Unanimous Consent Request: S. 1627 (Executive Calendar)
Madam President, I rise today to talk about an issue of great national importance that affects every family in America.
We know the Federal Reserve has been wildly unaccountable for years under Jay Powell's leadership. Beyond his failed monetary policies leading to destroyed markets and misallocated capital, Powell has also overseen regulatory failures and numerous reports of unethical practices among its own members, all of which were overlooked and enabled by the Fed Board's handpicked inspector general.
This malpractice and lack of transparency and accountability have seriously undermined confidence in our financial system. We can work to address this and start repairing the broken trust of the American people today by passing my bill, which is simple: Establish an independent, Senate-confirmed inspector general at the Federal Reserve. Every other government Agency has one. Surely the government's largest Agency should have one. It is just common sense to establish a Senate- confirmed inspector general at the Fed.
This inspector general would finally be independent of the Fed Board, who are the very people they are tasked with investigating in order to bring accountability to the Fed on behalf of the American people.
This must happen now. In recent years, we have seen hundreds of allegations of voting members of the Federal Reserve engaging in shady and unethical investment trades while in possession of insider information about the Fed. We have seen the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and others.
We have seen a complete mismanagement of the Fed's policies while a culture of corruption has arrived at the Fed, and we are seeing billions of taxpayer dollars being spent to renovate the Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC, all while the Fed is operating at a loss.
You might wonder, as I do, why no one gets fired or is held accountable and why no changes have been made. It is because Jay Powell is Chair, and the Federal Reserve's inspector general is appointed by and reports to--guess who--Jay Powell and the Fed Board, period.
It is a clear conflict of interest constructed with a perverse pay structure that enables issues to go unchecked and covered up for too long at the expense of the American people. The American people want to know their central bank is doing the right thing. The Fed makes decisions that impact their lives each and every day. For families like mine, growing up without much, the Fed's choices can decide if they can afford their mortgage or put food on the table. Families across our Nation deserve a Federal Reserve that they trust is working in their best interest.
I would like to thank Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, Senator Lummis, and Senator Moreno for working with me on this important bill. I would now like to yield to my colleague Senator Moreno to say a few words about the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Ohio.
I rise to draw some sunlight and daylight with what is actually going on at the Fed. There is a lot of commentary that you hear in the news and social media, sometimes in a world here of hyperpartisanship, the facts get lost. So I just want to support and emphasize how important the legislation is that Senator Scott is proposing.
Back about 8 years ago, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors decided to renovate four buildings--four buildings that they have in Washington, DC.
They came up with what I think is a very, very high budget, $2.1 billion to renovate--not to build new--but $2.1 billion to renovate four buildings. Huge number; big, big number. Now back 7 or 8 years ago, the Federal Reserve was bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, as they have for decades. So you think, well, maybe this is a needed expenditure. I don't probably think that if we had some hindsight we wouldn't have embarked on that path, but they did.
One of the four buildings is on New York Avenue. They call it the NYA building. They decided to take that out of consideration. So now you have three buildings; the budget would have been somewhere around $1.6 billion.
They completed the Martin building about 3 or 4 years ago for about 25 percent over budget for the original estimate back in 2017, and here is where we are landing: The Eccles and 1951 building, the ones you see when you drive down Pennsylvania Avenue, the iconic picture of the Fed building, that total renovation should have cost about $1.6 billion. It is now together--all three buildings--it is now approaching $3.1 to $3.2 billion. The cost overrun is more than the entire cost to build CityCenter. Think about that for a second, on a renovation. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve--clearly one of two things is happening--either he is absolutely not paying attention to this project, or he is completely inept in managing it. Either way, what we need desperately is exactly what my colleague from Florida is suggesting--an independent body that would go in and say: What the heck is going on here?
Because I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but you go around Florida or I go around Ohio or when my colleague goes around Michigan, it is a little hard to explain why an organization like the Federal Reserve, which is losing hundreds of billions of dollars, is spending billions to renovate a building when their actions are costing them personally thousands and thousands of dollars on their car loans, their home loans, their credit card, their business loans.
There needs to be transparency. We need an independent Fed, we do; it is a proud history here in America. That is what has made our financial system strong.
