Do you allow analytics?

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.

Referandom is here: Tinder for Congress 🔥

Support Referandom

June 2026 →

SenateFloor Session

June 17, 2026

Speeches 49Members 26

Congressional Record ↗Watch on C-SPAN ↗

Senate Floor VideoThe Senate does not publish its floor video for embedding. C-SPAN keeps the whole day.Watch on C-SPAN ↗

Bills Debated

01Congratulating the New York Knicks on Winning the 2026 National Basketball Association Finals
S.Res. 771 →1 member spoke
02S. RES. 616
S.Res. 616 →1 member spoke
03S. RES. 616
S.Res. 616 →1 member spoke
04Requesting Information on Honduras's Human Rights Practices Pursuant to Section 502b(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Motion To Discharge
S.Res. 616 →3 members spoke
05Saving the Ooi Act of 2026
S. 4822 →2 members spoke
06Introductory Statement on S. 4812
S. 4812 →1 member spoke

Speeches and Other Business

01Tribute to Mary Elouise (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
02Prescription Drug Costs (Executive Session)
2 members spoke
03National Defense Authorization Act of 2027 (Executive Session)
2 members spoke
04Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
05Iran (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
06Wildfires (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
07Ukraine (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
08U.S. Military (Executive Session)
2 members spoke
09U.S. State Department (Executive Calendar)
1 member spoke
10Kids Online Safety Act (Executive Calendar)
2 members spoke
11Vote on Steel Nomination (Executive Calendar)
3 members spoke
12Order of Business (Executive Calendar)
1 member spoke
13Inflation
1 member spoke
14Iran
1 member spoke
15Iran
1 member spoke
16Tribute to Christopher J. Scolese
1 member spoke
17Recognizing the 150th Anniversary of Lick Observatory
1 member spoke

Routine Business (58)

01House of Representatives
02Senate
03Waiving Quorum Call (Executive Session)
1 member spoke
04Economy (Executive Session)
05Cloture Motion (Executive Calendar)
2 members spoke
06Unanimous Consent Requests: S. 1032 (Executive Calendar)
S. 1032 →H.R. 1 →3 members spoke
07Cloture Motion (Executive Calendar)
2 members spoke
08Legislative Session
1 member spoke
09Unanimous Consent Requests
S. 4705 →2 members spoke
10Resolutions Submitted Today
S.Res. 776 →S.Res. 777 →1 member spoke
11Arms Sales Notification
1 member spoke
12Arms Sales Notification
1 member spoke
13Arms Sales Notification
1 member spoke
14Arms Sales Notification
1 member spoke
15Arms Sales Notification
1 member spoke
16Tribute to Joabe Barbosa
17Remembering Jim Shee
18Messages From the President
19Executive Messages Referred
20Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
21Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
1 member spoke
22Senate Resolution 771: Congratulating the New York Knicks on Winning the 2026 National Basketball Association Finals
S.Res. 771 →
23Senate Resolution 772: Expressing the Sense of the Senate That Under No Circumstances Should Samuel Bankman-Fried Receive Executive Clemency, Including a Pardon or Commutation, and Affirming The...
S.Res. 772 →
24Senate Resolution 773: Recognizing Father's Day and the Role a Father Plays in the Lives of Children and Adults
S.Res. 773 →1 member spoke
25Senate Resolution 774: Designating June as "National Annuity Awareness Month"
S.Res. 774 →
26Senate Resolution 775: Reaffirming the Importance of the United States Promoting the Safety, Health, and Well-Being of Refugees and Displaced Persons in the United States and Around the World
S.Res. 775 →
27Senate Resolution 776: Honoring the Life of Kyle Busch
S.Res. 776 →
28Senate Resolution 777: Designating May 1, 2026, as "United States Foreign Service Day" in Recognition of the Men and Women Who Have Served, or Are Presently Serving, in the Foreign Service of The...
S.Res. 777 →
29Text of Senate Amendment 5830
30Text of Senate Amendment 5831
31Text of Senate Amendment 5832
32Text of Senate Amendment 5833
33Text of Senate Amendment 5834
34Text of Senate Amendment 5835
35Text of Senate Amendment 5836
36Text of Senate Amendment 5837
37Text of Senate Amendment 5838
38Text of Senate Amendment 5839
39Text of Senate Amendment 5840
40Text of Senate Amendment 5841
41Text of Senate Amendment 5842
42Text of Senate Amendment 5843
43Text of Senate Amendment 5844
44Text of Senate Amendment 5845
45Text of Senate Amendment 5846
46Text of Senate Amendment 5847
47Text of Senate Amendment 5848
48Text of Senate Amendment 5849
49Text of Senate Amendment 5850
50Text of Senate Amendment 5851
51Text of Senate Amendment 5852
52Text of Senate Amendment 5853
53Text of Senate Amendment 5854
54Authority for Committees to Meet
1 member spoke
55Privileges of the Floor
1 member spoke
56Orders for Thursday, June 18, 2026
H.R. 6644 →1 member spoke
57Adjournment Until 10 A.M. Tomorrow
1 member spoke
58Confirmation

Daily Digest

Routine Proceedings, pages S2867-S2911 Measures Introduced
Twenty-one bills and eight resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 4802-4822, S.J. Res. 197, and S. Res. 771- 777.
Pages S2893-94
Measures Reported
S. 1547, to amend title 54, United States Code, to reauthorize the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Page S2893
Measures Passed
Congratulating the New York Knicks: Senate agreed to S. Res. 771, congratulating the New York Knicks on winning the 2026 National Basketball Association Finals.
Page S2873
Saving the OOI Act
Senate passed S. 4822, to prohibit the National Science Foundation from using Federal funds to descope or decommission the Ocean Observatories Initiative instruments.
Pages S2885-86
Honoring the Life of Kyle Busch
Senate agreed to S. Res. 776, honoring the life of Kyle Busch.
Page S2886
United States Foreign Service Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 777, designating May 1, 2026, as ``United States Foreign Service Day'' in recognition of the men and women who have served, or are presently serving, in the Foreign Service of the United States, and honoring the members of the Foreign Service who have given their lives in the line of duty.
Page S2886
Measures Considered
Honduras's Human Rights Practices: By 44 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 179), Senate did not agree to the motion to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S. Res. 616, requesting information on Honduras's human rights practices pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
Pages S2880-81
House Messages
21st Century Road to Housing Act--Agreement: A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 10 a.m., on Thursday, June 18, 2026, Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 6644, to increase the supply of housing in America.
Page S2911
Holding Nomination: Agreement
Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of George Holding, of North Carolina, to be United States Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Page S2877
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 54 yeas to 41 nays (Vote No. EX. 178), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S2877
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the post-cloture time with respect to the nomination 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 Thursday, June 18, 2026.
Page S2911
Nomination Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nomination: By 55 yeas to 39 nays (Vote No. EX. 177), Michelle Steel, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Korea.
Pages S2867-73, S2877
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 54 yeas to 41 nays (Vote No. EX. 176), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S2873
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: 21 Air Force nominations in the rank of general.
Page S2911
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S2895-99
Record Votes
Four record votes were taken today. (Total--179)
Pages S2873, S2877, S2881
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:29 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S2911.)

Tribute to Mary Elouise (Executive Session)

Chuck GrassleyRepublican, Iowa

Mr. President, the first item I bring up should be stated tomorrow, but tomorrow I am going to be busy in the Judiciary Committee, as chairman of that committee, so I have to present this a day early.

Fifty years ago, on June 18, 1976, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I submitted an essay by a student from Dike, IA, in celebration of America's 200th birthday. I am once again submitting work by a student from Iowa but this time in celebration of America's 250th birthday.

As we celebrate America's birthday this year, students all across the country are participating in a national writing and artwork contest, answering the prompt ``What does America mean to you?''

Mary Elouise, a fourth grader from Waukee, IA, was recently selected as a first-place winner for this contest. In Mary Elouise's first- place-winning poem submission, she wrote about the American flag, and she detailed in that poem how it represents America and her family's military service. She concluded her poem by saying:

Mary Elouise also was recently recognized by the Governor of Iowa Kim Reynolds for her second poem titled ``People Behind the Flag.'' This poem was submitted to Iowa's America 250 student writing contest on America's founding principles.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have both of Mary Elouise's winning poems printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to read them.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Prescription Drug Costs (Executive Session)

Chuck GrassleyRepublican, Iowa

Mr. President, now another short statement on something that is going on that is very important to the American people: the price of prescription drugs--something I hear quite frequently in my 99-county meetings that I hold around the State every year.

Prescription drug prices come up, and they want Congress to do something about it. So last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up and passed out of committee six bipartisan bills that address the high cost of prescription drugs and the abusive practices that keep prices high for too many American families. The bills simply put a stop to anti-competitive tactics. Why? So cheaper drugs can enter the market.

These bills also increase transparency and accountability for the prescription drug supply chain. With these bills, we strengthen Agency collaboration and the patent process. We curb the use of sham citizen petitions to the FDA so it is easier for generics to obtain approval and get generics to the market quicker. We end the pay-for-delay deals to keep brand-name drug companies from paying generic companies to keep cheaper options off the market so they keep the price of the patented drug higher for a longer period of time. Lastly, we require the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to finish the work it started in studying the impact of pharmacy benefit managers.

These bills will help make prescription drugs more affordable for patients who need them.

The Congressional Budget Office has reported that these bills collectively would save over $2 billion.

We need the Senate to act on these bills, and I will continue pushing to fix a broken system and lower drug costs.

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.

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

National Defense Authorization Act of 2027 (Executive Session)

John ThuneRepublican, South Dakota

Mr. President, last week, a U.S. Army Apache helicopter went down off the coast of Iran. Within 2 hours, a rescue boat located the pilots. This was not an ordinary rescue boat. For the first time ever, an unmanned sea drone was sent to pick up the pilots and bring them to safety.

From the battlefields of Ukraine to the conflict with Iran, drones and other unmanned systems have become the weapon of choice. Yet the U.S. military has been dangerously behind in drone and counter-drone capabilities.

We have made considerable progress in just the last year, as evidenced by the rescue last week, but we still have more work to do.

That is where the National Defense Authorization Act comes in. I often say that if we don't get national security right, the rest is just conversation. And this annual defense bill is one of the most important bills we consider each year because it is where we make the policies that help ensure we do get national security right.

We pass this bill every year so that these policies are up to date-- so that we are giving our men and women in uniform the very best equipment capabilities to do the job we ask them to do.

Last week, the Armed Services Committee reported out the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027, and I am proud to say that this bill authorizes important investments to improve readiness and to provide the capabilities that we need to keep America safe today and into the future. That includes a heavy focus on unmanned systems.

This bill would create a new combatant command overseeing these technologies. It authorizes $1 billion in unmanned maritime systems, supports drone and counter-drone capabilities at military bases and at America's borders, and will ensure that we are able to produce and procure enough munitions for all of these systems as well.

