing domestic and international concerns. That is why I am offering a substitute amendment to S. Res. 81 that makes clear the futility of sanctions and the needless risk of further escalation.
My amendment leaves room for President Trump to fund a diplomatic solution. It resolves that the United States supports the deescalation of tensions between the United States and Iran, affirms that stable relations with Iran are in the United States' national interest, seeks a peaceful resolution to concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program, and urges the Trump administration to prioritize diplomacy with Iran over further war. Prudent diplomacy requires tact and respect.
Instead of adopting the same tried-and-failed policies of the past, let us today have the courage to forge a new path. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request to include my amendments to the resolution and preamble, which are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska so modify his request?
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my esteemed colleague from Kentucky has argued that we should pursue diplomacy, and, indeed, the Trump administration is pursuing diplomacy. However, the path he is arguing for right now was tried by the last administration and failed miserably.
What Iran respects is strength. While we are certainly not advocating regime change, what we are advocating is the use of policies that were effective in the first Trump administration. As I stated already, in the first Trump administration, by applying maximum pressure, the Trump administration was able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. They may have had the desire to fund terrorism, but they did not have the ability to fund terrorism.
That is what these sanctions would continue to do, is put pressure on Iran. We may not be able to change the regime, but we can make them poor so they cannot fund terrorism.
Yes, by all means, we should continue diplomacy, but we should do it from a position of strength, which is why we are encouraging the European nations of France, Germany, and the UK to snap back those sanctions, to give us that strength going into these negotiations to convince Iran that there is no path for them to have a nuclear weapon. They must give up that plan; they must give up their enrichment.
Therefore, I will not modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request from the Senator from Nebraska?
Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Zachary Bluestone to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
I will vote in opposition to Mr. Bluestone's confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. There are several reasons why I cannot support his nomination.
Mr. Bluestone graduated from law school 9 years ago and has only been practicing law for 7 years. This is fewer years of experience than any of the 235 judicial nominees confirmed during the Biden administration. Luckily for him, the Justice Department under Attorney General Bondi now refuses to provide the American Bar Association with materials or access to the nominees for evaluation. The ABA stated that it could not issue a rating based on receiving insufficient information to evaluate Mr. Bluestone's qualifications.
But it is obvious what they would have said had they been able to look at Mr. Bluestone's record in full: He does not have the experience necessary to handle the demands of the Federal bench.
This is not my only concern, however. Mr. Bluestone is yet another one of President Trump nominees who continues to perpetuate the ``Big Lie'' that the 2020 election was stolen.
In answers to written questions, Mr. Bluestone refused to admit that President Biden won the 2020 election, but he had no issue agreeing that President Trump won the 2016 and 2024 elections. The only reason is that Mr. Bluestone is loyal to President Trump, not the Constitution, nor the rule of law.
As such, I will vote against Mr. Bluestone's confirmation. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
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 the nomination of Aaron Szabo, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall be brought to a close?
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 48, the nays are 47. The motion is agreed to.
Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about two subjects. They are different. They are both important, but they are different.
Let me start with the reconciliation bill, which President Trump and others called the One Big Beautiful Bill. I continue to go through the bill, and every time I do, I am impressed.
This is a breathtaking bill in the sense that it covers so many subjects. I think each of us could spend hours talking about this bill. I will just hit the highlights. This is one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation that this body will ever pass.
We extended the 2017 tax cuts--no small feat in itself. Had we not done that, the American people would have suffered under a $4.3 trillion tax increase. So we stopped that tax increase.
Some of my friends and colleagues talk about, well, all you did was stop the tax increase on billionaires.
That is nonsense. That is nonsense on a stick. Unless your soup of the day is gin, you know that that is a lie.
Half of that tax increase would have hit working men and working women and working families in this country. The other half would have hit our small businesses, and, yes, some of our large businesses. We stopped that.
We made some of those tax cuts permanent. We cut taxes on tips. In this bill, we cut taxes on overtime. We cut taxes on Social Security. We cut taxes on car loans. We expanded a tax credit for childcare to help moms and dads pay for the childcare so they can work. We increased the child tax credit. We increased the standard deduction, and that is going to take effect immediately.
We funded school choice. For years and years and years, I have tried--we all have tried, many of us have tried--to provide the American people--moms and dads--with school choice. This bill did it. I went to a public school. I am proud of that. But competition makes all of us better. I can go to my overpriced Capitol Hill apartment or Capitol Hill grocery store and choose from
We increase money for the border, and we increase money for defense.
We also address the problem in Medicaid. And I have been very disappointed because some commentators have said that we are going to throw off from the Medicaid rolls, I have read, anywhere from 10 to 12 million people. The implication in some of these articles and some of these comments is that we are just going to look at the Medicaid rolls and go through and say: You are gone. We can't afford you.
That is not what this bill does. The first thing you have to realize is that, actually, Medicaid is not going to be cut at all under this bill. Under our bill that we just passed, our spending on Medicaid over the next 10 years is going to go up 20 percent, so nobody is cutting Medicaid.
There are some people, as a result of the new provisions that we have put into law, who will no longer be eligible for Medicaid and will no longer get Medicaid. But they weren't entitled to get it in the first place. So when you say: Well, you are throwing people off of Medicaid-- they weren't entitled to it in the first place. You are not entitled to Medicaid if you are making $200,000 a year and you didn't tell the truth when you signed up for Medicaid in your State and your State didn't verify your status.
But let me give you one example. CMS just put out a report. Our bill is going to change the law so that 2.8 million Americans--the CBO says, like, we are throwing 10 or 12 million Americans off of Medicaid. I will just give you this one example: 2.8 million of those Americans who will lose Medicaid are doubledippers. They signed up twice. We have 1.2 million people on the Medicaid rolls who are signed up in two States, and the American taxpayer is paying twice.
As you know, Mr. President, well--you were a great Governor; you were a Governor and a damn good one--most States use managed care, and they pay per Medicaid person. So if a State is paying, let's say--I will pick a number--$8,000 per Medicaid patient per year to the healthcare organization to provide their care, and that person is signed up in two States, they are doubledipping, and it is costing the American taxpayer two $8,000 payments a year. That is cheating. So from one perspective, you are throwing these people off of Medicaid--they weren't entitled to doubledip in the first place.
CMS also came out with a report. By ``CMS,'' I mean the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is the Federal Agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. CMS has also found that there are 1.6 million people who are on Medicaid today who are receiving both Medicaid and ObamaCare.
Well, what is ObamaCare? I will refresh everyone's memory.
Medicaid is supposed to be for the poor and disabled, and Medicare is for the elderly, and a lot of other Americans have health insurance through their job. But there are a certain number of Americans who don't have health insurance because they are not old enough for Medicare, they are not poor enough for Medicaid, and maybe their employer doesn't offer health insurance. So they can go to an exchange--we call them the ObamaCare exchange--and buy health insurance.
Now, President Obama and some of my colleagues--I wasn't here then, but when we passed the ObamaCare, the ObamaCare exchanges, the Affordable Care Act, we were told that health insurance would be cheaper, and we were told it would be more accessible. It has been neither. We were also told if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. That wasn't true either.
But the point is that we have a number of Americans who, if they don't qualify for Medicare, they don't qualify for Medicaid, they don't get insurance through their employer, they go to the ObamaCare exchanges. CMS found we have got 1.6 million people who are getting both health insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges--which we subsidize, taxpayers do--and through Medicaid. That is called doubledipping. It is illegal.
CBO can put out all the reports that they want to saying: Oh, you are throwing all these people off Medicaid. And technically, they are right, but they are not eligible to be on Medicaid. I just gave you an example, 2.8 million people who are doubledipping. It is illegal to doubledip. It is immoral to doubledip. It is unfair to taxpayers to doubledip. All our bill does is say you can't doubledip. Cheating is wrong.
Is that throwing people off of Medicaid? Technically, yes. But, once again, as the other provisions in this bill also do, we are taking people off Medicaid who weren't eligible for it in the first place.
As a result of these 2.8 million people, I think CMS--I am looking for their figure. I think it cost the American taxpayer, because of these 2.8 million folks who are doubledipping, $14 billion a year--$14 billion a year over a 10-year window, which is the horizon that we use. That is $140 billion that we are going to save, and that savings is going to go back into Medicaid to make it even stronger.
That is just one example of how much of--not much, but--well, yes, much of the reporting on our bill is misleading.
Mr. President, I am here with a number of colleagues on probably one of the most important decisions we are going to make with respect to the future of justice in America: the nomination of Emil Bove to be a judge on the court of appeals for the Third Circuit, the second highest panel in our judiciary.
And he is about as unfit and unqualified as any judicial nominee to come before this body in my 15 years here. And I say that with sadness as well as anger, as someone who still proudly would call myself a litigator, a trial lawyer, and a member of the Judiciary Committee, where I am proud to serve with my great colleague, the ranking member now, Senator Durbin.