But sometimes, even in the best institutions, you end up with incompetent leaders. And that is the case with Jerome Powell. And that is why we need an independent investigator to go in there and take a look at what is actually going on.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
I yield to the Senator from Wyoming Senator Lummis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Madam President, I rise to support commonsense legislation that will bring transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Currently, the inspector general of the Fed is appointed by the Fed Chair. This is highly unusual, and it means that the inspector general has no independence from the management of the Fed and is susceptible to influence. This is an unacceptable arrangement. I think we all agree that inspectors general cannot do their jobs without independence.
Democrats who are objecting to this commonsense legislation today have made inspector general independence a priority for years, and rightfully so, until today. Think about that. Democrats are saying they are OK with being complicit in the mismanagement of the Fed that we are seeing today. We are witnessing unprecedented mismanagement of the Fed.
The Fed overrun--and it was just discussed by my colleague from Ohio--it has overrun its budget for its building renovation by at least $700 million, and Chair Powell appointed the inspector general who is now tasked with examining this fiasco. Do we expect the Fed's inspector general to do anything other than immunize the Fed Chair from further scrutiny and say everything is on the up and up?
I won't have any confidence in the Fed's IG and its findings until that person has statutory independence from the Fed Chair. The Federal Reserve has grown too powerful, too insulated, too comfortable, and they are operating in the shadows. And this is the minimum we can do to start getting this independent Agency some scrutiny. They don't even respond to FOIA requests.
This is a commonsense change that my colleague from Florida is proposing. It is the right approach. I am proud to partner with Senator Scott to move this legislation forward, and we will keep trying.
Thank you to the gentleman from Florida for his tireless advocacy for common sense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Well, first off, it is clear we need changes at the Federal Reserve to bring accountability the American people deserve. I have several bills to address the failures of the Fed and bring accountability on behalf of the American people, and today I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense bipartisan bill with my colleagues Senator Warren, Senator Moreno, Senator Lummis to establish a truly independent inspector general at the Federal Reserve, and I know my colleague from Michigan believes in the same thing.
We have to have accountability. This bill is a great first step to fix the failures and restore trust in the Federal Reserve and it sure works on behalf of the American people. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.
I ask unanimous consent as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1627, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Michigan.
Reserving the right to object.
I rise today to oppose S. 1627, a bill to require Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of the inspector general and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
This bill, certainly on its surface, may look like good government, but in reality, it would give President Trump more partisan, political control over the independent Federal Reserve.
I fully support independence for our inspectors general. I worked with Senator Grassley to pass bipartisan legislation that was signed into law that strengthened the independence by requiring the President to provide an explanation to Congress before firing an IG to ensure that these watchdogs cannot be removed for political reasons.
Well, President Trump violated the law 18 times in his first week in office. That is a lot of lawbreaking in a short period of time. And after the President fired the IGs with stellar track records of protecting taxpayer dollars and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse, basically, he then nominated partisan operatives to take their place.
So let's take a look at some of the nominees he put in place. Trump's nominee for labor IG is a former Republican Congressman and the subject of multiple past investigations for ethical misconduct. The nominee to be IG for Health and Human Services is a former Republican official who was forced to resign due to unethical conduct.
The nominee to be IG of the VA, the intelligence community, and the USDA have all served as political appointees in the very Agencies that they are now asked to be independent from. A very difficult task.
These nominees are basically an insult--an insult--to the very concept of independent oversight.
We need an independent inspector general conducting oversight of the Fed and the President's actions to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What we don't need--we don't need another partisan IG nominee who is more interested in pleasing Donald Trump than in holding him accountable. President Trump has done enough to damage independent oversight, and it must stop here.
I would be glad to work with my friend, the senior Senator from Florida. We have talked about this. I look forward to working with him on meaningful, truly impartial, and effective oversight that would truly result in a more independent watchdog.
But passing this bill now would give President Trump more of what he wants while actively undermining the very mechanisms of independent accountability--if that is what we want, this is not the measure. And I look forward to working with the senior Senator from Florida to make that happen in the future.
But because of that, I must object now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
First off, I want to thank my colleague for his interest in making sure we have an independent inspector general. I don't think there is a disagreement on that. It is how do we get them on point and the process of getting them confirmed.
So I actually look forward to working with my colleague. Hopefully, we get this done quickly. I mean, there is so many issues--as we all agree--at the Federal Reserve, and we have got to get somebody independent in there. And so we have to come up with the right process where it is not perceived to be political.