Drones are just the beginning. There is a lot more in this year's NDAA to strengthen America's military, improve readiness, and keep our armed services on the cutting edge.

One of things is shipbuilding. The bill reported out of committee authorizes investment in a number of new ships, including accelerating procurement of amphibious warfare ships and supporting domestic shipbuilding and repair capabilities.

As for our airpower, this year's bill will help ensure we maintain a force of at least 1,800 fighters. It supports the new B-21 long-range strategic bomber, which is expected to land at Ellsworth Air Force Base, in my home State, sometime next year. And it allows for multiyear procurement for fighter planes, which will allow the Pentagon to do business more efficiently, with greater predictability, and save taxpayer money.

This year's bill builds on the significant reforms to defense acquisition we enacted in last year's NDAA in a number of ways. As I mentioned, it allows for multiyear procurement contracts for fighter aircraft, as well as for munitions and vehicles. And it accelerates the process for new software to come online, removing unnecessary redtape that delays getting new technology into the hands of the American soldiers.

And speaking of our men and women in uniform, I am pleased to be able to say that this bill authorizes a 3.6-percent pay raise for our military members. It also supports a number of quality-of-life improvements, including investments in education, healthcare, and childcare for servicemembers and their families.

As I have already said, this is an important bill, and drafting a bill of this size is not a simple task. I appreciate the hard work by our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Reed, we have, for the 66th year now in a row, a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act. That, too, is no small feat.

When it comes to military capabilities, we just can't play catchup. We need to be the leader in the capabilities that will define the future--capabilities that will keep Americans safe by making our enemies think twice before crossing us. That is peace through strength, but you can't get there with a strong budget one year and a weak budget the next.

We ask members of the Armed Forces to be ready whenever we need them, wherever we need them, and for whatever we need them to do.

And we here have an obligation to make sure that when that call comes, they have what they need to answer it.

We need to make every concerted effort--every--to strengthen our military. There is never a time when we can afford to put this on the back burner. Try as we might, we simply don't know what is coming over the horizon, and we will eventually pay the price for failing to invest in a strong national defense today.

Mr. President, 251 years ago this week the Continental Congress created the Continental Army and appointed George Washington its Commander in Chief. For 251 years, Americans have bravely gone to fight our Nation's battles, and for 251 years, it has been Congress' job to stand behind them and provide what they need to execute the mission.

The face of the battle has changed, but the fundamental duty--theirs and ours--has not. As Washington himself said:

We have to get national security right. I am glad this year's National Defense Authorization Act is up to the task, and I look forward to bringing it to the floor very soon.

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.

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Executive Session)

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, Trump's actions last night make it crystal clear that he is the one standing in the way of FISA.

It was already clear that Trump was the one blocking FISA, but the fact that he withdrew Jay Clayton should erase anyone's doubts. Trump wants FISA to stay expired. Trump is twisting himself up in knots and jumping through hoops to make it impossible to reauthorize FISA right now, and he is embarrassing his Republican colleagues in the process.

Trump can blame Democrats all he wants, but no one is going to believe him. Trump just got caught redhanded undermining America's national security.

Withdrawing Clayton even shocked Trump's closest Republican allies. Trump also reasserted his demand to tie FISA to his radical SAVE Act, which would strip millions of Americans of their voting rights and resurrect the ghost of the Jim Crow south.

Trump is just so, so off base and should get it out of his mind that he can save SAVE by attaching it to FISA. It ain't happening; it ain't passing.

The SAVE Act is perhaps the most vicious piece of anti-voting rights legislation Trump has ever come up with and has absolutely nothing-- nothing--to do with FISA whatsoever.

So every time Republicans find a path to negotiate on FISA, Trump slams the door shut on them. Every time the Republicans find a path to negotiate FISA, Trump slams the door shut on them, and you can hear the howls.

Trump is taking America's national security hostage to serve his own personal interests. This is Trump's hostage note. Here is what he said:

He said:

Trump should know national security is not a pawn. It is not a pawn, and yet it is clear that he is holding our national security hostage, and it is absolutely disgraceful.

Trump is gleeful about undermining national security and leaving America vulnerable, saying it is simply to add a ``slight bit of intrigue'' when Americans' safety is at stake in a dangerous world with dangerous countries? And he says he is adding a ``slight bit of intrigue?'' Are you kidding me? Intrigue when it comes to America's national security, intrigue when it comes to the safety of our people?

Trump ought to add a slight bit of common sense as he does this. But, again, just to repeat what he said, he said:

All three sentences show that Trump is making national security a pawn to his own political and off-base interests.

There can be no other explanation for the choices Trump is making and his insistence on having a political hack like Bill Pulte serve atop our Intelligence Committee, other than he plans to order Pulte to abuse his powers as Director of National Intelligence.

The question for oversight now is: What exactly will Trump ask Pulte to do? Expose intelligence sources? Alter analysis? Target political opponents? Mess with elections?

Pulte has shown that he knows no limits and will do whatever Trump asks, legal or not, ethical or not, in American people's interests or not. Make no mistake, all of the consequences that come from undercutting our national security will fall on Trump and any Republicans who go along with his dangerous, partisan games.

Official Text ↗

Iran (Executive Session)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Waiving Quorum Call (Executive Session)

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Steel and Holding nominations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The majority whip.

Official Text ↗

Wildfires (Executive Session)

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

Mr. President, wildfire season is officially here. Across the West, wildfires are devastating many communities, and this certainly includes my home State of Wyoming. The past two wildfire seasons were some of the most destructive that Wyoming has seen in decades.

The drought we are experiencing makes conditions this year especially concerning. As summer continues, rural communities are bracing for another devastating wildfire season.

America is in a wildfire crisis, and the crisis isn't going to be one that will solve itself. Our Federal forests are in dire need of effective management.

The Federal Government must manage our Nation's forests in a serious way and a credible way. For too long, the Federal Government has ignored forest management, and this approach has failed to keep communities safe.

Today, tens of millions of acres of Federal land are at severe risk of wildfires. Overgrown forests have become a tinderbox for large fires. Wildfires threaten our homes, our air quality, our watersheds, and our wildlife.

Without proper forest management, we are going to continue to see costly and deadly wildfires.

We know that active forest management works. This includes the thinning of overgrown forests. It includes using prescribed fires, and it includes grazing. All of these are tools that measurably reduce the risk of wildfires.

Wyoming has led the way. We have shown that, when you treat more acres and work with local partners, you get healthier forests and safer communities. The rest of the country should follow our example.

At the Federal level, we have seen the Trump administration rightly return to forest management policies that work. Still, Federal Agencies need help. That is exactly why I introduced the Wildfire Prevention Act. The Wildfire Prevention Act is going to reduce the risk of wildfires in our communities. At the same time, it is going to restore the health of our Federal lands in Wyoming and across the rocky Mountain West.

My bill is a pro-first responder piece of legislation. Our Nation's wildland firefighters risk their lives to protect our forests and our communities from these wildfires. Hotshot crews are our heroes in Wyoming. They are highly trained, highly specialized, and their courage and ability keep us safe. My bill gives them the tools and the support that they need to better prevent wildfires and also to fight them more effectively.

My bill also gives Federal Agencies the clear direction that they currently lack to manage our forests properly. Now, this is good for humans, and it is good for wildlife. Our proactive measures are designed to prevent wildfires.

This bill will set real standards to increase thinning, prescribed burns, tree removal, as well as grazing. It will allow Agencies to sell more timber. It will cut unnecessary redtape and streamline management.

These are basic, bipartisan protections. Every responsible landowner follows them. We should expect nothing less from the Federal Government.

It is also important for Washington, DC, to collaborate effectively with States to prevent fires before they happen. That is why my bill includes an important update to codify the repeal of the so-called Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule was put into place 25 years ago. It was put in place by President Bill Clinton. It has been called a midnight regulation because it was done in January of 2001. Clinton did it in the final week of serving 8 years as President. He waited until the very end, and then, as he was going out the door, he said: Hey, let's put this into place.

The Roadless Rule remains a one-size-fits-all, Washington restriction that obstructs responsible forest management on a State-by-State basis.

I have opposed the Clinton Roadless Rule from day one, and the Trump administration rightly repealed it. My bill makes the repeal permanent. At the same time, it protects the rights of each State to set its own rules. That is the right approach. It is the responsible approach. It is going to promote public access, wildlife health, as well as smart management.

Local control and local conditions should drive forest management decisions. We can't allow a Washington mandate imposed on States, a quarter of a century ago, to continue to undermine our ability to manage our forests.

Republicans and Democrats have talked about the need for better forest management. We have talked about it for years. Both parties know we need to do better.

The Wildfire Prevention Act builds on what works. It gives Federal Agencies the tools they need to succeed. Our shared forests and our local communities deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Official Text ↗

Ukraine (Executive Session)

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

Mr. President, remember when President Trump announced he would end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office? Instead, over a year and a half later, President Trump and Vice President Vance have publicly humiliated Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and made embarrassingly friendly overtures to the man who attacked his country-- who attacked Ukraine--Russian President Putin. It is hard to understand.

Mr. Putin's response has been to thumb his nose at the United States and any efforts toward peace. In fact, in recent months, Putin has launched some of the deadliest attacks on civilian targets since the Ukrainian war has begun. This invasion by the Russians of Ukraine has now lasted longer than World War I.

Let me repeat that. This invasion of Ukraine by the Russians and Vladimir Putin has now led to a conflict that has lasted longer than World War I.

On Monday, Russia fired a barrage of missiles at several major Ukrainian cities, killing at least 11 people and sparking a massive fire at one of the most important Orthodox monasteries, a UNESCO world heritage site.

And Russia has continued its acts of sabotage and provocation throughout NATO and Europe, not to mention its supplying of targeting information to Iran to hit U.S. interests in the region.

Imagine my surprise when, amid all of these Russian attacks on Ukraine and neighboring countries, the Trump administration sent a U.S. official to Putin's annual economic conference, earlier this month, in St. Petersburg, Russia. We had an official delegation to Putin's economic development conference for Russia, while we were trying to stop them from attacking Ukraine and other countries.

At this annual event, we had the U.S. Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts representing the United States. His name is Rodney Mims Cook, Jr. He was at the event with President Putin, in St. Petersburg, to talk about economic development in Russia.

You may recall that Mr. Cook has been officially helping President

Why would President Trump give any U.S. legitimacy to this Russia propaganda event, while Putin continues to bomb Ukraine and snub efforts to end the war?

Why would President Trump proceed with recently reported plans to significantly reduce air and naval assets available for NATO operations in Europe, while Putin continues such mayhem?

On Tuesday, President Trump went as far as to signal that the war in Ukraine was not a priority of the United States. President Trump told reporters at the G7 summit that we had ``nothing to do'' with a war that was ``thousands of miles away.''