And he and others from that committee will come before us tonight. We are here not only on the merits of Mr. Bove but also because we were denied an opportunity in the committee to present fairly and fully our case against Mr. Bove based on the record, and we were denied an opportunity to
We were denied the opportunity to have a whistleblower come before the committee, a whistleblower who bravely came forward with facts showing how Mr. Bove suggested--indeed, urged--that lawful court orders be disobeyed; that the Department of Justice ought to tell the courts to eff themselves.
We were denied access to an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation bearing on this nomination: an OPR inquiry into the failure of the team supervised by Mr. Bove to divulge to the defense exculpatory evidence, as they were obligated to do, during a prosecution when he was an assistant U.S. attorney.
And Mr. Bove himself, in the hearing that we conducted, was evasive, obfuscating. He refused point-blank to answer relevant questions.
One of my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, who will be here tonight, characterized it as the ``deliberative process privilege.'' There is no deliberative process privilege, and Mr. Bove had no right to refuse to answer our questions about what he has done in his role during the first 6 months of this administration.
The fact is, he has been involved in a pattern of lawlessness and recklessness, a violation of individual rights and liberties, a pattern of corruption unprecedented in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice. And he has been integral to it, participating actively in it.
We have opposed other nominees because we disagree with their judicial philosophy. We have opposed them because they were out of the mainstream; they were ideologues with an ax to grind that was potentially detrimental to rights and liberties.
Mr. Bove is in a different category. Yes, he is conservative. He is out of the mainstream. But he is corrupt. He is dangerous, vindictive, and revengeful in a way that this administration has made a pattern of doing.
So I am here to urge my colleagues to stand with us and oppose this nomination. I know the strong dynamic--we have seen it again and again and again, no matter how many doubts my colleagues may have--to toe the line in thrall of President Trump or in fear of him. But the record here speaks powerfully--or it should--to our conscience and conviction.
This nominee epitomizes the Trump demand for loyalty and fealty above all else to him, a sense that he has the power to do what no ordinary American can expect from judges or from prosecutors; that they will, in effect, rig the system in his favor, as Mr. Bove has done while representing, supposedly, the Department of Justice because he was-- like Pam Bondi and others who have taken senior positions--a lawyer, in fact, for President Trump, his personal lawyer, defending him against claims in his personal capacity before he took this role in the Department of Justice.
A lot has been made of Mr. Bove's role in dismissing the case against Eric Adams, the mayor of New York. I am not going to go through all the details except to say that Danielle Sassoon refused to make the argument in favor of dismissing those charges in exchange for concessions on immigration policy. She said it was ``an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal.''
The lead prosecutor on the Adams case resigned rather than take Mr. Bove's order, and he, too, said that it would be a violation of conscience and conviction and that anyone ``who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion'' should not do so.
The judge indicates ``everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.'' He called Mr. Bove's position ``fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law''--a quid pro quo deal. But Mr. Bove said it was fine.
Even more disgracefully, he said a court cannot review, at all, a dismissal of this kind. This attitude toward the law alone should disqualify him, but he went further in a March meeting, according to the whistleblower. He said, essentially, that lawful court orders shouldn't be obeyed. That is the nominee for a judgeship saying that judges ought to be defied.
He should not be under consideration for this lifetime appointment for these reasons and others that my colleagues who are coming to the floor tonight will describe in detail. The short-circuiting and straitjacketing of the consideration of Mr. Bove will be a stain on the U.S. Senate. And make no mistake, we will rue the day--my colleagues will--if they vote for this nominee.
And we should not in any way turn a blind eye toward the other nominees that will be before us for the district court: Josh Divine, Maria Lanahan, Jordan Pratt--all nominated to serve as district court judges on the Federal bench. They have made careers of crusading against reproductive rights.
Judge Pratt wrote an amicus brief supporting Florida's 15-week abortion ban. He called the procedure ``barbaric'' and ``one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable.''
Judge Pratt went so far as to raise questions not put before the court by parties and invite the Florida attorney general to intervene and weigh in on these questions.
He wrote an opinion holding unconstitutional a Florida law that allows minors to seek abortions without parental consent through judicial waivers. The case didn't require a court to rule on the law's constitutionality, but Judge Pratt took it upon himself to do so.
And Mr. Divine led and Ms. Lanahan worked on Missouri's legal challenge against mifepristone. The science is clear: Mifepristone is safe. Yet Mr. Divine and Ms. Lanahan didn't hesitate--not at all--to challenge its approval. And their court filing cited two research studies, mere weeks after he filed the complaint, that were retracted due to a lack of scientific rigor, problematic methodology, and undisclosed bias.
Edward Artau, nominated for the Southern District of Florida--the ethical lapses on his part were undeniable when he failed to recognize the obvious conflict and recuse himself from his involvement in a case involving the President at a time when he potentially was under consideration for a nomination.
These nominations are unqualified. They have revealed themselves to be incapable to meet basic standards of ethical conduct, judicial independence, and, if confirmed, they would extend the administration, in its reach into the courts, in effect, cosigning the President's most destructive and dangerous impulses, regardless of legality.
I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing these nominees. Mr. Bove should not be before this body, and I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of standing strong and speaking out and voting against his nomination and the others that have been made.
Mr. President, I yield to the senior Senator from Illinois, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, our great colleague.
Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal. He brings a level of expertise and experience to the Judiciary Committee and the Senate that is really unmatched. He has been a friend and a faithful participant in this process and in all the time I have served with him. I thank him for bringing us together this evening.
Mr. President, last Friday, I was in Chicago for the formal ceremonial investiture of a new Federal district court judge named April Perry.
April Perry has an interesting story that brought her to the bench. The story starts with her nomination to serve as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago. She was extremely well-qualified for that position and went through the Judiciary Committee--at the time, I was chairing it--and went through without a hitch. She was approved and on the list of U.S. attorneys.
Now, historically, U.S. attorneys were chosen by voice vote. When President Trump was in his first term in office, I believe he had around 90 U.S. attorneys spread all across the United States, and all but one, perhaps--I am trying to make sure I am accurate here--all but one was approved by voice vote.
Now, look at what happens: To bring a U.S. attorney before us is a much different process today.
What happened?
The Democrats gave President Trump all of his U.S. attorney nominees in his first term, with perhaps one exception, by voice vote. Now, it goes through an elaborate, time-consuming process. What happened?
The Vice President of the United States happened.
Vice President JD Vance, from the State of Ohio, decided to come to the floor during the Biden administration, after we had approved 63 U.S. attorneys, and to object to a voice vote. Now, he said, we are going to go through the regular process. I don't like the way the Department of Justice has treated the former President--at the time, Donald Trump. So we are going to insist you dot all the i's and cross all the t's and go through the process and take several days on each one of the U.S. attorney nominees.
He made that decision after 63 had been approved under Biden, and he made it when April Perry was pending. This was her chance--the Northern District of Illinois--and JD Vance said: No, not the ordinary process, not a voice vote. We are going to take our time.
He applied the standard not just to my U.S. attorney in Illinois but to his own U.S. attorney in Cleveland, OH. He was resolute: We are going to stop the way this has been done in the past.
That was literally the end of the consideration of U.S. attorneys under Joe Biden. If that was his goal--JD Vance's goal, the Vice President's goal--he achieved it.
So what happened next to April Perry, a wonderfully qualified nominee running for U.S. attorney? Well, we sat down and decided that we didn't want to waste that talent. I went to her and said: Would you consider the vacancy for U.S. district court that is open now? You have gone through the vetting. You have gone through the background checks. The FBI has asked all the hard questions. They interviewed all the attorneys you have worked with. Everyone finds you acceptable. Would you consider the Federal bench?
And she said: Yes.
And she was approved. We had her formal investiture this last Friday.
Those are happy occasions, and there aren't many of them, I am sure, in the Federal courthouse--at least not of this caliber.
District Court Judge Virginia Kendall, who is the presiding judge over the Northern District, called together her colleagues to witness this investiture, this happy day for a judge, April Perry. She brought in about 30 Federal district court judges from the Northern District and a number from the ninth district--or the seventh district--of the appellate court. And it dawned on me, as I attended this ceremony for April Perry, that this has turned out to be an important part of my Senate career.
If you would have asked me when I ran for the Senate, ``What about the appointment of judges?'' I would have said, ``Well, that is fairly routine.'' It turns out it is not. It is more than routine. It is one of the more important things you do because the men and women chosen to serve in the Federal court system, article III judges, are appointed for life--for life. To remove them, you have to go through an impeachment through Congress to remove a Federal court judge. That is how important it is. That is how permanent it is--the permanent nature of it--and that is why each selection makes a difference.
I looked at the 30 or so judges that gathered and realized I had a hand in appointing every single one of them and many others too.
And so you go through that process a number of times and you learn. I look back now on all of the district court judges that I have had a hand in choosing, and, I will tell you, for two or three, it was a mistake. If I had it to do over again, I would have asked more questions, and I would have had more information on those who were chosen. But that is over a span of 29 years--two to three. Those who were approved, dozens of others, have really done well, and they have been praised for the job that they did.