So I know my colleagues from Ohio and from Wyoming would like to say something.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Will my colleague from Michigan yield to a couple of questions?
Got to go? OK. Well, here are the questions I was going to ask. He mentioned in his comments what is obvious, the President nominated somebody to be an inspector general. And then the Senate, 100 Members of the Senate confirm that person, thus ensuring the independence.
So if you don't like that particular nominee, you are able to come right here, go to the floor, and vote no.
But this idea that this inspector general would somehow be a partisan person by definition is wrong because what you are doing is you are giving the President the ability to make a nomination and then the Senate the unique constitutional power to confirm that nominee.
That is the way we have done it forever. We did it for President Trump. The prior Congresses did it for Biden and every other President before. So this idea that all of a sudden, this is now something new is totally nonsense.
And here, look, part of the problem that we have today is that the Democrats are making historical efforts to absolutely stop President Trump from basic operational duties.
We have never had a Congress--as you know, Madam President--that has not allowed nominees to go forward with unanimous consent. So here we are, on August 1, having to go through vote after vote.
I was going to ask my colleague if he knew whom he even voted no for, and the answer is they don't even know whom they are voting no for. They just come and vote no because that is what they do. And that type of just total blocking for the total partisanship is not what the American people want.
If you have a legitimate concern with the nominee, there is a process to do that. But just to universally filibuster every single nominee is not the way for us to move forward. The voters expect more.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Madam President, I want to echo the remarks that were just made by my colleague from Ohio and add a couple of things. Not only do we as a Senate have an opportunity to prevent a nominee from being confirmed into office by our own vote and our own scrutiny and our own vetting of nominees, but we have the opportunity, in this case, to turn an Agency that was created for independence that has now become independently disassociated with the very people it is designed to help govern and help rein
Now, we have proposed other ideas that have not been accepted yet, but that should be considered, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't accept this one.
One of the reasons I like the Senator from Florida's idea here is because it is such a strategic, narrow way to try to get some independent eyes at the Fed. Other ways that I had considered, and that we could still consider if this idea is unacceptable, is to make the Feds subject to FOIA. We could confirm all 12 of the regional presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks so we have a say in who they are and any number of other provisions that give the people of this country some oversight over that entity, the Federal Reserve, that has become so independent that it thumbs its nose at working for and with the American people.
Look what happened in the way banks were supervised in the last 4 years. Choke Point 2.0 brought about a government-caused failure of two banks. Those banks were not insolvent. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC pushed them into insolvency because they didn't like their customers. That was it. They didn't like it that banks were providing banking services to digital asset companies, to Melania Trump, to the children of the now-President. They targeted those people. They debanked those people. Government did that by threatening the financial institutions that had them as customers, saying that the safety and soundness of the institution was going to be subject to scrutiny if they continued to bank digital asset businesses, the Trump family, and others.
That was government targeting--targeting--Americans. That was our government turned against our people for no good reason, and there is no way to get scrutiny of the Fed because they don't have an independent IG. They are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We don't have sufficient oversight of them. We have got to get oversight over the Fed.
And I want to applaud my colleague from Florida for taking the initial step that every other Agency is subject to: an independent inspector general.
So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are objecting to this measured, commonsense matter, for heaven's sake, come up with a solution because the Fed is an unaccountable, run-amok place that is not responsive to the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Legislative Session
Mr. President, in a moment, we will begin votes on an appropriations package that includes the fiscal year 2026 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and the Agriculture, FDA, and Rural Development appropriations bills. We will also have the opportunity to consider the fiscal year 2026 Legislative Branch appropriations.
These bills were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee in overwhelmingly bipartisan votes.
I gave a longer floor speech last week on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs funding bill, so I will focus my comments now on the Agriculture-FDA and Legislative Branch appropriations.
The Ag-FDA bill was approved unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this month. It is a carefully crafted bill that supports our farmers and rural communities; the safety of our food supply; critical Federal nutrition programs like the WIC Program; and medical research and advancements.
The bill invests in agricultural research that is vital to our farmers as they work to improve the quality, safety, and affordability of our food supply. The dollars invested in these programs, like the potato and blueberry research lines that are so important to my home State of Maine, have yielded significant improvements to the industries they support.
The bill also invests in research facilities across the country, like the University of Maine Forest Health Lab, to ensure that we can continue to lead in agricultural innovation.