I could not disagree more. It is long overdue that the Pentagon spend the $400 million in Ukraine assistance, which was appropriated by Congress and signed into law by the President, and the $200 million in Baltic security funds that this Congress passed several months ago.

I raised the point that we had appropriated these funds officially-- signed by President Trump--at a recent hearing with Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio. They indicated to me the funds were just getting ready, any day now, to be moved, which I hope is correct, as these should have been sent long ago and should not be delayed any further.

It is also long overdue for this Chamber to act on Russia- and Ukraine-related legislation.

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives, overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis, passed a bill to provide additional security aid to Ukraine and to tighten sanctions on Russia. That is exactly what is needed to force Russia to finally negotiate peace and stop this attack on Ukraine and its people.

Here in the Senate, we have a broad, bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that has been pending for months without action.

So, while we send the President's ballroom representative to represent the United States of America in St. Petersburg, Russia, and talk about Putin's plans for rebuilding Russia's economy--while that is going on--Russia is attacking the Ukrainians and neighboring countries; and the United States, through the President, has announced that it is none of our business.

Official Text ↗

Economy (Executive Session)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Official Text ↗

U.S. Military (Executive Session)

Jack ReedDemocrat, Rhode Island

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the U.S. military and its role as an apolitical institution.

For 250 years, our military's most important source of strength has been the trust of the American people. Their trust is hard won and relies upon the belief that our military remains above politics. I fear that trust is being eroded by the current Secretary of Defense.

I want to begin with Dwight Eisenhower. This month marks the 82nd anniversary of D-Day and the American invasion at Normandy. General Eisenhower spent the night before those landings walking among the men he was sending into battle, asking where they were from, what they did back home, and how were their families.

He wrote two messages after that meeting. The rallying call for the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force was one of those messages, but a second message--a message he had hoped no one would ever read--was written in case the landings failed.

It read:

Fortunately, he never had to send it, but he wrote it because he understood that the privilege of command carried the full weight of its consequences.

In 1947, Eisenhower addressed the graduating class at West Point. He had just finished commanding the largest military campaign in human history and witnessed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Americans. He knew what war was, and this is what he told the cadets:

Fifteen years later, GEN Douglas MacArthur--no stranger to war himself--again stood at West Point and said:

Those commanders understood that lethality is a terrible tool and humility is paramount in warfare.

Last weekend, Pete Hegseth traveled to Normandy to observe the D-Day anniversary. He stood at the American cemetery above the beaches where more than 2,500 Americans died in a single morning. Standing on that sacred historic site, Secretary Hegseth did not use his platform to express humility or unity, but to preach an anti-immigrant message. He said:

Well, many historians and veterans, hearing his words, called his speech grotesque. I would call it a desecration and an ignorant one also.

I doubt the Secretary knows that during World War II, more than 300,000 foreign-born individuals served in the U.S. Army alone. More than 109,000 of them were not even American citizens. They were men and women who crossed an ocean to fight and die for a country that had not yet fully claimed them and earned their citizenship through their service.

Hundreds of thousands more were first-generation Americans, the children of immigrants. For example, U.S. Navy coxswain Amin Isbir, the son of Syrian immigrants who settled in Pittsburgh, was among the first men off his landing craft when it reached Omaha Beach under heavy fire. After securing his landing craft on the beach, he was killed by a German shell while helping load a fellow wounded soldier onto a stretcher.

Coxswain Isbir and countless heroes like him are buried at Normandy, the sons and daughters of immigrants or immigrants themselves. Yet Secretary Hegseth stood above their graves and used the moment to deride the kind of people they were.

Last month, Secretary Hegseth got his own chance to address West Point cadets at their commencement. Where Eisenhower and McArthur spoke of wisdom, humility, and caution, Pete Hegseth boasted about lethality, claimed that West Point had turned into ``woke Princeton'' and made such bluster as ``you can't throw your pronouns at the enemy.''

He told the class of 2026, the most diverse class in the history of the U.S. Military Academy, that strength in diversity is ``the single dumbest phrase in military history.'' He mocked the service of women officers and criticized those with nonconservative political beliefs. He told a captive audience of newly commissioned officers that the presence of their classmates with different beliefs and demographics represented a lowering of standards. It was a shameful, divisive, and self-centered speech.

I attended West Point as a cadet. I taught there as a professor. I served on Active Duty as an Army officer. I hope I know what West Point stands for and what its graduates embrace: principled leadership to serve their soldiers and the Nation. Where past leaders asked West Point cadets to understand the economic, political, and spiritual aspirations of other peoples, to devote their lives as seriously to leading toward peace as preparing for war, Hegseth gave them a culture war speech.

Indeed, as James Bennet observed in The Economist:

His hyperpartisan remarks were both morally and factually wrong. But this was not an isolated incident. It is a part of a pattern of partisan political behavior antithetical to the role of the Secretary of Defense.

Last month, Secretary Hegseth traveled to Kentucky to campaign for a Republican House candidate the day before a primary election. He stood on a stage, attacked a sitting Republican Member of Congress, and told the crowd to send a different person to Washington. He announced a disclaimer, apparently ``for the lawyers,'' that he was there in his personal capacity.

That disclaimer is void. The Secretary of Defense does not have a personal capacity. He represents, at every moment, this Nation and its military forces.

Indeed, this trip seems to violate the Defense Department's own political activity rules which expressly prohibit Senate-confirmed officials from taking an active part in political campaigns. The Department rules are explicit. Even making speeches or knocking doors constitutes a prohibited political act for someone in Hegseth's position.

Pete Hegseth arrived in Kentucky as the civilian leader of the most powerful military on Earth, in the middle of an active war. The ``Secretary'' title travels with him. He can't leave it at the office. The authority of the office travels with him. And every servicemember watching the news understood exactly what they were seeing: the man who controls their careers, their promotions, and their deployments inserting himself into a partisan election on behalf of the President's favorite candidate.

This was an abuse of office and created an image that every Secretary of Defense, in my memory, has worked to avoid.

The Kentucky party's own former spokesperson questioned whether Secretary Hegseth violated the Hatch Act, and numerous independent groups have filed complaints with the Pentagon's inspector general.

This isn't about my opposition to the Secretary or President Trump. I am driven by the corrosive impacts of his rhetoric, his actions, and what they mean for the strength of our volunteer military. We need to think about what this means for the men and women in uniform who serve under this Secretary. They took an oath to the Constitution--not to a political party, not to a candidate, not to a President. The Uniform Code of Military Justice restricts their partisan activity precisely because we have always understood that a politicized military is a dangerous military. And now our servicemembers are watching their Secretary of Defense do what they are forbidden to do.

What message does that send? What chilling effect does it have on good order and discipline throughout the ranks?

Secretary Hegseth has personally intervened in the careers of nearly 50 senior officers that we know of, firing them or blocking their promotions without explanation. Just last month, we learned he had personally blocked and delayed the promotions of dozens of top performing Navy and Air Force officers, the majority of whom are women and minority officers. These are leaders, selected by their peers, based on merit and performance, in a promotion system that has functioned on those principles for generations.

The chilling effect is real. Senior officers across the force are asking themselves whether their professional military advice--the kind that keeps soldiers alive--will cost them their careers.

And this is not hypothetical. We have already seen it happen. General Kruse, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was fired last year after his analysts produced an intelligence report that contradicted the Secretary's public claims about Iran.

The message was received by those advising him, and here we are today, more than 100 days into a war with Iran.

I would also note, that under U.S. law, only the President may remove an officer from a promotion list. Secretary Hegseth has refused to explain why or how he believes he has the authority to terminate or delay these officers' careers.

And, of course, there is the Kid Rock incident. In March, two Army Apache helicopters flew to the Nashville home of Kid Rock--a well-known Trump supporter--and hovered over his pool while he filmed them for social media. This was an obvious violation of military protocol and aviation safety laws, and the Army immediately launched an investigation and suspended the crews. But within hours, Secretary Hegseth intervened. He posted on social media:

The Army's chain of command was overruled by a tweet because the man being entertained was a friend of the President.

Secretary Hegseth later doubled down by taking Kid Rock for a ride in an Army Apache helicopter as part of a promotional video.

The Army's aviation safety regulations exist for a reason. The chain of command exists for a reason. It ensures commanders hold each other and their troops accountable, that those who break regulations face consequences, and that military assets are used for legitimate operational needs, not political theater.

When the Secretary of Defense short-circuits good order and discipline to benefit a political ally, he does not just bend the rules; he signals to every officer that accountability is conditional on politics.

These actions are emblematic of the Secretary's broader focus on his own personal agenda. In the past 3 months alone, while our servicemembers have been fighting and dying overseas, he has taken it upon himself to cancel flu vaccine requirements, repeal firearm restrictions on military posts, bar servicemembers from attending certain universities, and upend the Chaplin Corps.

My point is this: Secretary Hegseth is behaving as though his time as Defense Secretary is an opportunity to impose his personal political views on our military men and women. He is wrong. The Office of Secretary of Defense is about leading millions of American servicemembers of every faith, race, and gender with the character and composure they deserve. The military's apolitical mission is not incidental to its strength; it is foundational to its strength.

When the Secretary of Defense uses his office to promote a sectarian vision of his culture war, he does not inspire the force; he divides it.

Taken together, the Secretary's actions are an assault on the norms, traditions, and structures that have kept

Good order and discipline is not a slogan. It means that the rules apply to everyone, including the leaders at the top. It means that accountability flows both ways and that promotions are based on merit, not loyalty to a party. And it means that servicemembers of every faith and background are welcomed and respected.

Secretary Hegseth is undermining every one of those tenets. Our servicemembers deserve better, and we have an obligation as a body, this Senate, to say so plainly and to counter this abuse of power.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Democratic leader.

Official Text ↗

Congratulating the New York Knicks on Winning the 2026 National Basketball Association Finals

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

Mr. President, this is one--one--happy moment. It is an honor to offer this resolution with Senator Gillibrand to pay tribute to the great New York Knicks. With their historic victory in the NBA finals, the Knicks reminded the country and the world that it is never a good idea to bet against New York.

We just witnessed perhaps the greatest playoff run in history and finals series in history as well. Coming off the second longest playoff win streak in the NBA history, the Knicks achieved the first, fourth, and sixth biggest comeback wins in the history of the NBA finals, and they did it all in a single series--absolutely extraordinary coming off that second longest playoff win streak in NBA history.

We are so, so proud--so, so proud--of our New York Knicks. This team has joined the ranks of DeBusschere and Bradley, of Willis Reed, of Earl ``the Pearl'' and Clyde, and the rest of the 1973 legendary Knicks who last brought the title home. I admired that team as a young man, and we have been waiting and waiting and waiting, and here we are again.