So when I was chairman of this committee--fortunate to have that opportunity--we approved, in a 4-year period of time, a record number of Federal court judges: 235.
President Trump, in his first term, had done 234. We passed him by one court judge, and I am proud of that because it was a lot of hard work.
In order to report a judge out of the Judiciary Committee, every single Democrat had to be in their seats for every minute of the vote. There was no proxy. You had to be there. And they showed up, and Senator Blumenthal was one of those. Senator Welch, who has joined us now, was in the Judiciary Committee. And I salute that.
Now, under the second term of President Trump, the rules are changing. They weren't very good in the first round, and they are worse now.
The first Trump administration put forward some of the most extreme judicial nominees ever considered by the Senate. Several Trump nominees had little or no experience in a courtroom--no litigation experience.
Would you hire a lawyer to take your case to trial if they had never been in a trial in their lives?
Three district court nominees--Kathryn Mizelle, Justin Walker, and Sarah Pitlyk won unanimous support from committee Republicans, despite having never tried a case.
Imagine you are going in a courtroom, you are presiding over a trial, and you have never seen one; you have never been in one. You may have seen one on television. You keep looking for Perry Mason and are wondering what is next.
That, unfortunately, was the reality with many of these nominees in Trump's first term. Many Trump nominees took some unusual--if not controversial, if not plain--wrong decisions.
Lawrence VanDyke was a Ninth Circuit nominee. We asked him to affirm that he would be fair--that he would be fair to LGBTQ individuals. He wouldn't say it. He just couldn't get the words out of his mouth.
Michael Truncale, an Eastern District of Texas nominee, said of President Obama that he was an ``un-American imposter.'' Those are the words of this man seeking the Federal bench about the former President. He said he would ``bow to Arab sheiks and other world leaders.''
Where did you find that nominee?
The first Trump administration put forward--get this now--10 judicial nominees whom the American Bar Association found to be ``not qualified'' to serve on the Federal bench--10 of them.
Well, what does the American Bar Association have to do with this?
Historically, the American Bar Association did its own background check on nominees for the Federal bench. Where would they go? Well, they would go in the community. They would go to the judges that this person has appeared before. They would go to their fellow attorneys. They would try to find character references, and they would dig deep.
They had some basic rules. You had to have 10 years of experience as an attorney to even be considered for the Federal bench, and then they rated people ``qualified,'' ``not qualified,'' ``well qualified,'' and such.
Over the strong objections of Senate Democrats, eight of the ``unqualified'' nominees proposed by President Trump, in his first term, were confirmed by Senate Republicans. So even when the American Bar Association says you are ``unqualified'' to serve on the bench, it didn't discourage the loyalists supporting President Trump.
Incidentally, under the Biden administration, 235 Federal judges--how many of them, Durbin--give us the truth here. How many of them were found ``unqualified''? None. Every one of the 235 were found ``qualified'' by the American Bar Association.
As the former chairman of the committee said, ``Elections have consequences,'' and I get it. So I understand that the second Trump administration is going to offer nominees closer to him in political philosophy. But President Trump seems intent on outdoing himself by putting forth nominees who are extreme, partisan, and fundamentally unqualified.
Instead of finding more qualified judicial nominees, Attorney General Bondi ordered the Justice Department to stop cooperating with the American Bar Association in rating nominees. She didn't want to run into the embarrassment that they did in the first Trump term, with 10 of them being found ``unqualified.''
So she said: The way to solve that problem is not to find a better nominee; it is to get rid of the American Bar Association. If they are not going to give grade to these nominees, we don't have to worry about them being ``unqualified.''
She overturned the practice that had been in place for nearly 70 years, going back to a fellow named Dwight David Eisenhower. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have followed the rule. But, now, the only qualification President Trump looks for in his judicial nominees--and he says as much--is loyalty: Show me loyalty or get the heck off the bench.
Look no further than Emil Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit. As a senior official in the Justice Department, Mr. Bove has done nothing but cater to President Trump's every whim. It is no surprise that President Trump said he nominated Mr. Bove because he said he will ``do anything that is necessary to make America great again.''
For life--judge for life--show me loyalty, and you have got a position for life.
Mr. Bove personally ordered the termination of Federal prosecutors who put violent January 6 rioters in prison.
Understand what happened here. Men and women, professional attorneys working for the Department of Justice, were given assignments: We have a case we want you to pursue and prosecute. It is this individual. Here is the FBI background file. Go to work.
It turns out that these people who once had stormed through that door and went rifling through our desks and aped for photographs, sitting in your chair, Mr. President, on January 6--as a result of their entering this building, 5 Capitol policemen died, and 140 were assaulted.
Should they have been prosecuted? You bet. Beat up on a cop, and you should face the consequences. And they did it, on January 6, in the name of stopping the election the American people had been involved in just weeks before.
I was here, sitting in this chair, as the head of the Capitol Police stood where you are sitting, Mr. President, and told us all: Stay calm. Stay in your chairs. We are going to stay in this room. This is a safe room.
He just said: Stay in your seats.
They grabbed Vice President Pence, took him right out that door, and spirited him off somewhere. But they left us here.
Ten minutes later, the same policeman stood up and said: New announcement. Leave as quickly as possible. We cannot keep this room secure.
The Senate of the United States of America--the Capitol of the United States of America--was being run over by demonstrators and insurrectionists. They were beating up on the police, smashing their heads into the wall and between the door.
They were ultimately prosecuted for it. The prosecutors, the assistant U.S. attorneys who were doing this job, were treated in what way by President Trump when he got back in office? They were treated like they were the ones who broke the law. The prosecutors were accused of wrongdoing.
Well, it, unfortunately, is, in the words of Mr. Bove, a ``grave national injustice,'' he thinks it is, to prosecute these demonstrators. He is wrong.
Grave injustice is what happened to the police on that day. When asked to justify his actions in firing these U.S. attorneys who prosecuted these insurrectionists, Mr. Bove claimed ``heavy-handed tactics'' by prosecutors were ``equally unacceptable'' as physical violence against law enforcement. That is an outrageous and offensive statement by a man who wants to be a Federal judge for life at the second highest court in the land.
Since January 7, 2021, there has been an effort by the MAGA faithful to rewrite the history of January 6, but I witnessed it, and many others did as well.
The truth is this: The U.S. Capitol was violently attacked by insurrectionists intent on overturning the 2020 election results.
The truth is this: Five police officers died, and more than 140 were injured protecting this building, staff, the visitors, and Members of Congress.
Mr. Bove also led the Justice Department's efforts to strike a corrupt bargain with New York City mayor Eric Adams. This is an outrage, what he did. Mr. Bove stated that the charges would be dropped against Mayor Adams without prejudice so that Adams could ``devote full attention and resources to . . . illegal immigration and violent crime.'' In other words, President Trump needed Mayor Adams to do his bidding on his deportation policy.
In response, two staunch conservatives resigned from the Justice Department--Trump-appointed, interim U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon and lead prosecutor Hagan Scotten.
Mr. Scotten wrote to Mr. Bove a quote that will be famous for a long, long time. Mr. Blumenthal repeated it, but I want to say it as well. Mr. Scotten wrote to Mr. Bove, who wants a lifetime appointment to the bench, and said:
I don't know Mr. Scotten, but I will tell you, his words are persuasive and compelling.
If that wasn't enough, Mr. Bove showed utter disdain for our courts. A whistleblower stepped forward, gave his name, and risked his future to tell us what Mr. Bove had told to the attorneys working on the case against the insurrectionists. According to this credible whistleblower, who provided ample documentation to back up his claims, Mr. Bove told the Department of Justice attorneys that they might need to say ``f you'' to Federal courts that issue orders this administration doesn't agree with. That is the most dangerous comment that a person in a position of authority could make in the executive branch, that they will ignore the court orders that are issued against them.
Yesterday, the Senate confirmed Joshua Divine to the Federal bench-- 34 years old, received his law degree 9 years ago, litigated for 5 years. And beyond his troubling lack of experience, he has taken some extreme positions.
He calls himself a zealot. He calls himself a zealot when it comes to anti-choice. This zealotry has been on full display in his role as the Missouri solicitor general. He has challenged women's ability in his State to access the abortion drug mifepristone and has undermined the decision of Missouri voters to codify abortion access in their State constitution.
Also deeply troubling, Mr. Divine argued in favor of literacy tests at the ballot box, saying that people who ``aren't informed about issues or platforms . . . have no business voting.'' Where does that come from in America? Literacy tests. Where does that come from? It comes from the era of Jim Crow.
After the Civil War, when African Americans were given citizenship and an opportunity to vote, they were intimidated in many States when they tried to. They had to answer questions: How many bubbles in a bar of soap? What do letters of marque and reprisal mean in the Constitution?