This legislation also supports the administration's request in the areas of food safety and rural housing, and it provides much needed investments in animal and plant health programs to protect our agricultural and natural resources.
It also maintains support for our rural areas to ensure that communities in Maine, and, indeed, across the country, have accesses to the resources they need to continue to thrive in these challenging times.
Turning now to the fiscal year 2026 Legislative Branch bill. This legislation provides funding for Congress and the offices and agencies that support our work.
It provides an increase for the Capitol Police to help them meet the expanding mission requirements to keep Members safe and Members' staff and visitors to the Capitol Complex safe. The number of threats against Members of Congress has, unfortunately, increased significantly over the past few years. This bill reflects a bipartisan commitment to address these security concerns.
Again, I want to thank the vice chair; Senators Boozman and Ossoff, the chair and ranking members of the MILCON-VA Subcommittee; Senators Hoeven and Shaheen, the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee; and Senators Mullin and Heinrich, the chair and ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, for their hard work and dedication.
Finally, let me note that these are fiscally responsible bipartisan bills, and I urge my colleagues to support them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to execute the order with respect to Calendar No. 121, H.R. 3944.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session and resume consideration of H.R. 3944, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee- reported substitute is withdrawn.
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3411 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 31, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the managers' package to amendment No. 3411 were considered and agreed to.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
On page S5190, August 1, 2025, first column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3070
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3070, As Modified
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to
Congress a report on the use of third-party contractors to conduct medical disability examinations of veterans for purposes of obtaining
On page S5190, August 1, 2025, second column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3081
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3081, As Modified
(Purpose: To provide for the continuation of National Cemetery
On page S5190, August 1, 2025, second column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3082
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3082, As Modified
(Purpose: To address interment schedule availability at cemeteries
(Purpose: To allocate amounts for opioid prevention and treatment
On page S5190, August 1, 2025, third column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3080
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3080, As Modified
(Purpose: To require reports on facilities at Fort Leonard Wood,
and timeline to construct a new medical center of the Department of
On page S5191, August 1, 2025, first column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3073
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3073, As Modified
(Purpose: To require a report on New World screwworm readiness and
agricultural quarantine and inspection program to products entering
(Purpose: To allocate amounts for the Intimate Partner Violence
(Purpose: To provide appropriations to expedite fiber research on
industrial hemp and expand cereal research into mycotoxin risk
On page S5191, August 1, 2025, second column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3163
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3163, As Modified
(Purpose: To limit the availability of funds for canceling large
(Purpose: To increase funding for rural decentralized water systems)
On page S5191, August 1, 2025, third column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3190
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3190, As Modified
(Purpose: To increase funding for the Healthy Fluid Milk Incentives
On page S5191, August 1, 2025, third column, the following appears: Amendment No. 3220
The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 3220, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3114 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
Mr. President, this amendment protects the work that we are doing today from a future rescission happening in a partisan basis.
Now, realize this only affects FY 2026 and therefore only bills that have been both passed here and in the House and signed by President Trump.
But here is why this is important: The work that we have done on a bipartisan basis has never been undone, until this last month, in the history of the Senate since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was passed.
Why? Because we agreed that the rescissions--that is, to repeal existing spending already in law--would be done in a bipartisan way, just as the initial bill was done in a bipartisan way.
This is important for us to work together, no matter who is in the White House in the future.
I must say, this bipartisan work is so important to preserve our responsibilities under the Constitution here in the Senate and the House, where the Constitution assigns the responsibility for the power of the purse.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I will oppose this and will make a point of order here in a second.
This amendment would prevent Congress and the President from using the congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act's fast-track process for considering rescissions in fiscal year 2026 and beyond.
Under the Merkley amendment, rescissions can only be included in appropriations bills, which would need 60 votes. And the law in question allows a fast-track provision for rescissions. Senator Merkley's amendment would do away with that.
This amendment is subject to a point of order for violating Section 306 of the congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires legislation dealing with the Budget Committee's jurisdiction to be reported or discharged from the Budget Committee.
The pending amendment No. 3114 contains matters within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction. I, therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, how many seconds do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no seconds left.
In that case, Mr. President, my--
In the spirit of the endeavor, I will give you 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You don't have 15 seconds.
Well, I will one day get 15 seconds, and I will give it to you when I do.