For their efforts, this championship team will be honored tomorrow with what many are excepting to be the largest ticker-tape parade in New York history. In fact, the Knicks' victory goes beyond the team itself; it brings such honor, such pride, such joy to New York and has united our diverse city in a way that maybe nothing else could.

It is truly an honor to introduce and pass this resolution to congratulate the Knicks for winning the championship and to thank them for the dedication they showed to our city both on and off the court throughout the season.

I speak for the Senate--perhaps with the exception of one or two Spurs fans--when I say: Let's go, Knicks!

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 771, congratulating the Knicks, which was submitted earlier today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

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. 771) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Charles E. SchumerDemocrat, New York

``Go Knicks!''

I yield the floor.

Official Text ↗

Cloture Motion (Executive Calendar)

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

The bill clerk read as follows:

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 Michelle Steel, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Korea, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

The yes and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 41. The motion is agreed to.

The Senator from Vermont.

Official Text ↗

U.S. State Department (Executive Calendar)

Peter WelchDemocrat, Vermont

Mr. President, I strongly support the resolution offered by my colleagues Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Kaine.

This resolution requires a report from the State Department on the human rights practices of the Government of Honduras during the very corrupt Presidency of Juan Orlando Hernandez and a report on steps the United States has taken to promote human rights and to bring drug traffickers and criminals in Honduras to justice.

During former President Hernandez's time in office, the United States--our taxpayers--provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, including to the Honduran security forces.

So the information requested in this resolution is directly relevant to Congress' oversight responsibilities. We have an obligation to make certain that taxpayer dollars are served in the

There is no reason why the State Department should not do this oversight.

According to U.S. Federal prosecutors, Mr. Hernandez--the former two- term President of Honduras--was at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies in the entire world. Mr. Hernandez used the Honduran military and he used the Honduran police to arrest, to imprison, to torture, and in some cases to murder his political opponents and independent journalists who challenged and exposed the rampant corruption and abuses of his government.

In March 2024, a U.S. Federal jury in Manhattan found Mr. Hernandez guilty of three charges: conspiring to import tons of cocaine into the United States, using and carrying machine guns and destructive devices to advance that trafficking conspiracy, and conspiring to use such weapons. He was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment and was fined $8 million.

Mr. Hernandez claimed that he was the victim of ``political persecution,'' but there has been absolutely no credible evidence to support that fraudulent claim. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Far from being treated unfairly, Mr. Hernandez was afforded every right of due process and a fair trial available to criminal defendants under our system of justice.

Astonishingly and to my dismay, on December 1, 2025, Mr. Hernandez received a full and complete pardon from President Trump. Mr. Hernandez is free because of President Trump's pardon, but he does remain a convicted felon.

The resolution we are voting on today calls for a full accounting of the Hernandez administration's violations of human rights and connections--direct connections--with drug traffickers, the corruption of government officials, and the involvement in torture, murder, and other crimes of violence.

It also requires an assessment of the likelihood that U.S. aid to the Honduran security forces was used to support activities related to drug trafficking and related crimes. None of us want our foreign aid to be used for drug running. This is information the State Department has access to and that Congress and the American people, as well as the people of Honduras, have every right to know.

Again, there is absolutely nothing partisan or controversial about this resolution. All of us--all of us--are against corruption. All of us demand accountability of foreign aid that is financed by taxpayers. All of us want to bring to justice those who commit crimes that involve drugs that cause so much damage to the men and women and the young people in all of our States.

I commend the Senators from Nevada and Virginia for offering the resolution, and I urge its adoption.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Official Text ↗

Kids Online Safety Act (Executive Calendar)

Marsha BlackburnRepublican, Tennessee

Mr. President, I feel like I have probably worn the carpet out in this Chamber talking about Big Tech and what happens to our children when they are on different social media platforms, because it seems that repeatedly Big Tech makes the decision to put profit over the safety of our children. We have seen this repeatedly. You look at these big tech companies, and what do they base their valuation on? It is based on the number of eyeballs they bring to their sites and then the data those eyeballs generate, which means you have to scroll for hours and hours on end. Indeed, we know that studies are showing us that teenagers spend as much as 8 hours a day with a phone in their hands--8 hours a day. One of the reasons this happens is because these social media platforms--whether it is Snapchat or TikTok or Instagram-- are designed specifically to addict you. Research has shown this. This addiction fuels depression, eating disorders, and self-harm.

It is astounding to me that you can find videos on how to commit suicide, music to commit suicide to. This is evil, and it is wrong. And we know from research that most kids meet drug traffickers, sex traffickers, predators, pedophiles, perpetrators, sextortionists, groomers--they meet them online. That is where the introduction comes.

I have talked a lot. As I said, I feel like I have worn the carpet out down here talking about what is happening on Facebook and Instagram and Snap and TikTok and Discord and the effect it has on our Nation's precious, precious children. But this also applies to companies that are not big-name companies, that everyone does not yet know about, because this is an issue that goes across all social media sites of all sizes.

There is a site that is especially dangerous for our teens, and it is called Kik, K-I-K. Kik is a messaging app that is very popular with preteens and teens, and the big selling point is that it allows the users to conceal their identities. How about that for a lesson for your children and grandchildren? Let's lie, and then let's cover it up. And your parents probably won't know you are on Kik. You provide no personal information, no profile picture, no verification.

It should come as no surprise that Kik has become a paradise for pedophiles. In fact, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation recently released a report calling it the ``predator's paradise.'' One of the center's researchers created an account, posing to be a 12-year- old girl. So she put it up there to see what would happen--12-year-old girl. Immediately, within seconds--within seconds--this account was flooded with sexual messages from strangers, including nude photos. Most of the messages are too explicit to be repeated here.

I encourage parents to read this report from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. They need to read it and get a sense of just how easy it is for a sexual predator to contact their child.

The danger on this is this: If your child did this and if they put an account up there--it was instant. Instant. And this is something your child cannot unsee. This is why parents need to be aware. So look at that report.

These issues with Kik are not new. For years, the center has documented sexual predators on that platform. In response, Kik claimed that it implemented safety measures to protect children. But how about that? An account set up as a 12-year-old girl--zero protections; immediate, within seconds, responses to that account, to that post, with sexual messages.

The center's latest report lays out what a big lie this is. Kik's policies are actually designed to allow that kind of predatory behavior. Kik purports to be an 18-and-up platform. Yet the app still allows children to connect with strangers through a rebranded stranger- connection tool. And get this: It is called Kik-it. K-I-K-I-T. Kik-it. What this does is it puts a user into a private chat with a stranger.

The center also discovered multiple accounts advertising that they are under age--``im12,'' ``13yearoldgirl,'' and others--but the platform has done absolutely nothing--zero, nothing--to remove these.

Now, Kik says it has implemented sexual content filters. If it has done that, how did this massive number of messages get through within 1 minute--within a minute? So Kik is lying. The 12-year-old test account the center created had the filter turned on. That did not stop her from receiving unsolicited sexual messages and nude photos from strangers.

We have seen this story over and over from Big Tech platforms. They allow predators and criminals to harm our children. They give them that access. They sell them that drug. They ship it in to them. They deliver it to the doorstep.

The 15-year-old girl thinks she is going to meet a 16-year-old boy at the mall, and it turns out to be a 40-year-old man who drugs her, and she loses her life. This is what is happening.

Every time we bring this forward, they promise that they are going to do better, that they are going to make the platform safer, but their reforms are toothless, and they are doing nothing to protect our children. The reason is it would cut into their bottom line. Our children are dollar signs to them, and if they can get away with making an extra buck off of our kids--indeed. We have a couple of the companies that actually assign a dollar value per child, an annual dollar value: They are worth $247 to us, so the more the merrier.

And they don't care. They absolutely don't care.

This is why Congress must send the Senate version of the Kids Online Safety Act to President Trump's desk. We are very grateful the White House has signaled its support for the duty of care. We can't afford to delay. We need to get this to a vote. Without the duty of care, Big Tech will have no reason to ensure that their platforms are safe for children.

The reason we have to move with the duty of care and safety standards is because every industrial sector in this country has safety standards. You buy a car, a toaster oven, a blanket, dishes--everything has safety standards. The only industrial sector with no duty of care, no safety standards, is the virtual space.

Some people will say: Oh, it is an infringement of free speech, don't you think?

The answer is no. When you have a safety standard on an automobile, they assure you that the automobile is safe to drive. When you get behind the wheel and you get on the road, it is going to be safe to drive. They don't tell you what color to paint the car or what color the upholstery should be or how to drive the car; what they do is to tell you the car is safe to drive.

That is what we are saying about the virtual space. Let's put some safety standards there, a duty of care, so that our children aren't a product, our children aren't a dollar sign; that when our children get on a social media app or get on Google to do some research, they are going to be safe and they are not going to have unwanted videos and material coming at them.

The Kids Online Safety Act has been overwhelmingly popular. It passed out of the Senate 91 to 3 last Congress. This Congress, it has 76 bipartisan cosponsors. Eighty-six percent of Americans say they want tech companies held accountable for what they have done to America's children. I agree.

Big Tech can spend all the millions of dollars it wants trying to kill this legislation. Indeed, last year, they spent about $20 million in a period of a couple of months and hired one lobbyist for every six Members of Congress. So I think they can start to stand with parents that are pleading for help or they can continue being selfish. But eventually, a duty of care and a standard have to be put in place on the social media platforms and on the virtual space.

I think it is time for Congress to choose our Nation's children over the Big Tech lobby and Big Tech's bottom line.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Richard BlumenthalDemocrat, Connecticut

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Unanimous Consent Requests: S. 1032 (Executive Calendar)

Richard BlumenthalDemocrat, Connecticut

Mr. President, I am back again after Republicans have blocked my effort for a vote--a vote--on the Major Richard Star Act. Six times Republicans have blocked benefits for combat-injured veterans.

Let's be very clear. Right now, a combat-injured veteran with less than 20 years, including at least 400 service men and women who have been injured in the Iran war, are going to be docked dollar for dollar in their retirement pay for what that received in disability benefits.

That is wrong. It is morally wrong. It is legally wrong. It is politically wrong. And by a simple act of Congress, we can correct this injustice.

The Major Richard Star Act will cost about $9 billion over 10 years. We have worked to reduce the amount of funding necessary from $13 billion. But Republicans are saying that there needs to be a subtraction from another program, what is called an offset or a pay- for, so that there is no additional spending on those veterans who have been combat injured and are reduced in their retirement pay dollar for dollar when they receive disability benefits for that combat injury.

The combat injury forces them to retire with less than 20 years, and then they are docked dollar for dollar for their retirement pay as a result of the disability pay. They have earned both. They deserve both.

I could end there in arguing for the Major Richard Star Act.