Those are impossible questions for anyone, including the lawyers and Members of Congress, and yet off they went. Why did they do it? To discriminate against Black voters. Well, it turns out Mr. Divine believes that literacy tests should be restored.
It shouldn't be controversial for anyone to say that nominee has disqualified himself. The fact that the body confirmed Mr. Divine is outrageous.
These nominees are just the tip of the iceberg. President Trump is going to continue to nominate extreme and unqualified individuals unless the Senate takes a stand.
If a few of the Senators--I am not going to name names--who made statements about principles and values will stand by their own words when it comes to the orders of the court, then they will join us on a bipartisan basis to stop these clearly unqualified individuals.
I urge my colleagues to vote against Mr. Bove and all future nominees whose only loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to Emil Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Bove is unqualified, unfit, and undermines public trust in our justice system. Every report makes one thing clear: He puts politics
I rise because more than 9 million people that I represent--the people of New Jersey--fall under the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit. This nomination has a direct impact on their lives, their futures, and their rights. The people of New Jersey deserve better. They have had enough of corruption and political gamesmanship and what we see so clearly to be a system rigged for the well-connected and the well-off.
Let me explain why this matters. In times when so many feel the system is working against them, courts serve as a critical check on unchecked power. Judges matter because their decisions expand or restrict basic rights. They shape the fate of immigrants seeking a better life, influence our economy, and they determine our safety and future.
The courts should reflect the promise of America--a nation where the rules apply equally no matter your wealth or connections, where fairness guides justice. Emil Bove represents the opposite. He is part of a broken system where loyalty to politics and political power trumps fairness and the law, where connections and corruption undermine justice.
Mr. Bove's resume includes work as an assistant U.S. attorney, prestigious clerkships, experience in some of the world's most powerful law firms, but that is not why he was nominated. He was chosen for one singular reason, which is his unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump.
Throughout his career, Mr. Bove has shown he is ethically unfit to be a public servant. He fired career prosecutors, including those working on January 6 investigations, simply because they would not follow politically motivated orders. He openly instructed subordinates to defy court rulings to continue deporting people without due process and threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged those who refused. This is not public service; this is corruption disguised as loyalty.
The pillars of our judicial system are objectivity and independence. They ensure that justice is blind to politics. But Mr. Bove has shown contempt for those pillars.
Over 900 former DOJ attorneys have signed a letter urging this Senate to reject his nomination, calling him unfit and unethical.
The Department of Justice must stand for law, not partisan agendas. And now we are asked to trust a nominee who has proven willing to defy the law and undermine the courts themselves. The answer must be no.
Let me address a particularly troubling experience that underscores the corruption that Mr. Bove represents when he sought to dismiss the case regarding New York Mayor Adams. This is not just politics as usual; this is corruption that threatens the integrity of the very justice system Mr. Bove seeks to join, the kind of dealmaking, backroom, political gamesmanship that the people of New Jersey are sick and tired of. And I say this not just as a Senator but as someone who challenged New Jersey's political status quo in Federal district court and ultimately before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, this very court.
Approving this nomination sends a message that corruption and loyalty to power trumps qualifications and fairness. That is not the future I want for my children, my State, or this country.
It doesn't have to be this way. That future is in the hands of this very body, the U.S. Senate. New Jersey and this country deserve better than Emil Bove. America deserves a justice system it can trust.
Let us vote no on Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. President, I oppose the appointment of Emil Bove to serve on the Federal court.
You know, there are two issues. One for any judge is temperament-- absolutely essential--where that judge has to step back and not be partisan, has to be fair to all litigants. Emil Bove totally lacks the temperament to serve on the Federal judiciary under any President, under any administration.
In 2018, the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of New York sent a letter to the Southern District leadership detailing incredibly detailed complaints from fellow defense attorneys about Bove. These are people that worked with him in a professional capacity. This was before Bove was the political figure that he has become. They described him gratuitously as a person who was vindictive, a prosecutor version of a drunk driver, and needing adult supervision. It was because of his conduct towards the people he was working with in the judicial system.
The reality that we all know is that in the judicial system, fierce as you may be as a prosecutor, determined as you may be as a defense attorney, impartial as you want to be as a judge, everyone has to cooperate to do their job, not interfere with others, and to be supportive of those who are doing the work with you--your fellow prosecutors, your fellow defense attorneys. Bove couldn't do that. He does not have the temperament to serve in a high judicial position.
Second and really most importantly, Bove does not have respect for the rule of law.
If you are in a litigation situation, as prosecutors are, as trial attorneys are, as public defense attorneys are, you have an obligation to serve your client fiercely, energetically. But what you have as a shared responsibility, no matter which role you have in the litigation process, the judicial process, is a respect for the rule of law and an obligation to act in accordance with the ethics that apply to you in your service.
On June 24, Erez Reuveni, who was a well-respected supervisor--and this is about the Bove character--who had defended Trump's policies in his first administration--this is a person who was supportive of many of the policies that then-President Trump was advocating. He came forward with a very credible whistleblower claim that Bove advocated for violating court orders.
Bove reportedly said that the Department of Justice should be prepared to tell courts whose decisions they did not like to ``f off.'' He said that, and he meant it. That is the truth. And that was gratuitous but very reflective of the orientation that Mr. Bove has towards the law, and it is that the law is incidental. His goals and the goals of his now-client President Trump are the only things that matter.
That also happened subsequently, just very recently, with the transfer of individuals to El Salvador in violation of Chief Judge Boasberg's oral order in J.G.G. v. Trump. That is the case where the judge gave an order stopping the deportation, and Bove was complicit in having that plane fly and actually do what was directly in conflict with the order.
He also, as we know, instructed prosecutors to drop the criminal case against the New York City mayor Mr. Adams. It was a blatant quid pro quo.
Bove has been an active participant in political payback against the January 6 prosecutors and FBI agents who were simply doing their jobs.
By the way, this is so appalling to me. You are a prosecutor. You know that if a prosecutor is assigned a case in a large office like the Southern District of New York or in the Washington district, the prosecutor's job is to prosecute that case.
Well, there were a number of prosecutors who were assigned to prosecute the January 6 cases, and, as you know, Mr. President, that included people who came in here and started beating up on cops. That is what they did. And those prosecutors did their job and were then fired by Bove--no loyalty to people who had the same job and the same responsibility as he did.
He also--Mr. Bove--sought the names of all FBI employees who worked on investigations into January 6. You know, he stated that was part of an investigation about the weaponization of the FBI against the January 6 rioters.
So he is part of the rewriting, the whitewashing, of the history of January 6 that is the favored narrative of President Trump.
But bottom line, Bove has made it clear that he works for his political boss, and that is the President. And the question is not just about Bove. The question is for us in the Senate who have this real responsibility. We have our partisan differences. We have our honest policy differences. But we have a shared responsibility when it comes to the nomination of a person for a Federal judicial position to evaluate their qualifications for the job.
And first and foremost among the qualifications is that that individual has to be someone who sees as his or her client the Constitution of the United States and the statutory rights and obligations that citizens and companies in this country have.
And what President Trump has made very clear--uncomfortable as this may be to acknowledge for many of us, many of my colleagues on the Republican side who have to deal with the wrath of a President who doesn't get everything he wants when he wants it--the reality is that President Trump himself has made it clear that the people he wants appointed, that he will appoint to the court, are people who will put him first, not the Constitution; to put his political whims, his political desires first.
He has got the right person in Bove, but that is the wrong person for us to confirm.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, there is a legend about a woman who finds an injured snake by the side of the path, and she picks it up to take care of it. She brings it home. She cares for it. She feeds it. She nurtures it. It heals. She takes it back to put it back into where she found it. And as she does so, it bites her. And as its venom goes through her veins and she is dying, she asks the snake: Why did you bite me? I cared for you. I fed you. I nurtured you. I saved your life when you were wounded.
And the snake said: It is my nature. You knew that when you saved me.
For many of us, to our colleagues, this is a ``mark my words'' moment about an individual who will continue to disgrace himself and the rule of law if we put him on the bench. We know that because, in 6 short months at the Department of Justice, he has been involved in three significant instances of prosecutorial misconduct--not little technical violations of a rule but truly grotesque abuse of a prosecutor's powers.
Not long ago, my Republican colleagues would have prevented even the nomination of a character like this, somebody with a lawless character for the bench.
The mad dash to jam through this nominee, first in the Judiciary Committee and now on the floor of the U.S. Senate, is a new low for the way this body handles its responsibility to vet these lifetime appointments.
Let's go through the prosecutorial misconduct instances. This is a nominee who told a room full of DOJ lawyers that if the courts didn't back off on restricting unlawful deportations, they would have to tell courts--I won't use the word on the Senate floor--``f you.''
We know he said it. We know he said it because it is abundantly corroborated in realtime communications among the lawyers present who heard him say it. They talk about the ``f you'' comment in contemporaneous texts in that very matter. You really don't get--I am looking at a bunch of lawyers around here--you really don't get better corroboration than that. That is the corroboration that you take to the defense counsel and say: Maybe you should think about pleading this case out.