I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds for my colleague and 15 seconds for myself on why this should or should not be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I don't have anything else to say.
Thank you.
I will borrow his 15 as well as mine.
Mr. President, we do have the power to waive this. It does take 60 votes, but this would be all of us together saying we should defend the bipartisan work here now, just as we have through the entire history since 1974. We are talking about a half century of bipartisan strategy being undone with the possibility of partisan rescissions.
Let's do our rescissions in a bipartisan way, in committee. And for that reason, unless there is a rebuttal from my colleague, I will make the formal request to waive.
OK, continuing.
Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Review Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget points of order for the purposes of the pending measure.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears be to a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, and the nays are 51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, the Veterans Crisis Line is a critical--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up his amendment?
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3432 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to reduce services under the
Mr. President, this amendment seeks to protect the victims crisis hotline, a critical lifeline for veterans who may take their own lives from the kind of cuts that we have seen during these first 6 months
It directly conflicted with the assurances we were given by Secretary Collins that he would not fire frontline employees, and veterans' benefits and care would remain untouched.
Fortunately, we have bipartisan support for the Veterans Crisis Line, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Moran, for his support on this measure. Now, the damage--some of it has already been done, as we have heard in our hearing of June 25. Firsthand witnesses told us about the confusion and chaos that has resulted.
We need to invest the resources, now more than ever, and, in fact, more resources than we have devoted so far, more staff, and make sure that we keep faith with veterans when they are in crisis as a result of the service and sacrifice that we have asked of them.
It is critical to their mission and ours, and I ask for my colleagues to support this measure. I believe that a voice vote will be appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, we want to thank Senator Blumenthal and Senator Moran for their hard work on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We all support the mission at the Veterans Crisis Line. Preventing veteran suicide is a common goal shared by everyone in this Chamber. The VCL has taken more than 7.16 million calls since it was established. The VA reports that veterans who contact VCL are 10 times more likely to receive mental health care than those who do not.
I support this amendment and urge its adoption and would be glad to scream out ``yes'' with a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3432) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3447 and ask it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, every year, there are 6,400 veterans who die by suicide. This is an urgent crisis that I know matters to colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
A few years ago, we made a change in law that restores gun rights to veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent. These are veterans who can't manage their financial affairs, can't balance a checkbook-- about 35 percent of them are diagnosed with schizophrenia.
All this amendment seeks to do is to collect information to see what the rate of suicide has been amongst that population of veterans, many of them deeply mentally ill, who now are able to purchase a gun. This is just an amendment seeking to get that information so that we can make our best determination on a bipartisan basis as to how to best protect veterans who are at moments of crisis in their life.
If it were up to me, we would restore the previous policy for 30 years. Democrats and Republicans agreed that those veterans diagnosed with schizophrenia should not be able to buy a gun, but all I am asking for here is an amendment that would seek to get information on the rate of suicide for this population of veterans.
I would hope that my colleagues would support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, veterans who are found by competent judicial authority to be a danger to themselves or others are reported to NICS under current law. There is no evidence to suggest that individuals who require a fiduciary are inherently more prone to violence.
Under the terms of current law with this amendment in place, veterans who are found to be a danger to themselves or others by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority are reported to the NICS system, as is entirely appropriate.
Needing help with your finances doesn't make you mentally incapacitated or mentally incompetent.
For this reason, I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3447) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go to 10- minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for that.
I call up my amendment No. 3115 that I offer on behalf of myself and Senators Alsobrooks, Kaine, and Warner and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Department of Agriculture and to require a benefit-cost analysis on
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, USDA has proposed a massive reorganization plan having done absolutely no due diligence. They have not talked to families or to farmers or to rural communities about it. They have not backed up their estimates of cost savings, and they have not provided the information needed to assure that this reorganization will not harm the critical work that USDA does.
This amendment directs USDA to take a step back and provide a transparent, informed, carefully considered plan for any such reorganization before implementing it. In other words, look and aim before you shoot.
It requires a vetted benefit-cost analysis and review of how this reorganization would impact USDA's staff expertise and ability to provide customer service. It requires a public comment process so our constituents and stakeholders can weigh in. Once USDA takes those steps, Congress can assess the need for that reorganization in fiscal year 2027.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Secretary of Agriculture has put forth a proposal to move some of the people that work in the DC area, to move those functions out to the country to be closer to the farmers and the ranchers they serve. I very much support this effort. We are at the front end of this effort.