And, in fact, this idea of a pay-for--how absurd? How unfair? The cost of caring for our veterans is a cost of war, and we should be prepared to make that investment and spend that money on men and women who were promised both retirement pay and disability benefits. We made that promise to them. A great nation keeps its promises, especially to our bravest and boldest.

Now, there should be no need for an offset, but I am willing to take their argument and do my best with it because if there needs to be an offset, I have worked hard to find one. And, in fact, I offered it in the Armed Services Committee as an amendment just days ago.

What was the result? My amendment was ruled out of order. Why? Maybe we will find out some time, but the fact of the matter is I have an offset, and I want to tell the Members of this body how we can find $9 billion in a $1.1 trillion Defense budget.

To the people of the United States of America, the Armed Services Committee approved a National Defense Authorization Act with, yes, $1.1 trillion. That is about a 30 percent or more increase over last year. The Department of Defense is awash in money, and a lot of it is going to programs that are wasteful, will never see the light of day, and are completely unnecessary to our national defense.

So let's talk about an offset. Let's take the high figure, $13 billion, the maximum figure, funding needed for the Major Richard Star Act.

In the ``Great Big Beautiful Bill,'' also known as H.R. 1, there are billions and billions of dollars, and $111 billion of it is unspent. In fact, it is not only unspent, it is unobligated. That is to say, if you want to talk legalese, there isn't a contract dispended. There isn't a commitment to allocate it to a contractor or a member of the military-- $111 billion.

There is no feasible way that the U.S. Department of Defense--call it the Department of War--can allocate or obligate that money before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30 of 2026. There is just no way that the Department of Defense can obligate all of that money before the end of the fiscal year for which it is appropriated under that ``Great Big Beautiful Bill.''

I propose taking $13 billion of it and making it available to the Department of Defense, which has responsibility. It has the obligation to pay retirement and disability compensation--to pay retirement compensation.

And so, to make the Department of Defense whole, to offset the additional money for retirement pay, let's take a DOD program that will in effect involve unobligated and unspent money.

I am willing to make the concession that we need to find an offset even though it offends me deeply to correct an injustice by saying: We have to take the money from another Department of Defense program.

But I would rather take this money from a Department of Defense program than do what Republicans are suggesting we do as an alternative. In fact, they have a bill which they have called the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. They take care of America's veterans to correct the Richard Star injustice by cutting an unprecedented amount of disability benefits for more than 1.4 million veterans.

It is a 550-page bill written by Republicans behind closed doors with provisions that still have not been fully made available, even though the bill was announced last week on a Thursday before we all left for home.

And essentially it waters down or reduces or eliminates benefits for veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus. That is millions of veterans.

It takes away their benefits. It robs them of benefits that they are entitled to receive. Now, I think that solution is deeply unfair and profoundly unnecessary. And my view is supported by members of the veterans community, the veterans service organizations that have weighed in against that supposed solution.

The VFW national commander Carol Whitmore said:

I think this point is very important. This bill, the Major Richard Star Act, is a standalone bill to do justice. And the Republican solution is to take away benefits from veterans who have suffered combat injuries that those benefits are designed to address.

The DAV national commander Coleman Nee said:

And IAVA CEO Dr. Kyleanne Hunter said:

These organizations, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have all opposed the Take Care of America's Veterans Act for this same reason.

And as Dr. Hunter said:

There is a way around the demand for the offset that takes money from the Department of Defense--unobligated funds--money that will not be spent, not taking away from disabled veterans.

And as a matter of principle, taking money from veterans to pay for a Department of Defense or Department of War program is a profoundly dangerous way to set a precedent and a pay-for.

That is the reason that the Secretary of War himself, Secretary Hegseth, said he supports the Major Richard Star Act without an offset. Large bipartisan majorities in the Senate--we have 80 cosponsors here-- and in the House--336 cosponsors--support the Major Richard Star Act without an offset. That is the reason why, as recently as yesterday, a senior Department of Defense official told stakeholders that the Department of War will support the Major Richard Star Act without an offset.

Veterans deserve better than the Republican proposal, and they deserve better than the rule that Secretary Collins apparently is talking about issuing. He hasn't issued it yet. He hasn't formally proposed it. There is no comment period. But my Republican colleagues say he is going to issue it; therefore, we should use it to make these savings. Well, he should not issue it. He should not eliminate benefits for sleep apnea and tinnitus. If he does it, he will have betrayed those veterans who lose those benefits.

My position has been consistent. I opposed President Biden and his administration when they had a similar proposal in 2022. And do you know what happened? They withdrew it because the hue and cry from the veterans community was so loud and the firestorm was so hot that they had no alternative. I ask the veterans of America to once again make their voices heard against an injustice.

No more than the Biden administration should this administration adopt such a misguided, unfair, and unjust policy. What veterans deserve is the Major Richard Star Act, and my hope is that we can break through this logjam and that today, my Republican colleagues will not object and do right by our Nation's veterans.

So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032, the Major Richard Star Act; that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?

The Senator from North Carolina.

Thom TillisRepublican, North Carolina

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am going to be brief because I know we have other Members waiting to speak. But just by way of offsets, I know that my friend from Connecticut said he is offended by requiring an offset.

I think the Presiding Officer and I might be like-minded on this. The Presiding Officer and I both have the distinction of voting against the PACT Act in 2022. I voted against the PACT Act--only nine Members of the U.S. Senate did; the majority of my conference voted with it-- because it was unfunded. It was a trillion-dollar promise being made to veterans. I knew absolutely well that if we didn't do the work to figure out how to pay for it, we weren't going to fulfill that promise.

As I told everyone back then, I am from a veterans State. We have 1 million veterans in our State. One in 10 people in North Carolina is a veteran. I talk to them every single day. When they asked me why I voted against it, I said: When I make a promise, I want to fulfill it.

When you vote on something here and you don't put a pay-for in it, you are just making a promise. You haven't created the mechanics and you haven't really made a promise you can fulfill because you haven't said how the money is going to come.

I have seen endless hearings since the PACT Act was passed about all the problems with implementing the PACT Act. I have seen other hearings about how other promises have been broken so that we can start fulfilling the promises of the PACT Act. That is what happens when you don't think through the process, and I think that is what we have here.

We have nearly five dozen bipartisan, bicameral priorities at risk in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. Rather than come down here and produce the same result--and I should add that my colleague from Connecticut was not able to pass this through unanimous consent when Democrats were in the majority. If we want to solve this problem, if we want to solve this specific problem, which I want to solve, we do the work in the committee to put the policy down and to fund it.

For that reason, I do not believe this bill is ready for prime time, and I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

Richard BlumenthalDemocrat, Connecticut

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for making my argument for me. We should not make empty promises. Those veterans are due their retirement benefits fully. They are due their compensation benefits fully. We promised them those benefits. The Major Richard Star Act enables them to receive what we have promised them.

And yes, this bill has been before the Congress for a long time. It has been written and rewritten. Work has gone into it. And I have now presented to the Senate an offset which should be unnecessary. My colleague from North Carolina is absolutely right--we should not demand offsets to do what is right and to fulfill our promises. But if it takes a vote of the full body, I would welcome it.

That is why I have a second request for unanimous consent to provide a vote, give us a vote, enable us to vote aye or nay, which I have demanded now again and again and again.

So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time; and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, all without intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?

The Senator from North Carolina.

Thom TillisRepublican, North Carolina

Reserving the right to object, it has been said that if it has already been said before, there is no need in saying it again. So I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

Richard BlumenthalDemocrat, Connecticut

I regret again that we have been blocked now for a seventh and eighth time, but I will continue to fight for the Major Richard Star Act. It represents the will of 80 Members of the U.S. Senate, hundreds of Members of the House of Representatives, and the overwhelming view of

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Brian SchatzDemocrat, Hawaii

If the Senator from Florida is ready to deliver her remarks, I would defer. I don't have enough time to give my remarks before the 2:15 vote, so just to keep the Senate on time, I will defer and try to land another time.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Moody be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes before the previously scheduled rollcall vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Florida.

(The remarks of Mrs. Moody pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 773 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Official Text ↗

Vote on Steel Nomination (Executive Calendar)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Steel nomination?

John CornynRepublican, Texas

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.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 39, 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.

Official Text ↗

Cloture Motion (Executive Calendar)

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 George Holding, of North Carolina, to be United States Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 41. The motion is agreed to.

The motion was agreed to.

Official Text ↗

Order of Business (Executive Calendar)

Joni ErnstRepublican, Iowa

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time with respect to the Holding nomination be expired and the 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 tomorrow; further, if the nomination is confirmed, the motion 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.

Official Text ↗

Legislative Session

Joni ErnstRepublican, Iowa

Mr. President, finally, I ask that the Senate proceed to 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Official Text ↗

S. RES. 616

Tim KaineDemocrat, Virginia

Mr. President, I rise to speak upon a matter that will be brought to the floor for a vote within the next hour or so. The matter is what is called a 502B resolution filed by my colleague Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, and a 502B resolution directs

This particular 502B resolution concerns a most serious human rights and criminal justice matter and one of the worst abuses of the Presidential pardon power in the history of the United States.

I applaud my colleague Senator Cortez Masto for leading on this bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill. I was a missionary in Honduras and lived there in 1980 and 1981, and I have a number of friends still there who feel this issue is definitely one that warrants some additional attention by our government.

And I thank Senator Cortez Masto. She will be the final speaker on this before it is called up for vote. My colleagues might remember that on March 8, 2024, former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez was convicted of three counts of drug trafficking in a case that was brought in the Southern District of New York, also convicted of weapons conspiracy, and on June 26, 2024, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Now, this conviction in March of 2024 followed a long investigatory process. President Hernandez' brother Tony was earlier convicted of serious drug offenses in the United States. That investigation began when Barack Obama was President. Most of the investigation was done during the Presidency of Donald Trump, term one. It continued during the Biden Presidency, and obviously, the conviction was obtained in the last year of the Biden Presidency.

The point is, this was a very intense effort by the Department of Justice over both Democratic and Republican administrations to go after serious narcotrafficking.

What was he convicted of doing? This former Honduran President was convicted of--while he was President, he was engaged in a conspiracy to import more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States--400 tons.

U.S. prosecutors described Hernandez as a key figure in one of the largest and most dangerous drug trafficking convictions ever prosecuted in the United States court system.

This disgraced former President even bragged about how he and his cartel friends--and this was evidence that was introduced against him at trial:

A serious narcotrafficker who abused the public trust of his nation to flood the United States with drugs used to kill Americans.

On December 1, 2025, after less than a year, a little bit more than a year service of his 45-year sentence, President Orlando Hernandez, this disgraced drug trafficker was released from Federal prison and given a full and complete pardon by Donald Trump, our President.

We have yet to receive any public plausible explanation for the pardon. President Trump said he thought it was a setup job done by the Biden administration, even though much of the investigation was conducted by President Trump's own officials in the Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York.