Why would colleagues think someone who would tell courts ``f you,'' someone who does not believe a judge's rulings need to be followed, is fit to be a judge?
We are also on solid ground concluding that this character lied to us about it in committee. He said he didn't recall. That is a heck of a memory lapse, telling a room full of Department of Justice lawyers that they should be ready to tell courts ``f you.''
Somehow--somehow--he seemed to know that he would get away with it, that he would not be forced by the majority to actually answer our questions.
He also said he never instructed anyone to disobey a court order. Too cute by half. What he said was: They should be prepared to violate a court order.
And, by the way, they did. This is all consistent with his lawless character.
He also cooked up an improper deal in a criminal case against the mayor of New York where they were going to hang a suspended criminal prosecution--well-founded and grounded--over the head of the mayor to assure his cooperation with the Trump immigration agenda in his city.
You don't do that as a prosecutor. That is unimaginably bad abuse of that power.
We had the corroboration in the first instance. What do we have here?
We have his own DOJ colleague calling this effort a quid pro quo, calling it an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. That was the deal, the arrangement that was reached.
And that colleague, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, then resigned rather than go through with the rotten deal.
Not enough corroboration? Trump's border czar Tom Homan admitted the scheme. He went on FOX News with Mayor Adams and said--I am quoting here, so excuse some of the language:
The agreement--the agreement to hold back a prosecution in order to force the mayor to go along with the immigration agenda.
Not enough? OK. This nominee separately tried to confect a fake criminal investigation to allow an improper seizure of funds that Congress had appropriated, obligated, and disbursed to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
You don't invent fake prosecutions. In this case, his office, the U.S. Attorney's Office, said: There is no there there. We can't sign that pleading.
He drove out the criminal chief. The rest of the lawyers also refused to sign. The U.S. attorney went in himself, all by himself, just a political appointee, no Federal prosecutorial experience, no idea what he was doing. The magistrate judge shot him down.
Each one of those things is a giant red flag in the Department of Justice, and they all attach to this case.
A principle that prosecutors follow is that you must not publicly disparage subjects of your investigation. It is enough that you have the law on your side and the power of prosecution to bring them to justice. You don't throw on a larding of disparagement. Bove's client in that matter, the EPA Administrator, made repeated public statements accusing the fund and its administrators of being ``corrupt'' and ``criminal'' and engaging in ``kickbacks,'' ``theft,'' and ``graft.'' These accusations are defamatory, per se, under the common law.
This person led these truly evil abuses of DOJ's powers. It is his nature.
Those are the problems with the nominee. Now let's look at the problems with the process that got him here. First, in the Judiciary Committee, he was prelicensed to refuse to answer questions. The committee, the majority, conceded something that Congress has never conceded before: that deliberative process and attorney-client privilege overcome our constitutional powers of oversight and advice and consent.
Senator Kennedy and I noted this in our bipartisan report on Executive privilege back in 2022. Here is our quote:
Besides Presidential communications, which was at issue--
To grease Bove through the committee, they threw all that history out the window. And having made that astounding concession, they then didn't even follow the rules for assertions of these supposed privileges, neither as to their scope where they apply and don't apply, nor as to what it takes to actually claim them.
These privileges need to be asserted, and the witness never actually asserted them. He probably didn't actually assert them because as a lawyer he knows they didn't actually pertain, and he would have been mocked and criticized for asserting those privileges in this circumstance.
He knew from the free pass he had been given not to answer questions that he didn't have to answer, and he didn't have to make the assertions. With his nonanswers blessed in advance, he hid behind vague claims of inappropriateness.
That is not a privilege; that is not a defense.
Attorney-client privilege and deliberative process privilege, even if they pertain here, don't apply to administrative decisions within a department. And deliberative process--indeed, any Executive privilege-- does not apply where the allegation is misconduct. We just went through the three instances of prosecutorial misconduct.
Again, from my report with Senator Kennedy, quoting the DC Circuit here:
The only Executive privilege that Congress does recognize also requires proximity to the President. It is not applicable in ordinary Agency administration, and the President must invoke it, and he didn't.
The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General even showed up at the hearing to give committee Republicans the eyeball. The result was a hearing that more resembled a racketeering from ``The Godfather'' than a nominations hearing from a circuit court of appeals judgeship.
One last point, while this mischief is going on in the Judicial Committee and on the Senate floor, something else is going on. This is a two-ring circus, and the second ring is over at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals where Trump Judges Rao and Katsas, over objection, stopped the court hearing into Bove's potential contempt in the deportation cases. Obviously, there in court, under oath, real answers would be achieved.
The administrative stay procedure those Trump judges use usually only last days. Justice Barrett recently chided a court for an administrative stay that lasted 2 weeks. These two Trump judges have blocked Bove's contempt hearing for 3 months.
If my colleagues keep rubberstamping Trump's lawless nominees, he will just continue lowering the bar, further degrading the judicial system.
This has the earmarks of a coordinated play, and I suspect very much that we have not heard the end of this as facts continue to come out in future Judiciary Committee investigations and in the contempt hearing of Judge Boasberg.
Mr. President, we have an administration that is flouting the law at every turn. Since being sworn into office, Donald Trump has signed dozens of Executive orders attempting to do everything from ending birthright citizenship and eliminating the Department of Education to invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals without due process.
In the months since, lawyers defending these lawless actions in court have been rebuffed time and again by judges across the country, including judges nominated by Donald Trump himself. Note that. Even Donald Trump's nominated judges have said you can't keep making these kind of arguments before me.
So, now, Trump has gone even further by nominating to a lifetime judgeship a man who makes no secret of his disregard for our courts and the rule of law. And that man is Emil Bove.
Based on his nomination hearing and a review of his background and the record before us, Mr. Bove is unfit to be a Federal judge because of his disregard for the rule of law and his temperament. There are so many red flags regarding this nominee, as articulated by my colleagues before me.
Mr. Bove has no respect for the rule of law or the courts that uphold it. This was made all too clear by a whistleblower, a man who had the courage to point out certain things about this nominee. This courageous whistleblower is Erez Reuveni.
Mr. Reuveni was a career attorney at the DOJ before he was fired by the Trump administration for not lying to the court that the administration made a mistake in deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. Note this. He was fired because he told the truth to the courts. He was expected to lie to the court and say: Oh, the Trump administration did not make a mistake in Mr. Garcia's case.
The facts prove otherwise.
Far from being a rogue partisan, Mr. Reuveni spent 15 years at the Department of Justice, including during the first Trump administration, where he received awards for his work defending the administration's policies in court. Mr. Reuveni shared with the Judiciary Committee that Mr. Bove, the nominee before us, casually discussed ignoring court orders at a meeting attended by not just Mr. Reuveni but by a bunch of other AGs in the Department of Justice.
So while Mr. Bove and my Republican colleagues would like us to focus on whether Mr. Bove actually directed the government to ignore a court order at this fateful meeting, that focus misses the point. According to Mr. Reuveni, Mr. Bove said the Justice Department would need to consider telling the courts ``f you'' if the court ordered the administration--the Justice Department--to stop what they were doing. Neither Mr. Bove nor anyone else has denied the sequence of events.
Mr. Reuveni produced 100 pages of documents and text messages supporting his statement that under Bove, DOJ lawyers were directed to prioritize the President's political agenda over their legal and ethical obligations.
My Democratic colleagues and I tried to ask Mr. Bove about these revelations, but, unsurprisingly, he refused to answer nearly all of the questions on these points. As noted, he even cited privileges that don't even apply to him. So we didn't get much in the way of responses from Mr. Bove. As for the committee, rather than hold a hearing to hear from this whistleblower under oath, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee chose to rush through Mr. Bove's nomination, breaking precedent by refusing to allow Democrats to even speak on his nomination in committee.
I am sure people saw that the Democrats on that committee walked out in protest.
Beyond his disregard for the rule of law, Mr. Bove also lacks the temperament to be a Federal judge. We expect our Federal judges to be fair, to be objective. We don't expect them to have political axes to grind. But that is not what we are going to get with Mr. Bove.
One issue that is particularly important to me is harassment and abuse of law clerks and court staff by Federal judges. Those with nearly absolute power, like a Federal judge in their Chambers, can do great harm to those who work for them. That is why I introduced a bipartisan, bicameral bill aimed at addressing workplace harassment in the Federal Judiciary. We know this happens.
So this issue arises with regard to Mr. Bove because of reports that he was an abusive supervisor at the Southern District of New York. In other words, he is a supervisor who abuses his power. When questioned, Mr. Bove confirmed that a group of office leaders recommended to the U.S. attorney that he be removed as a supervisor of the unit that he was leading. According to reports, this came after an investigation and Mr. Bove only kept his job after he pleaded to keep it.