She has testified in front of our Agriculture Approps Committee that she will work with us on it. The Ag-authorized committee is working on it as well. In fact, yesterday, I met with the Deputy Secretary of USDA. He committed to work on it.
We have a good process. We do not need to overly handcuff the USDA as they work to make this transition, which is a transition that we should make. We are working on it in the right way. We are at the front end of the proposal, not the back end.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 53, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3114) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Duckworth, I call up amendment No. 3466 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to
Congress a report on the plan of the Secretary for Department of
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, Senator Duckworth has an amendment that warrants bipartisan support.
Secretary Collins had announced earlier this year his plan to fire 80,000 personnel at the VA. Amidst public outrage, he has backed off that plan. We still don't know his intentions for mass firings in this coming fiscal year. All this amendment does is ask for a report on what the impact will be on the
I urge a vote for Senator Duckworth's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. President, I understand Senator Duckworth's concern. However, Secretary Collins publicly announced that, through normal attrition, early retirements, and deferred resignations, the VA staff would be properly sized by the end of fiscal year 2025. The rumored large-scale reduction in force is not necessary, and the VA has no plans to seek any further staffing reductions. Mission-critical positions at the VA are exempt from a hiring freeze and are not eligible for early retirement or deferred resignations.
To quote Secretary Collins:
Senator Tuberville has an amendment that does not focus on rumored RIFs that will not take place but instead focuses on VA staffing reviews, the new staffing models it is pursuing, and the methodology underpinning these efforts.
For that reason, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
I would just note, if that is the case, the Department can make that clear in their report.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3466) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Tuberville] proposes an amendment numbered 3413 to Amendment No. 3411.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on the efforts of the Secretary to review and implement staffing models at the Department of Veterans Affairs that will ensure timely,
high quality delivery of health care, benefits, and other services
Mr. President, as a son of a World War II veteran, I have seen firsthand the critical role that the VA plays in caring for those who have served our country. Unfortunately, under President Biden's leadership, it was a dumpster fire.
Some of my Democratic colleagues seem to have forgotten about these failures, so let's take a trip down memory lane.
It was Department of Veterans Affairs under President Biden that rehired and gave full backpay to hundreds of VA employees who had been fired for failing to do their jobs. These employees were not let go by mistake; they had been fired for poor performance.
But, apparently, the Biden administration didn't care about that. The Biden VA decision to rehire these bad employees cost us $134 million.
Or my colleagues have forgotten that, magically, the VA had a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall last year. How does that even happen? There is zero accountability, unfortunately.
Thank goodness President Trump and Secretary Collins are in charge now. They are working around the clock to right-size the VA. The Trump administration is singularly focused on making sure veterans have timely access to quality care and benefits.
We need to support Secretary Collins and this administration in achieving the core goals for our veterans, not waste our time playing politics.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama offers an amendment that would require the VA to submit a report on the implementation of staffing models, and that is sorely needed. And I rise in support of this amendment.
We saw Secretary Collins initially say he wanted to fire 15 percent of the VA workforce--80,000 people--with no explanation. Then he demolished morality at the VA so that 30,000 people quit. Now he says he is not going to fire 80,000 people. He fired most of the new hires, probationary workers, many of them veterans, until that was held up in court. None of this is supported by any kind of analysis or assessment of how it would impact wait times or the provision of service for veterans.
So I appreciate the Senator from Alabama for wanting to hold the administration accountable.
I urge a ``yes'' vote to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
I accept it, and I ask for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3413) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3414 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
Mr. President, this is an amendment to the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee budget. Our chair of that subcommittee is able, he is talented, and he exercises power maturely, in my judgment.
I just think we ought to reduce spending. It is clear to me that to do that, we are going to have to do it by baby steps.
This amendment would reduce fiscal year 2026 Agriculture discretionary spending appropriations, if you will, by 2 percent--2 percent. That would take us from $27.1 billion to $26.55 billion--a reduction of $542 million. That represents 0.007 percent of the total that the Federal Government is currently spending on an annualized basis.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the Federal budget were a 24-hour day--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY.--this reduction represents about 7 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. President, this amendment would be an across-the- board cut. We made targeted cuts, and we had to fully fund WIC, which was a significant increase. So our cuts are actually more than the 2 percent that the gentleman is talking about.