I have spoken about this matter before when the pardon was undertaken. The former President Hernandez is represented by some pretty high-priced folks. There is virtually no explanation for this that makes any sense, except a corrupt one. Someone got money for this pardon.

I don't know exactly who, and I am sure it is in an account somewhere that we will never be able to find out who, but there would be no reason to pardon this individual for this serious crime unless there was some corrupt motive behind it.

Now, this particular pardon raises serious doubts and questions given that President Trump is currently claiming to be at war against narcotraffickers. We have had much debate in this Chamber about the President's actions to direct the U.S. military to target and bomb boats and kill occupants on those boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

And at a hearing that we recently had with the Secretary of State, I asked him questions based upon my review of 46 files of the strikes, the first 46 strikes--now over 200 people have been killed in these strikes--and I asked the question why the administration did not demand evidence of the presence of narcotics on the boats that they are bombing.

That is not one of the targeting criteria. I am not allowed to describe the targeting criteria because they are classified, but I think I can discuss something that is not one of the targeting criteria. And evidence of narcotics on the boats has never been one of the targeting criteria in the strikes that have now killed more than 200 people.

But why would an administration that is bombing boats, even without evidence of narcotics, and claiming it is an effort to stop narcotrafficking--why would that administration pardon this guy--this guy--certainly, one of the most powerful and dangerous narcotraffickers ever convicted in the history of the United States? How does this make any sense?

Why is the President and this administration prioritizing Juan Orlando Hernandez over the American people?

And this is not the only example of a narcotrafficker or a drug trafficker being pardoned by the President. He pardoned a notorious drug trafficker on the first day of his Presidency. But this is the most egregious one.

Granting clemency to this narcotrafficker, after serving only 1 year out of a 45-year sentence, sends a troubling message about justice and accountability and about the fact that there are basically two systems of justice in this country--one for the well-connected, who can hire fancy folks and pay a lot of money to get out of a 45-year sentence, and everybody else.

So I call on my colleagues to stand up for what is right, to push back on this enabling of cartels, to push back on this impunity in releasing a dangerous narcotrafficker.

And I thank my colleague Senator Cortez Masto for filing this resolution and bringing it to the floor of the Senate so that all Members of the Senate can go on the record about whether they believe the law should apply to everybody or whether there are, in fact, two standards of justice for people like Juan Orlando Hernandez.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Official Text ↗

Inflation

John W. HickenlooperDemocrat, Colorado

Mr. President, last week, President Trump was asked about the surge in inflation. His response:

``I love the inflation''? It is almost like the reality betrays reality. What else does he love? Does he love the increase in measles cases, screwworm infecting our cattle, record credit card debt?

The truth is the President's economy has become a disaster for Americans. Families feel like they are getting squeezed every which way they look. This has become a cost-of-living emergency.

According to a recent report by the Joint Economic Committee minority, Coloradans have spent $3,300 more on goods and services since President Trump took office last year. That is $416 more on rent and mortgage payments; $310 more for groceries at the checkout line, as everything from ground beef to coffee has spiked; and $1,000 more in average deductibles for people on the Affordable Care Act insurance plans.

And Americans have gotten completely ripped off at the gas pump. In total, Coloradans have spent over $780 million more on gas since the beginning of President Trump's illegal war with Iran. That means Colorado families are spending $347 more now than they did before the war started.

Not only did President Trump raise your bills, but he also broke another campaign vow. He repeatedly promised, in his campaign, no more expensive, deadly wars.

Now, we are almost 14 months into an illegal war--a war of choice--in Iran. It is a war that Trump promised would be over in 4 to 5 weeks.

Mr. President, $100 billion later, 14 servicemembers lost, and we are still waiting for it to end.

A few hours ago, the administration finally released the details of a memorandum of understanding, which appears to kick the can down the road on many of the hard decisions still to be

They still haven't briefed Congress, including the top Republican leaders.

What is clear is that the deal he is pitching comes nowhere close to limiting Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is clearly nowhere near the deal President Obama secured over a decade ago that meaningfully curbed Iran's nuclear ambitions--that is, until Trump ripped it up.

It is also hard to explain to Americans why the Iranian regime would get hundreds of billions of dollars in this settlement and sanctions relief, as well, all to restore access to a waterway that was free and open to all before Trump took us to war in the first place.

We will have spent all this money on the war, on the aftermath, on the future settlements, just to be in a position where the United States is worse off than where it was when we began.

Right before Trump bombed Iran, farmers and ranchers in Colorado and across this country were preparing to plant for this season. Trump's tariffs increased the cost of farming equipment, while retaliatory tariffs from other countries reduced access to international markets that bought better prices for American farmers. The climate change- driven megadrought in the West made matters even worse.

As the war stretched on, farmers and ranchers reckoned with a new hurdle--diesel and fertilizer costs. Approximately one-third of global fertilizer passes through the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in prices, with the blockade, rising over 40 percent.

These rising costs are crushing our farmers and our ranchers and sending grocery prices soaring for American families.

President Trump was elected to bring down prices. He pledged to ``end inflation'' on day one. He promised a government that finally works for working people. Yet President Trump's agenda can be better summed up in just three letters: A, B, C--anything but costs--the cost of diesel, the cost of fertilizer, the cost of food, housing, healthcare.

President Trump has plenty of time to host a UFC fight on the White House lawn. He has been laser-focused on refurbishing the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. He has been unrelenting in his desire for a Department of Justice slush fund for election criminals like Tina Peters and the January 6 rioters. But he is not doing much to help you, the taxpayers.

Trump isn't unrigging the system, as he promised voters. He is rerigging it for himself. He is rerigging it for his pals and cronies. His family and close associates have pocketed billions, while Colorado families struggle to pay their monthly bills.

His ``One Big Bad Betrayal Act'' gave billions in tax cuts to ultrawealthy friends and the largest corporations and threw literally millions of Americans off their healthcare.

He sued the IRS so he wouldn't have to pay taxes again, while teachers, police officers, and nurses pay their taxes every year.

While working families worry about the cost of groceries, housing, and healthcare, this administration is focused on ballrooms, bombs, and billionaires.

This isn't why the American people sent us to Washington.

When I travel across Colorado, I hear the same things again and again. I hear: I can't afford to get sick. I can't afford my rent. I am scared about the kind of world my kids are going to inherit.

Working families don't ``love'' inflation. They don't think affordability is a ``hoax.'' They are desperate for a country that works for them--a country where Washington focuses on lowering costs and improving their lives, not giving record tax breaks to the Epstein class; a country where healthcare is a right and not a privilege; and a country where every family can afford to buy a home, instead of getting outbid by Wall Street.

So while the White House administration focuses on their ``anything but cost'' agenda, we are showing up every day to build a country that works better for you, better for your family, better for your neighbors.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Official Text ↗

S. RES. 616

Bernie MorenoRepublican, Ohio

Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues, at 4:30 today, to vote strongly in objection to S. Res. 616.

This resolution, introduced by our Democrat colleagues, is a relic of a failed past approach to Central America, one that imposes a leftist ideology and a purity test and ties our hands, while cartels flood our streets with poison and chaos spills across our borders in the hemisphere. It demands a report dredging up old allegations against a former Honduran President, Juan Orlando Hernandez, focusing on events from his administration.

The irony is striking. Many of these activities and challenges occurred during the Obama administration, when Democrats were asleep at the wheel in the Western Hemisphere. They allowed narcotrafficking to flourish and created the Western Hemisphere's worst migration crisis, without decisive action.

This resolution also fails to mention the radical, leftwing Castro administration, which ravaged Honduras with policies that exacerbated migration and opened the doors to China.

Yet this resolution remains completely silent on the Biden administration's foreign policy failures and the open borders agenda that poured fuel on that fire.

Honduras suffered under the Biden and Castro era, but now it has absolutely turned a page. Under President Tito Asfura, who I had the chance to go visit in person a little less than 2 weeks ago, it is a new day in a bilateral relationship. He is aligned with the ``America First'' priorities. He is a key partner in the Shield of the Americas and the Counter Cartel Coalition.

Honduras is working with us on intelligence sharing, going after the cartels, extraditions, and securing the hemisphere from Chinese and criminal influence.

President Asfura is hyperfocused on fixing what Castro and Biden broke and restoring stability and prosperity for the Honduran people.

This resolution singles out past issues under a previous government, while the current administration in Honduras and our own administration are focused on results: dismantling trafficking networks, ending the migration crisis, and building long-term prosperity.

As a side note, as you just heard from the Senator from Virginia, this actually has nothing to do with human rights. This has to do with clickbait speeches that are all intended to embarrass the President about a pardon.

Of course, it is ironic, given that President Biden pardoned tens of thousands of serious criminals.

But, back to Honduras, this resolution risks undermining the very security assistance and cooperation we need to keep Americans and Hondurans safe.

Section 502B is a tool, but in the hands of those who prioritize bureaucratic processes over results, it becomes a bludgeon against effective policy.

President Trump's approach? Security coordination, economic incentives for partners fighting cartels, and putting the stability and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere first.

It is delivering results: zero illegal border encounters this last 12-month period.

We are seeing deportations of criminals, revived extradition efforts, and a coalition that is actually confronting the cartels instead of studying the cartels.

Colleagues, the American people are tired of hollow and ideological resolutions that achieve nothing but clickbait headlines. They want secure borders, safe communities, and a foreign policy that puts our hemisphere's stability ahead of nonsense reports.

Objecting to this resolution isn't ignoring human rights. It is refusing to let the past paralyze the future.

Let's come together. Let's support our Western Hemisphere allies, like President Tito Asfura.

I urge my colleagues to reject S. Res. 616.

Let's focus on advancing the Shield of the Americas, supporting vetted partners, and delivering real results against the drug cartels that threaten us.

I will say one last thing. The Senator from Virginia has evidently another

I think that when the Presiding Officer travels to Missouri, people ask him: What are you doing? What are you doing to make the country better?

Debating what happened a decade ago isn't making the country better. We should be talking about how to make our economy stronger, how to make our communities safer, and how to make our communities more secure. We should be talking about ensuring--ensuring--that we complete our duty and fund our government, not posturing months ahead of time to defund our government again.

Again, colleagues, let's get this done. Let's deal with this resolution swiftly, quickly, and vote no.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Official Text ↗

Requesting Information on Honduras's Human Rights Practices Pursuant to Section 502b(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: Motion To Discharge

Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat, Nevada

Mr. President, I rise today to bring transparency to the American people.

S. Res. 616 requires the Trump administration to produce a report detailing the human rights violations in Honduras under its former President, Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Let me just stress this--and I am going to be talking about this quite often--Juan Orlando Hernandez--most people don't know--was convicted here in the United States. He is a notorious drug trafficker. And President Trump pardoned him last year.