It is, frankly, astounding that these very busy prosecutors in the office that he was in considered Mr. Bove's behavior so concerning that they went so far as to investigate his behavior and recommend his removal. To clarify things, I asked Mr. Bove, in questions for the record, to send us copies of his personnel file. He refused.
Far from an independent, fairminded jurist, Mr. Bove is willing to use whatever means he deems necessary to meet the ends sought by Donald Trump. There is absolutely no question that the reason Mr. Bove came to President Trump's attention was his complete loyalty to President Trump, which he manifests clearly. This is a concern. Don't take my word for it.
I want to show you, Mr. President, this is a letter signed by nearly 1,000--1,000--former DOJ lawyers urging this body to reject Mr. Bove's nomination. They wrote:
These almost 1,000 wrote--the letter continues:
They went on to remind us that each of us in this body was elected by a democratic process anchored by the rule of law and urged us to protect the rule of law by voting our conscience and rejecting Mr. Bove's nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materia1 was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, for all the reasons provided by me and my colleagues before me on the Democratic side, I urge my colleagues to join me in defending the rule of law by not putting into a lifetime appointment somebody who thinks that he can ignore court orders and certainly not by saying ``f you'' to the courts; that that person not be confirmed by this body. We need to do our jobs by rejecting this nominee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, the Senate this week is considering a nominee so patently unfit to be a Federal judge, so lacking in the temperament, integrity, and judgment to serve as an arbiter of the Nation's laws, that the chorus of opposition has grown deafening and the facts revealing his unfitness for office are too voluminous to be ignored.
I am speaking, of course, of Emil Bove, the lawyer whose misconduct was so egregious, his fellow prosecutors in the Southern District of New York thought he should be demoted; someone whose management of cases was so flawed that a Federal judge not only concluded that his team had misled the court but that it withheld exculpatory evidence. The court then ordered the case dismissed, and the Southern District prosecutor's office didn't even bother to try to refile the case. It was that tainted by Mr. Bove's leadership of that team.
After Bove left the U.S. Attorney's Office under the threat of demotion, he became one of Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyers, losing the hush money payment to a porn star case in which Donald Trump is convicted of dozens of felonies.
Bove, though, turned that loss and his blind obedience to Trump into a top position at the Department of Justice. And now, for the past months, it seems like every time there has been an abuse of power at the Justice Department, Emil Bove either directed it, supervised it, or carried it out himself.
When Donald Trump wanted to purge the Justice Department of prosecutors who worked diligently to investigate the January 6 insurrection, Bove was the instrument of his vengeance. When Trump wanted to purge the Department of prosecutors who proved to juries beyond a reasonable doubt that the violent offenders who attacked police officers that day did so to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, Emil Bove was there to punish not the criminals but the prosecutors.
When Stephen Miller and then-FBI Director Nominee Kash Patel worked to carry out an additional purge of career FBI officials who worked on the January 6 investigations, Emil Bove was there too.
Earlier this year, when the Trump administration wanted a justification to freeze grants already approved from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and they wanted to trump up some justification--some rationale for trying to prevent the distribution of these funds--whom did they turn to? Well, of course, they turned to Emil Bove. He and then-U.S. Attorney Ed Martin pressured the head of the Criminal Division for the DC U.S. Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation into the fund. But there was a problem. There was no evidence of criminal activity. There was no probable cause. There was no predication.
How do we know this? How do we know the opening of this case or the threat of opening this case was bogus? Because the Chief of the Criminal Division in that office resigned rather than comply with this unethical edict.
When Trump's DOJ sought to dismiss a serious and credible corruption case against the mayor of New York Eric Adams, who was the one who ordered career prosecutors to drop the case? That is right, Emil Bove.
Time after time, we have seen career public servants stand up to abuses of power like this and refuse to obey, leaving careers they loved at the Justice Department rather than be part of Bove's perversion of justice.
I served for almost 6 years in the Justice Department. I know the sense of mission that the lawyers in that Department feel and how much they love serving and appearing before a court and introducing themselves on behalf of the United States. It is not a job that people give up easily or for no reason. I also know that, when put in the position of choosing to follow their ethics and the law or choosing to obey a dishonorable and dishonest instruction from a supervisor, yes, they will resign their posts, and so many have.
Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon was ordered by Bove to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams. In refusing, she called it what it was: an ``improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for the dismissal of his case''--in other words, a quid pro quo.
I just want to underscore for people what this means and how astonishingly abnormal and unethical this action was.
The Justice Department intervened in a criminal case in New York over the objection of the prosecutors handling the case, including the acting U.S. attorney, to dismiss that corruption case against a public official, not because there was a lack of evidence--they didn't even try to claim that--not because there was any prosecutorial misconduct-- they didn't even try to argue that--but because he was useful to the President on his immigration policy. It is an edict from Bove that says: If you do the President's bidding, we have got your back; we will make your corruption case go away--a quid pro quo.
Now, interestingly, they didn't want it to go away completely. They wanted it to go away without prejudice--that is, so they could bring it back if he didn't do exactly what the President wanted. Anyone who has ever served in the Justice Department can tell you just how unethical that is.
Rather than obey those orders from Bove, Acting U.S. Attorney Sassoon resigned, and many others followed.
One of them said:
No, it didn't have to be him because it was enough for Emil Bove. He is there whenever Donald Trump needs someone to carry out his will, regardless of ethical or even legal considerations. And dedicated public servants, career prosecutors are standing up, willing to risk their jobs and willing to risk retaliation by a vindictive President.
Some of those brave attorneys have come to our committees as whistleblowers. In one case, Erez Reuveni, a 15-year veteran at the Department who worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations, shared with our committee that Emil Bove told DOJ's lawyers that they would need to consider telling the courts ``f you'' and ignore any such court order that might get in the way of the Trump administration's strategy of rapid deportation without due process. In fact, Bove's lawyers at the DOJ would go on to lie to the judge and violate court orders, prompting the judge to issue an order to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Senator Whitehouse is exactly right: The court of appeals has delayed that hearing on the order to show cause why those lawyers under Bove's supervision should not be held in contempt. And my colleagues here want to rush this thing through. Well, what will they say if the judge finds that Bove and others at the Justice Department willfully ignored court orders? What will they say once they have given him a lifetime tenure on the court of appeals?
During Bove's confirmation hearing, I asked him about his ``f you'' instruction, and he made the dubious claim that he couldn't recall. Now, that is remarkable. It is not like we are talking about events that happened 10 years ago. This was, like, 2 months ago, just a few weeks ago. I think I would remember if I had told other lawyers that we should say ``f you'' to the courts.
So either he instructs them frequently to say ``f you'' to the courts, such that he wouldn't remember this particular occasion, or he is being dishonest with us. But his use of that vulgar injunction was corroborated by other DOJ lawyers in text messages. So we really don't need to wonder about this.
As one DOJ lawyer texted another:
Well, now it is ``find out'' time for the U.S. Senate, when we find out whether we are willing to confirm just anybody--no matter how unfit, no matter how terrible the record, no matter how abundant the evidence. It is ``find out'' time for the U.S. Senate.
What was Bove's role in tasking the DOJ and the FBI to scour old Epstein files and flag mentions of Donald Trump? I know my colleague Senator Booker has tried to find out, and Senator Durbin has tried to find out. We don't know because Bove refuses to tell us, but we do know that his fellow criminal defense lawyer, Todd Blanche--he and Blanche were the two lawyers who represented Trump in that ``hush money payment to a porn star'' case. Todd Blanche is now rushing to meet with Epstein's chief coconspirator in jail. It is self-evident that Blanche is there to represent the President's personal interests, not the public's interest, and Bove represents exactly the same problem.
With Bove's nomination, we are about to find out if Republicans are content to give a man so routinely in defiance of the rule of law a lifetime job of interpreting it on behalf of millions of Americans.
We wanted to hear from those whistleblowers like Erez Reuveni, who is just one of the hundreds of public servants who is speaking out, but Republicans have declined our request for testimony and additional hearings, even as they have rushed to jam through this nomination for a lifetime position. Sadly, we will all have a lifetime to regret it.
Like so many of his unfit Cabinet nominees, Donald Trump is daring Senate Republicans to oppose him. I hope and pray they will because the pattern is clear: Emil Bove takes orders from Donald Trump, and that is it. His only merit is blind obedience, not to the law but to the President, and not just to any President but one who is also a convicted felon.
So I urge my colleagues to look at Bove's record of disrespect for the law and reject this dangerous nominee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, I have seen something I haven't seen since I have been on the Judiciary Committee, which is a complete chorus of condemnation of a circuit court judge. We have had every single person express an interest in coming down here from the Democratic members of that committee to condemn our moving forward at such a rapid pace on this nomination.