I support his desire to reduce spending, but, overall, we are up a little over 1 percent with that significant increase of about 7 percent in WIC.
Again, I think we have done this the right way. We still have to go to conference with the House. They are about 5 percent below where we are. So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment and defer to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
I want to agree with Chairman Hoeven. This amendment would apply an indiscriminate cut across a carefully negotiated bipartisan bill. It would create a funding shortfall for the WIC Program, threaten the ability of the FDA to collect user fees, undermine farm loan programs, shortchange the Nation's food safety enterprise, and hamper our ability to fight animal and plant diseases like bird flu and New World screwworm. I bet you didn't know what that was.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hoeven and me in opposing this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 81, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3414) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3113 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To reduce funding for certain programs under the division making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Mr. President, first and most importantly, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on these appropriations bills and the support of our agriculture community in this bill.
Our Nation is $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion deficits after years of Democrats grossly expanding Federal spending. We have to start somewhere to get our out-of-control spending in check, and the President's budget is a great place to start.
President Trump made a promise to the American people that he would bring fiscal sanity to our Nation and turn the economy around. He wants to balance the budget, and so do I. The President put forward a budget proposal that works toward that goal. We should be passing appropriations bills that respect his requests and the will of the American people.
My amendment would put us closer to the President's budget request for the ag budget as he delivers on his promise to the American people.
I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and restore fiscal sanity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. President, I support my colleagues' efforts to find spending reductions. He does make a number of changes that go in line with the President's budget, but he does a number of things that absolutely will not work.
For example, cuts ag research by more than 40 percent. Let me repeat that. He cuts ag research by more than 40 percent. Cuts the FSA. That is most important Agency for our farmers. That is out in farm country where they are--cuts that Farm Service Agency by 20 percent; rural development, cut 20 percent; technical assistance at NRCS by 80 percent.
So, again, we did make reductions. We actually reduced about 2 percent, but then we do fully fund WIC, which caused the increase to 1 percent. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I agree with Senator Hoeven. This amendment really would undermine the serious bipartisan work that went into crafting a strong bill within the confines of our allocation, and I think Senator Hoeven made that point very well.
It would slash a host of things that are critical to farmers, producers in rural communities, hamstringing research and extension programs at land-grant universities, cutting funding for the Farm Service Agency, gutting rural development programs, eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program that would rip away nutrition assistance for 700,000 seniors.
I would urge my colleagues to join Senator Hoeven and me in opposing this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 15, nays 81, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3113) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3428 and ask it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, the late great Senator Tom Colburn referred to earmarks as the gateway drug to runaway spending.
In testimony before the House in 2018, he stated: I have witnessed earmarking up close and know it is inherently corrupt. Earmarks are abused as a form of currency to buy and sell votes of politicians and to reward political supporters.
Convicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff affectionately called the earmark system ``the favor factory.''
I am sad to report that the favor factory is up and running about $1.3 billion worth of earmarks in this bill alone.
My amendment acknowledges the reality that those of us who are opposed to earmarks are grossly outnumbered, so as hard as we try to ban them, we won't be able to. So my amendment simply tries to prevent earmarks being used as a quasi-campaign contribution. So members can talk about the earmarks in official Senate proceedings, subcommittee hearings, committee hearings, on the floor, in official Senate publications, but if they go on media, if they set up press releases, if they use them in ads, those earmarks are automatically rescinded.
If people really don't believe that this is a favor factory, this amendment should pass 100 to zero.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee takes very seriously the oversight and accountability of every CDS request. The project and certifications for each item are posted on both the committee website and Members' official website. Senators have to certify that neither they nor any immediate family member has a financial interest in the item request, and GAO, which is Congress's nonpartisan auditor, conducts an analysis of select projects every year.
The Johnson amendment would prohibit virtually any public communication about CDS and make the process less transparent.
This amendment states the remedy for breaking that new rule, for telling our constituents what we are doing is to rescind that CDS.
This is an important way for Senators to advocate for their States and communities through investments in local projects like improving transportation, drinking water infrastructure, workforce programs, childcare centers.
This amendment would take away your ability to be responsive to your communities. We absolutely should be letting our constituents know what we are doing here and what we are advocating for.
I strongly urge you to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 75, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3428) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, first, let me announce to our colleagues that we are on the verge of an accomplishment that we have not done since 2018, and that is, pass appropriations bills across the Senate floor prior to the August recess.