The American people deserve to know the consequences of pardoning such an infamous criminal and, quite honestly, how that conflicts with President Trump's focus, as he talks about, on law and order and combating drug trafficking.

Mr. Hernandez was serving a 45-year sentence for drug trafficking when President Trump pardoned him. He had been convicted by a U.S. jury in 2024 for conspiring to import hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States and for related firearms offenses. He also had been accused of taking bribes from the infamous Mexican cartel leader El Chapo and raking in millions of dollars in drug money himself.

This is the man who is responsible for illegal drugs entering our country, for harming families, and for endangering our communities. Yet President Trump pardoned him.

This is the man who prosecutors said had partnered with some of the world's most prolific narcotics traffickers to build a corrupt and brutally violent empire. The prosecutors who were later able to get a conviction against him said that. Yet President Trump deemed him worthy of a pardon.

The President's action here is the opposite of law and order. In fact, it contradicts efforts to combat drug trafficking, and it undermines law enforcement. Why do I know that? Because as a former attorney general, these are areas in which I worked with law enforcement in my State--our law enforcement agents, our investigators, our prosecutors in the State of Nevada--to combat drug trafficking that comes into the State of Nevada.

Let me clarify this because most people don't realize that Nevada is not on the border with Mexico, but what happens on that border bleeds into Nevada. So the drug trafficking that crosses that border comes into Nevada, where we were seeing opioid abuse, where we were seeing methamphetamine abuse, where we were seeing fentanyl abuse--the very drugs the President now is talking about wanting to combat and stop from coming into our country. Yet--yet--he pardons a big drug trafficker who was convicted in this country for doing that very thing.

You know, quite frankly, it is an insult to the professional men and women--nonpartisan, let me just say, men and women--who work year after year to address this issue and who actually worked hard to put Hernandez behind bars.

It also sends the wrong message. Here is why: Since he was pardoned, Mr. Hernandez has been giving interviews to the BBC, and he is saying that President Trump's pardon proves he was innocent.

I will tell you what: The American people deserve better than that, and they deserve transparency.

Quite honestly, our law enforcement, who works so hard to address-- really address--the drug trafficking that is coming into this country, deserves to know why President Trump pardoned this man. They deserve to fully understand the connections between Hernandez' government, drug trafficking organizations, and Honduras' human rights record. That is why I am calling up this resolution today.

This resolution would require the Trump administration to provide information about Honduras' domestic human rights practices. Specifically, the administration would have to assess human rights violations during the time that President Juan Orlando Hernandez was President. That includes analyzing the connections between high-level government officials and drug trafficking organizations, and it means looking at the corruption of Honduras' Government officials as it relates to drug trafficking, money laundering, and bribery.

In this report, they would also have to evaluate the links between the drug cartels in Honduras and torture, rape, illegal detention, witness tampering, and murder.

Finally, it would include understanding efforts in Honduras to undermine police reforms and drug crime investigations.

The resolution also requires an assessment from the Secretary of State of any ongoing ties between Hernandez and--whether he has maintained those with drug cartels.

Now, I have heard some of my colleagues talking out against this in that somehow this is some ``gotcha'' moment or this is some sort of lefty, liberal effort to make the President look bad.

Well, let me just say this: Everybody is responsible for their actions. I don't know, in working in law enforcement, that there is a left or a right to it. We want to stop drug trafficking. We want to hold those drug traffickers accountable, and they shouldn't be pardoned after they have been convicted in the United States. If we are truly going to combat the War on Drugs in this country, everybody needs to be held accountable--everyone.

This resolution is important because if the administration fails to give us this report, the resolution would pause U.S. security assistance to Honduras. There is no good reason for the administration not to author this report.

Again, some colleagues have voiced concerns about the potential pausing of assistance to Honduras. Well, let me be very clear. Trump has already threatened to pause aid to Honduras multiple times. In fact, since the start of his second term, his administration has slashed the amount of funding we are sending to the country. There is no promise that the Trump administration won't threaten support for Honduras again with or without this resolution, right?

So if President Trump is really concerned about preventing drug trafficking and supporting Honduras, he can start by not pardoning drug kingpins.

At the end of the day, this vote is about giving the American people the answers they deserve. We need the truth. We need the facts. We need to understand what is going on here. The President is going to use his pardon power to pardon a drug kingpin who has been convicted in this country. People deserve the right to know why. They deserve the right to know why.

So I hope my colleagues will work with me to pass this resolution. I thank Senators Kaine and Welch for standing with me and joining me in this resolution and talking on the floor today as to how important this is.

Again, I cannot stress this enough: This is not a lefty or a right issue. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is a nonpartisan issue. This is about drug trafficking, who is responsible, and accountability for them. And if we have a President who decides he is going to use his pardon power to pardon them, we have every right to question that and understand the extent to which an individual is being

With that, Mr. President, pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S. Res. 616.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat, Nevada

I know of no further debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?

If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.

Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat, Nevada

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.

John BarrassoRepublican, Wyoming

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:

The motion was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Official Text ↗

Unanimous Consent Requests

Jacky RosenDemocrat, Nevada

Mr. President, at a time when hard-working families across this country are being squeezed by skyrocketing costs, you would think that the President of the United States and Washington Republicans would be focused on finding ways to help people afford their groceries, access affordable healthcare, and keep communities safe.

In fact, that is what Donald Trump himself ran on. He promised he would lower costs ``on day one.'' That is a quote, ``on day one.''

Instead, now that he is in office, Trump is completely fixated on his corrupt slush fund where he would give your tax dollars--your tax dollars--to his political allies.

So how did we get here? Donald Trump sued his own IRS and Treasury Department to try to get $10 billion--your tax dollars--for himself. But then, of course, he was so kind that he agreed to drop his lawsuit against his own government--our government--as long as it set up a slush fund of $1.8 billion to pay out to his allies, supporters, and even January 6 rioters who assaulted police officers.

Understandably, the American people strongly oppose this corrupt attempt to misuse their tax dollars. So the Justice Department had to come out and claim that the fund is dead.

But Donald Trump has made it perfectly clear that he still wants his slush fund to move forward so he can pay January 6 rioters who beat up police officers at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. I was here, and, frankly, I don't trust his cronies to put an end to it. It is unbelievable.

Whether it is $1 billion for a ballroom, $1.8 billion for a slush fund, Trump is focused on himself, not on the hardships of our communities--your communities--our families, not on the hardships people are facing.

Our families are struggling to put food on the table. Our families are worried about losing their healthcare. Our police departments are struggling with staffing shortages. That is why Congress has a responsibility to put an end to this wasteful slush fund, once and for all.

So I have introduced a package of three bills that would make sure the slush fund can never happen and would instead redirect that $1.8 billion to programs that actually help hard-working families and keep our communities safe.

My first bill would permanently block the slush fund from being created, and if the Trump administration still moves ahead with it, it would direct the funding to SNAP, the food assistance program that Washington Republicans have gutted to pay for their One Big Beautiful Bill.

So in Nevada alone, nearly 55,000 people lost SNAP benefits between July of last year and January of this year. And as a reminder, 40 percent of SNAP recipients in Nevada are children--are children. Children are going hungry because of Trump's cuts to pay to billionaires.

That means nearly 55,000 Nevadans now have to worry about how they are going to afford groceries at a time when groceries and gas prices are just going through the literal roof.

Now, imagine how many families $1.8 billion could help feed. Imagine how many parents could feed their children with that kind of money instead of paying January 6 rioters and Trump's allies.

And in my State, that kind of money could restore SNAP benefits for all 55,000 Nevadans--55,000 Nevadans who lost their benefits for more than 15 years.

I could feed those families for 15 years.

Mr. President, so I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged, and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4705; further, I ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Senator from Florida.

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The only reason we are standing here and having this debate in the first place is because Democrats in administration after administration repeatedly weaponized the Federal Government against their political opponents and the American people. That is the entire reason this fund was proposed.

Weaponization of government by the Democratic administration is the entire reason for the lawsuit, and my Democrat colleagues could not distract from that fact by pretending to care about fiscal responsibility or the cost of living.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress running massive deficits is why the cost of living has skyrocketed.

Look at what the Democrats did when they controlled government under the Biden administration. Inflation hit 9 percent. At the same time, they weaponized the government.

I, unfortunately, have seen it firsthand. Democrats weaponized the government over the past three Democratic administrations. Under the Clinton administration, my company was illegally targeted by our government because I dared to stand up against ``Hillary care.''

Under the Obama administration, we saw conservative nonprofits targeted by the IRS to sabotage their mission to oppose the Obama machine.

Under the Biden administration, I was surveilled again illegally. My tax

How about Democrats apologize to people whose doors they beat down, whose information they stole, whose privacy they violated, and whose lives they ruined?

What about Scott Smith, a father just miles from this Chamber in Loudoun County who was targeted by the FBI because he demanded accountability from the school board after his daughter was sexually assaulted at school and the school board tried to cover it up.

How about Joe Robertson, a 77-year-old Montana Navy veteran--a veteran--who was fined $130,000 and sentenced to 18 months in prison for building a pond in his remote property to fight forest fires because the government would not do its job to keep his family safe?

What about the specific religious groups that were targeted? Catholics were singled out by the Biden administration as potential domestic terror threats for living their beliefs. Mark Houck, a father of seven kids and pro-life activist was targeted and publicly arrested for his protests. His home was raided, he was dragged through Federal court, and he faced trumped-up charges for the crime of living his Catholic faith.

DOJ data shows that they weaponized the FACE Act for decades to throw the book at pro-lifers who expressed their First Amendment rights.

I think any government that has the power to villainize one specific religious group or belief is a serious problem that precedes disaster. That is why back in my home State I am fighting against self-proclaimed Nazis like Kanye West for performing in my State using public dollars and facilities.

It is clear from DOJ evidence that the Biden administration weaponized the government. Meanwhile, Members of this body gave themselves the power to sue over being surveilled in Arctic Frost, yet Democrats don't want to extend that remedy to the American people they serve.

If the Democrats want lower costs for American families, they should look at how Congress spends money. Congress is spending $2 trillion--$2 trillion--more than we take in year after year.

If you spend more money than you take in, in government, it causes the cost of living to increase. Has a single Democrat acknowledged a problem with that? No.

Democrats walked away from this year's appropriations negotiations because Republicans refused to run the outrageous deficits Democrats want to continue to force onto the backs of the American people. Do my Democrat colleagues know what that deficit spending does? It fuels inflation, which makes your dollar buy less and less and forces prices higher.

Still my Democrat colleagues just want to spend and spend and spend. I am a victim of weaponized government. The American people are victims of weaponized government. A lot of them need to be made whole as best as we can.