Now, I would love to just leave it there, but there is something that needs to be even more urgently focused on because, as much as it might seem that this is Democrat v. Republican, I am very happy to see already that some Republicans--not enough for us to stop this nomination, but this will be a bipartisan group of opponents. It is rare, in this time of fierce partisanship, to see some Republicans looking at the evidence, looking at what Mr. Bove has said, looking at what Mr. Bove has done, looking at how he has insulted the very office that he hopes to hold of a judge and a judge's orders. People who are looking objectively at the facts are starting to see that this would be a terrible mistake in a bipartisan way. That gives me some hope that, with the hours left on the clock, perhaps others, too, will take the time to understand a few things.
One, clearly, I believe and others, not just Democrats but career prosecutors, career public defenders--we have seen judges, and we have seen so many people come forward from both sides of the
The second reason people are having pause is that we are rushing this nomination before questions are answered. Too many people are moving too quickly on the other side of the aisle to get this done before questions are answered, before information is obtained for the record. This body, which is supposed to be deliberative and is supposed to advise and consent, should not be moving forward if they are to honor the obligations that we have.
Let me give the multiple reasons as to why we are moving too quickly without information on substantive things, which should raise alarms for all of my colleagues.
We asked to hear the testimony of a whistleblower who came forward with tangible evidence--texts and emails--showing that Emil Bove instructed the DOJ's attorneys to ignore a court order if it impeded Trump's agenda. Bove said ``f you'' to the courts. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to hold a hearing to meet with this whistleblower, who is not a Democrat but a career prosecutor. Instead, we saw the vote being rammed through the committee.
Senator Kim and Senator Blumenthal and members on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has oversight on the question of whether DHS violated a court order, asked the whistleblower to testify before them under oath. That committee has also not concluded its oversight. It is just a stunning and alarming fact that my colleagues on the Republican side have disregarded the credible account of someone who dedicated 15 years to public service and jeopardized their career and reputation to come forward at a time when people who step forward and tell the truth often face real reprisals.
In 2018, many former Southern District of New York prosecutors took the unprecedented step of alerting Emil Bove's supervisors to his unethical conduct as a prosecutor, calling him the ``drunk driver of prosecutors,'' saying that he was reckless and dangerous in the way that he went about prosecutions. This is an unprecedented step of former SDNY prosecutors.
Two years later, Emil Bove was responsible for the biggest Brady violation in the Southern District of New York's history. He withheld exculpatory evidence, resulting in the DOJ's having to toss out a case after a guilty verdict. His actions were so egregious that the judge used them as an example of what a prosecutor should never do. Many of my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have requested more information from the Southern District of New York about his tenure. We still have not gotten it. Yet we are moving forward.
No. 3, finally, after receiving credible information of Emil Bove's role in the Trump administration's burying of evidence about what is going on right now--the man who was in the central position to know what was going on with the Epstein files--we have made legitimate requests to him about this, and he has not responded. There are so many questions about Mr. Trump's interest in hiding whatever their files are and in contradicting themselves. Either there are truckloads of evidence and lists or there are not, but Emil Bove was the Acting in the Justice Department, at the time, and now we have even more reason to question Emil Bove.
Just hours ago, it was revealed that the DOJ told Donald Trump that his name appears many times in those files. Emil Bove was the top official at the DOJ, who also happens to be Trump's personal lawyer. We should know what his role was in reversing course on releasing those files. It would be unconscionable for the Senate to move forward with his confirmation with those answers not being provided.
As I told the Judiciary Committee, there is a false urgency around this nominee. The only reason for this urgency is that the President wants his loyalists on the Federal bench without facing any more scrutiny as to what he knows and what his role was. Even without answering these questions, there is more than enough in his record that disqualifies Bove from having a lifetime appointment to one of the courts. But let's go one more--January 6.
Bove's role in the Trump administration's effort to erase the tragic events of the January 6 attack on the Capitol is disqualifying.
As one of his first official acts, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people who attacked this Capitol, including 200 people who violently assaulted law enforcement officers. Bove was one of the highest ranking officials at DOJ. He said under oath that he advised the President on these pardons.
Then he turned from freeing dangerous people convicted of assaulting police officers from prison to punishing--punishing--the dedicated law enforcement agents who investigated those cases. Bove wrote a memo saying that prosecuting those who attacked the Capitol was a ``grave national injustice,'' so he went after those prosecutors. He fired those Federal prosecutors and FBI agents who worked on the January 6 investigation. Bove then demanded a list of every single FBI employee who touched one of those cases and in doing so exposed thousands of law enforcement officials to potential retribution by the pardoned and dangerous January 6 offenders. They are now roaming free.
Several of these prosecutors reached out to my Republican colleagues and wanted to share their concerns, but not one person agreed to meet with them.
The President can nominate judges to the courts, but--and this is critical--he can only do so by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is a constitutional duty imposed on this House, and it requires us, every single Senator, to fully and fairly consider every nominee.
Willful ignorance does not excuse any of us from our responsibility to seek the truth. It does not excuse us from our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent.
I plead with my colleagues: Look at the facts. Give it your scrutiny. Analyze this nominee. Look at his record.
Emil Bove has shown time and time again his disrespect for the very office he seeks to hold. For God's sake, we have a whistleblower who brought testimony, receipts, texts, and emails showing that Bove said-- despite the fact that he denied it in our hearings--``f you'' to court orders. He withheld evidence that could have helped to release an innocent person or a defendant. He broke his code of conduct. He broke his ethics. He advised on the January 6 pardons and then fired the dedicated law enforcement agents who investigated and prosecuted violent insurrectionists. And now he has critical information regarding the Epstein files.
There is a lot of pressure these days to hastily push a person through who cannot be trusted on the Federal bench. There is a lot of pressure these days to rubberstamp nominees. There is a lot of pressure these days to look the other way even though the evidence is clear. There is a lot of pressure these days. But some of my Republican colleagues have broken and are standing despite the pressure and are saying this person does not belong on the bench. I am grateful that some of my Republican colleagues are standing up and doing the right thing.
There is a lot of pressure these days. There are a lot of threats. The President has put enormous pressure on people in the Republican Party who stand up and do the right thing.
Yet I have seen profiles in courage. In the first Trump administration, I saw it numerous times. I can tell you their names-- Corker, Flake. I saw my colleagues who, in times of great distress, stood up when we had a trial here--multiple people said the President was guilty; who voted against judges who were not fit for the highest office in the land; who voted against
I don't know of another case I have seen in my 14 years in the Senate where someone so unqualified for the bench is before us. But somehow, right now, it just seems to be too few Republicans willing to stand up with the courage of their convictions to call it like it is, to do their constitutional duty, to look squarely at the qualifications of this judge and see what professionals, prosecutors, judges by the hundreds from both parties have come forward and said to this body: Do not let him go forward.
There are just a few hours left before our final vote on this nominee. This is a time for another profile of courage. I am hoping my Republican colleagues will look at the evidence and join with the conclusion held by so many patriots in our country and not let this man get to one of our highest courts in the land.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, as we close this colloquy, I want to thank my colleagues who have come to the floor: Senators Durbin, Kim, Welch, Whitehouse, Hirono, Schiff, and now my great friend and colleague Senator Booker.
To my Republican friends, let me just say that there is ample evidence on the record already to say no to this nominee. But even if you disagree, what is undeniable here is the point that Senator Booker just made and that I made at the very beginning: This record is incomplete. The questions are unanswered.
Just today, I wrote to Attorney General Bondi about the report and investigation that was done by the Office of Professional Responsibility. We have had no access to it. It was done because of a conclusion by the court in a case before it between 2019 and 2021 in the Nejad case that criticized Mr. Bove for offering little in the way of supervision when material was denied to the defendant and the case had to be dismissed. The extent and scope of that investigation has never been disclosed. That is just one example of material that we have a right to see that raises questions that we should insist on being answered.
That letter almost certainly will never get a response--certainly not in time for our vote. But my Republican colleagues will be haunted by those questions. They will be compelled to answer those questions one day to their conscience because this nominee is different.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Matthew Lohmeier, of Arizona, to be Under Secretary of the Air Force, 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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 47. The motion is agreed to.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, today I recognize Reagan Blackburn, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Reagan is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, she is attending Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH, where she is majoring in government and environmental studies. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Reagan for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, on July the Fourth, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The centerpiece of this legislation is a permanent extension of the 2017 tax law, thereby averting the largest tax hike in American history without a vote of Congress.
In addition to this, the bill rolls back the Biden administration's Green New Deal. This includes pairing back supercharged green subsidies enacted by my Democrat colleagues as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.
I have long been a strong proponent of developing alternative energy resources as part of an all the above energy strategy.
I am proud to be the original author of the wind production tax credit. When Congress enacted that credit in 1993, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. electricity production came from wind. Today, it is over 10 percent. And in my home State of Iowa, it is over 60 percent. Wind development has been an unquestionable success.
My view has always been that tax incentives intended to spur fledgling industries shouldn't last longer than necessary. That is why in 2015 I worked with both the wind and solar industries to phase out their credits over a period of years. Unfortunately, the Democrats so- called Inflation Reduction Act reversed course and supercharged these credits once more.