That is exercising our constitutional responsibility for the power of the purse, and it would not have happened without the extraordinarily hard work of the members of the Appropriations Committee. My colleague the vice chair, Patty Murray--Senator Murray has been determined to reach this goal.
I also want to commend the leadership of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and I hope Legislative Branch Subcommittees for their work on the fiscal year 2026 bills.
Again, I think we can all be pleased that the Senate lived up to its responsibilities tonight.
Let me just end by thanking Leader Thune for bringing these bills to the Senate floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I echo the thanks to all of our subcommittee and committee members and especially to the chair of our committee, Senator Collins, all of our staff--everyone who has worked really hard to get here.
These are good, bipartisan bills--bills that make crucial investments to help all of our farms and families and veterans and servicemembers thrive.
I urge a ``yes'' vote. I believe Congress should decide how to spend taxpayer dollars. This is how we do it. Vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on adoption of the amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3411), as amended, was agreed to.
(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 9.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3411), as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the third time.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 9.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill, as amended, is passed.
The bill (H.R. 3944), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
(Purpose: To improve the bill.)
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3412 and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The amendment is as follows:
(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 31, 2025, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to support this fiscal year 2026 Legislative Branch bill.
This is a solid, bipartisan bill that meets the needs of Congress and supports our Agencies, especially the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police, in a very fiscally responsible manner.
I commit to my colleagues to continue working in a bipartisan manner to address the best path forward for all of our security needs for the Members, for our families, and for the friends who may be around us. It is challenging, and I understand that. I commit to you guys--all--that I will work to meet those needs. We have had a bipartisan commitment from both sides, and I hear y'all's concerns. We will get those addressed, but this amendment moves us in the right direction.
With that, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, thank you to Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray.
The legislative branch bill is the smallest of the bills produced by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but it is really one of the most important because it helps to make sure that the legislature maintains its role as a separate and equal branch of government. It is no secret that this balance of power enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution could not be more important than it is today.
To be an effective check and balance to the executive branch, Congress and our support Agencies need adequate resources to carry out our responsibilities. This bill allocates those resources, allowing us to do the jobs that we were elected to do for the people of this Nation. Like most bills, each side got some of what they wanted and some of what they didn't, but like any good legislation, we continued to find common ground across the aisle on so many important points. This includes a continued focus on investments, constituent services and security, oversight, and campus operation.
It also includes placeholders for several important, security-related activities that Chair Mullin and I have collectively agreed to further develop and appropriately fund in conference based on additional information that we expect to receive from the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police.
I want to especially thank Chair Mullin and his clerk Molly McCarty for their incredible work with us on the Legislative Branch bill and report and demonstrating their commitment to continuing to work with me to provide the resources necessary to protect all of us. I also want to thank Richard Braddock and my team for their work to develop this bipartisan bill.
I believe this legislation provides a bipartisan package supporting our most critical needs, and I would really urge all of our colleagues to vote in favor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, I am the reason we are voting on this bill separately. I am going to vote no, and I would like to explain why.
I am not telling any of you to vote no, I am just telling you to follow your heart but take your brain with you.
As best I can tell, every bill that has come out of the Appropriations Committee has represented an increase in spending. This bill, which is our bill, funds the legislative branch, has the largest increase in spending. I think we can do better.
That is not a reflection of the conscientious and thoughtful work done by my colleagues, both of whom just spoke. I just think we need to set an example. When we are increasing our spending 6 percent and others less, we are sending a message that we are special, and I don't think we are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MULLEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:
The amendment (No. 3412) was agreed to. (The bill (H.R. 3944), as amended, will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, so we have now passed three appropriations bills--helping our farmers, helping our
We hope we can make the same kind of progress on further appropriations bills that we have made on these.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. President, I want to just congratulate Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the committee sub chairs this evening--I know, at least on our side, Chair Boozman, Chair Hoeven, Chair Mullin--in getting a package of appropriations bills across the floor. It is a major accomplishment and something that I hope is a pattern for things to come. And so I would say thank you to all who worked so hard to get us to this point, including the many members of your staff who have worked night and day these last several weeks.
And the committee continues to report out, with big bipartisan margins, appropriations bills, and I hope we can get some more of them on the floor soon. So, again, congrats to the members of the committee, and let's vote.