As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, much like I did in 2015, I worked with my colleagues to provide wind and solar an appropriate glidepath for the orderly phase-out of the tax credits.
Many of my colleagues advocated pulling the rug out from wind and solar projects, but I worked to find a sensible compromise. Based on that compromise, the law's December 31, 2027, placed-in-service requirement for wind and solar facilities is only effective for ``facilities the construction of which begins after the date which is 12 months after the date of enactment.''
This change is intended to grant the wind and solar industries a yearlong transition to confidently move forward with planned projects under the existing continuity safe harbor and the beginning of construction guidance in effect at the time of the law's enactment.
The statute expressly codifies what it means to ``begin construction.'' Congress consciously elected to set the provisions effective date by reference to ``beginning of construction'' because of its long- and well-established meaning at the time of enactment. Treasury guidance with respect to when construction begins, along with its continuity safe harbor, goes back more than a decade.
It is simply common sense for Congress to look to a well-understood and long-established term in establishing such a transition period. After all, the purpose of a transition period is to allow industry time to adjust to new rules and requirements and avoid market disruptions.
As the Department of the Treasury works to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill, I urge agency officials to do so in accordance with the statute as written and consistent with congressional intent.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, as spectrum auctions move forward, it is critical that the FCC maintains the integrity of its prior decisions related to spectrum use and auctions. Reallocating or modifying licenses that were legally purchased through auctions, such as by relocating licensees or changing the operating rules applicable to those licenses, would undermine the certainty businesses rely on to make
Mr. President, I would like to honor and recognize Michael S. Treppel for his nearly quarter century of distinguished service to the U.S. Congress. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Treppel has tirelessly supported the safety and well-being of more than 30,000 congressional staff, security personnel, and Members of the House and Senate. His work--often behind the scenes--has allowed others to carry out their duties with the confidence that their health and safety were in expert hands.
From the daycare centers to the Chambers of the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Treppel's impact has been both broad and profound. As an environmental health specialist and later as director of environmental health within the Office of Attending Physician--OAP--he has been the trusted adviser, evaluator, and implementer of critical health and safety policies that shaped the day-to-day environment of Congress. Mr. Treppel conducted over 5,000 inspections across nine congressional buildings, ensuring strict adherence to food safety standards and pathogen prevention protocols. His work was central to staff welfare, and he quickly corrected any discrepancies while establishing preventative measures to ensure long-term compliance.
He worked closely with leading experts from the Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and internal leadership from the Architect of the Capitol--AOC--and OAP. During the anthrax and ricin incidents at the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Treppel played a pivotal role in evaluating ventilation systems and contamination risks, providing vital guidance to protect occupants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he led the environmental health response for the entire Capitol complex. He singlehandedly recommended and guided sanitation and remediation requirements for all nine buildings and the U.S. Capitol, helping to restore safe occupancy in offices, common areas, committee rooms, eateries, and the House and Senate Chambers. He also facilitated the delivery of critical Personal Protective Equipment--PPE--including plexiglass shields, N-95 respirators, and medical-grade disinfectants. When the return-to-work transition began, he assessed and approved the use of physical barriers, distancing protocols, and sanitation measures. His knowledge and calm guidance became a trusted source for thousands navigating uncertainty during a global health crisis. He also developed and led PPE training for clinical staff for COVID-19, H1N1, SARS, Ebola, etc., ensuring that frontline medical personnel were equipped to protect themselves and others--and he made proper donning and doffing of protective equipment second nature to the Capitol's medical teams.
He also played a vital role in the planning and reopening of the new House Child Daycare Center in the O'Neill Building, providing input on space requirements, sanitation procedures, and illness policies. His oversight extended to the Library of Congress and Senate daycare centers as well, where he continued to ensure safe environments through inspections and guidance on evolving health standards.
Mr. Treppel oversaw the occupational health division and served as a contracting officer representative. He was instrumental in managing hundreds of thousands of dollars of contracts for health surveillance programs for AOC tunnel workers, power plant employees, and U.S. Capitol Police. During the pandemic, when services were paused due to social distancing, he facilitated a smooth transition to mobile medical units, ensuring uninterrupted OSHA-compliant care for at-risk workers. In addition to his environmental expertise, he helped interview and evaluate hundreds of nursing candidates to support both routine care and mass casualty preparedness for the congressional community.
Few individuals have had such a lasting and comprehensive impact on the operational safety of the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Treppel's unwavering dedication, depth of knowledge, and calm presence during times of crisis have made him an invaluable part of the congressional community.
As he retires, we offer our sincere gratitude for his exceptional service. His legacy of leadership and care will be felt for many years to come.
We thank Michael S. Treppel and wish him the very best in his well- deserved retirement.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with my colleague Senator King that will help the hard-working loggers across this country affected by severe storms and natural disasters. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide payments to eligible logging businesses that have experienced at least a 10 percent loss as a result of a federally declared disaster. In Maine alone, logging has a roughly $582 million annual economic impact and is the backbone of the forest products economy.
In Maine and in many places across the country, the logging industry has felt the effects of severe weather events and warmer than normal winters. Each winter, Maine experiences many storms. Two particularly bad storms, in December 2023 and January 2024, were designated Federal disasters. These storms were detrimental to many industries, but especially logging, as the winter months are usually the best months for loggers to harvest timber when the frozen ground makes access easier. The rainstorms saturated the ground, and the mud made it much more difficult to operate and transport heavy logging equipment without disturbing the soil underneath.
These storms also closed bridges and roads on important trucking routes, hindering the movement of equipment and employees to logging sites. For example, the December 18 storm washed out a bridge on a vital trucking route that forced an 80-mile detour for wood being distributed to both northern and southern markets. According to the Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast, this December wind and rainstorm in Maine resulted in more than $2.5 million in losses.
Despite these documented losses, there is currently no Federal program to assist loggers who have been affected by federally declared disasters. That is why I am introducing the Logger Economic Assistance and Relief Act, which would authorize income replacement for logging contractors equal to 10 percent of eligible gross lost revenue from the previous calendar year. Funds received under this program can only be used for operating expenses. Our legislation is modeled off of the successful Pandemic Assistance for Timber Harvesters and Haulers Program, which I created during the COVID pandemic to provide much needed aid to our timber harvesters.
I am grateful for the Professional Logging Council of the Northeast and the American Logging Council's support of our legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to support one of our country's core economic drivers in times of natural disasters.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill with my colleague Senator King that will help the hard-working loggers across this country affected by severe storms and natural disasters. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide payments to eligible logging businesses that have experienced at least a 10 percent loss as a result of a federally declared disaster. In Maine alone, logging has a roughly $582 million annual economic impact and is the backbone of the forest products economy.
In Maine and in many places across the country, the logging industry has felt the effects of severe weather events and warmer than normal winters. Each winter, Maine experiences many storms. Two particularly bad storms, in December 2023 and January 2024, were designated Federal disasters. These storms were detrimental to many industries, but especially logging, as the winter months are usually the best months for loggers to harvest timber when the frozen ground makes access easier. The rainstorms saturated the ground, and the mud made it much more difficult to operate and transport heavy logging equipment without disturbing the soil underneath.
These storms also closed bridges and roads on important trucking routes, hindering the movement of equipment and employees to logging sites. For example, the December 18 storm washed out a bridge on a vital trucking route that forced an 80-mile detour for wood being distributed to both northern and southern markets. According to the Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast, this December wind and rainstorm in Maine resulted in more than $2.5 million in losses.
Despite these documented losses, there is currently no Federal program to assist loggers who have been affected by federally declared disasters. That is why I am introducing the Logger Economic Assistance and Relief Act, which would authorize income replacement for logging contractors equal to 10 percent of eligible gross lost revenue from the previous calendar year. Funds received under this program can only be used for operating expenses. Our legislation is modeled off of the successful Pandemic Assistance for Timber Harvesters and Haulers Program, which I created during the COVID pandemic to provide much needed aid to our timber harvesters.
I am grateful for the Professional Logging Council of the Northeast and the American Logging Council's support of our legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to support one of our country's core economic drivers in times of natural disasters.
Mr. President, I have fourteen requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to consider nominations.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 4 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members from my personal office and the Senate Finance Committee teams be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Sara Korniewicz, Sabina Lee, William Wyden, Gabriel Ritter, and Jackson McFadyen-Ray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Authorizing the Use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a Ceremony to Present the Congressional Gold Medals Awarded Under the Harlem Hellfighters Congressional Gold Medal Act
I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 39) was agreed to.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 267.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 267) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of June 10, 2025, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 24; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 131, Matthew Lohmeier, postcloture; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Lohmeier nomination at 11:30 a.m.; and if cloture is then invoked on Executive Calendar No. 87, Richard Topping, all postcloture time be expired at 1:45 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation; finally, if cloture is invoked on the Bove nomination, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader no earlier than Monday, July 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