If my Democratic colleagues want to decrease spending to lower the cost of living, great, me too. Let's balance the budget. We all have to do it in our homes. Let's go find some wasteful earmarks and fraudulent programs to cut. We know they are there. Thousands are there. These bills are nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to slander Republicans because the Democrats want to deflect from their own documented history of corruption and weaponization.

I absolutely object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

The Senator from Nevada.

Jacky RosenDemocrat, Nevada

Mr. President, if my Republican colleagues want to make prices lower, they can start by removing tariffs and not entering into unnecessary wars, but I want to get back to the issue at hand, which this slush fund. The slush fund, if it is truly dead like some say, then why not pass my bill?

Why not make sure that it is gone for good? What are Republicans so afraid of? And so if feeding hungry children isn't Washington Republicans' priority, there is another chance for them to do the right thing for our families. Because last year, Washington Republicans gutted--gutted--Medicaid and took healthcare coverage from millions of Americans in need so that they could give more tax breaks to billionaires, people who need it the least.

They gutted healthcare for families to give tax breaks to billionaires. And as of January of this year, nearly 170,000 fewer Nevadans were enrolled in Medicaid compared to 2023. That means fewer people seeing a doctor, fewer people getting preventive care, fewer people being able to afford treatment or the medication that they need, fewer people getting the care they need for their children when they are chronically or terminally ill. It is cruel, and the money that Trump wants for his slush fund could pay for more than 2 years of Medicaid coverage for every Nevadan who lost it because of these Republican cuts for payouts to billionaires.

So instead of rewarding Trump's political allies, we can help families get healthcare because nothing is more important than your health. Nothing.

A diagnosis can change your life in an instant, and I want people to be able to afford their prescriptions. I want people to be able to take their children to see a doctor. A diagnosis changes your life, and they took away healthcare.

And so a much better use for taxpayer dollars, that is what I want to do. I want to put it back into those Nevada families who are struggling with those life-altering diagnoses that we are all so very afraid of. And that is what my second bill aims to do. It will permanently block this slush fund from being created.

And if the Trump administration finds a way to move ahead with this, my bill would redirect the $1.8 billion to Medicaid, to help those mothers that I talked to, those parents, again, with sick children, to help those taking care of their family members. It matters. It is caring. And what they are doing and what they did to cut Medicaid is cruel.

Mr. President, so I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged, and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4703; further, I ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Senator from Florida.

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, in my lifetime, the cost of healthcare for a family of four has gone from $700 a year to over $25,000. ObamaCare, which my Democratic colleagues all supported, was supposed to reduce family healthcare costs by $2,500. If that was true, we wouldn't be worried here about healthcare costs, would we? If you look at the cost of a new car in my lifetime it has gone from 16, 1,700 bucks. I think the minimum new car is probably $20,000.

If you look at the cost of housing, it just came out that in 242 cities in this country, the starter home is a million dollars. Now, what has caused all this? Government. Bigger and bigger government, more and more regulations. There is a study that just came out that said the Federal regulations I think it costs $3 trillion a year, something like $15,000 per family.

So if my Democratic colleagues actually really cared about the cost of living, they would stop passing bills that would have more and more regulation and stop running $2 trillion deficits.

Now, as I already said, what we are talking about in these bills are nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to slander Republicans because Democrats want to deflect from their own documented history of corruption and weaponization by Democratic administrations.

This is a history of targeting everyday Republicans, congressional opponents, Catholics, Christians, pro-life groups, gun owners, military officers that don't adhere to leftwing politics, parents standing up for their kids and challenging school boards, veterans working on their private property, farmers challenging our DC bureaucrats, and any American that fails to pay tribute to the tyrants of their administrative state.

Therefore, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

The Senator from Nevada.

Jacky RosenDemocrat, Nevada

Mr. President, the objection is truly a shame because people will suffer and people will be damaged by poor health and some may lose their life from lack of care.

So my Washington Republican friends, they won't agree on funding SNAP and feeding those hungry children in Nevada for 15 or so years, funding Medicaid to help families again.

Perhaps we could agree on giving this funding for the men and women of law enforcement. Surely, they must stand up for law enforcement and for public safety and for community safety because across America our police departments are facing staffing shortages, recruitment challenges, retention issues.

Officers are being asked to do more with fewer resources. So the money from Trump's slush fund could fund more than 3 years of the COPS Hiring Program to help communities hire and retain more officers. It could fully fund more than 3 years of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program.

What is this program? It helps support the families of officers who are killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Nothing could be more important than supporting those families. Surely, Republicans want to help families of fallen or disabled officers.

And so the irony here is almost hard to believe, Republicans love to talk about how supportive they are of law enforcement, and yet Donald Trump wants to use your tax dollars to pay people who assaulted police officers right here in this Capitol in this room in this Chamber where we stand today on January 6.

And I think, and I hope, surely we can all agree, that the funding would be put to better use to support our men and women in uniform, our police officers. So my third and final bill would permanently block the slush fund from being created. And if the Trump administration still forges ahead with it, my bill would redirect the funding to Federal law enforcement programs.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged, and that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4704; further, I ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Senator from Florida.

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

So it is interesting that, you know, my Democratic colleague cares about law enforcement. In the last, what, year and a half, in this last year and a half--what--the government has been shut down three times, so all the Federal Government wasn't paid.

I never heard my Democratic colleagues that that didn't bother them then. Look at what we just finished. Federal law enforcement, ICE, and CBP weren't paid. They shut down the government this whole year. They had no interest in funding Homeland Security.

So these bills are nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to slander Republicans because the Democrats want to deflect from their own documented history of Democrat administrations' corruption and weaponization.

Let's remember: Democrat administrations have targeted everyday Republicans, congressional opponents, Catholics, Christians, pro-life groups, gun owners, military officers, parents standing up for their kids--I just can't imagine--parents standing up for their kids and challenging school boards, veterans working on their own private property, farmers challenging the power of DC bureaucrats, and any American that fails to pay tribute to the tyrants of the Democrat administrative state.

Therefore, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

The Senator from Nevada.

Jacky RosenDemocrat, Nevada

Mr. President, you know, this is truly a shame. It is extremely disappointing to me because by blocking these bills, Washington Republicans are paying tribute. They are paying tribute to the President, and they are saying that they approve of Donald Trump wasting 1.8 billion taxpayer dollars to pay his political allies and January 6 rioters.

They may claim the slush fund is dead because Trump and his administration say it is. But does anybody believe them? I would say not too many.

And so that is why I tried to pass these bills and create a fail-safe mechanism to redirect funding to food, to healthcare, to public safety, and so if Trump still tries to create this slush fund, we have a way to put it toward something good for our communities.

Unfortunately, Washington Republicans blocked these commonsense efforts.

I yield the floor.

Rick ScottRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, first off, there is no fund. So we are talking about a fund that has never been created. And then we are talking about how the Democrats supposedly care about the cost of living when everything they do raises the cost of living--everything.

Government is your problem. If you have a cost-of-living problem, government did it to you. If your education costs are high, government did that to you. When I went to school, junior college was 200 bucks a semester. I went there because college was $250; the university was $255. Government did that. Look at what it is now--thousands and thousands of dollars. People end up with debt. When I went to school, people didn't end up with debt.

Government has done all this. Government has caused the cost of living to be high. There is no fund. We are talking about a fund that has never been created, and we are talking about the cost of living that is caused by Big Government.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Official Text ↗

Iran

Christopher MurphyDemocrat, Connecticut

Mr. President, I have long wanted this war with Iran to end. Every single day, this war has become a deepening, cascading disaster for the American people as gas prices eclipse $6 a gallon in many places, as Americans are killed, as new wars break out in the region, as farms go bankrupt with the ballooning diesel prices. Every single day this war has gone on, it has become a worse debacle for the United States and the American people.

And so I have been prepared to swallow, basically, any deal to end the war, and my desire is still to stop this war. I knew the deal was likely going to be bad. I knew the deal was likely going to be humiliating for the United States of America. But I didn't know it was going to be this humiliating. I didn't know the deal was going to be this bad.

The war needs to end, basically, upon any terms, but it is important for us tonight, as we are reading the details of this agreement, to understand how the terms of this agreement are final, clear, and total proof of how calamitous this war was and how it should be a lesson for both Republicans and Democrats, for this administration and every future administration, to never make this mistake again.

So let's go through the terms of this agreement, which is all of two pages, negotiated by real estate developers cosplaying as diplomats. Let's start with the immediate commitments. What are the immediate commitments that Iran is making and the United States is making?

Iran is making no new commitments. They are agreeing to open the strait. The strait was open before the war began.

They are promising that they will not develop or obtain a nuclear weapon. They had already promised that before the war began.

And they are agreeing to talk about restraining their nuclear research program. They were willing to talk about that prior to the war beginning.

So Iran is making no new commitments that did not exist before the war. Before the war, they committed to keep the strait open. Before the war, they committed to develop no nuclear weapons. Before the war, they were willing to talk about the rest of their nuclear research program.

What is the United States committing to in this agreement? Well, it is a little hard to decipher because of the terms, which are either mistakenly or deliberately fuzzy, but we at least know that the United States is committing immediately to release all oil

The United States is agreeing to free up frozen Iranian money. It could be around $24 billion that will be going immediately to the U.S. Treasury.

Those are the immediate commitments that the United States is making. OK. Let's talk about what is not in this agreement--what is not included in the commitments that are being made in the short term.

Iran is making no commitments on reductions or controls on their missile program or their drone program or their support for terrorism.

In fact, you can see a video today of Donald Trump, saying: I think it is cool for Iran to have missiles. I think it is kind of unfair to say that Iran shouldn't have missiles if everybody else has them.

He literally said this on TV today.

For the last 100 days, Donald Trump and the administration have been telling us that the American people have to sacrifice and go to war and spend billions of dollars and have 13 Americans killed and suffer through $6-a-gallon gas prices because we have to stop Iran from having missiles. The Presiding Officer and I have sat in briefings in which we have been told that the point of this war is to destroy Iran's missile capacity, and now the President is saying: Eh, it just doesn't matter.

President Trump's goals shifted, but they seemed to be to get a regime that was more friendly to the United States and to Israel. We have a harder-line regime now in charge of the country than we did before. We had a doddering, 80-year-old Ayatollah. We now have a, frankly, much more capable and much more provocative hard-line regime.

He said he wanted to get rid of the drone program. The drone program is still there. There is nothing in this agreement about their drone program. He wanted to get rid of their missile program. There is nothing in this agreement about their missile program.

He wanted to get rid of their nuclear program, and he pledged that he would carry out this war in a way that got a better deal than President Obama did. Of course, he had to promise that because he pulled out of the JCPOA. He got none of it in this agreement. He got none of it in this agreement. Yes, in this agreement, there is a suggestion that there is now going to be a negotiation between the United States and Iran over their nuclear program, but that negotiation was available before this war began.

The President may argue that this war has given him additional leverage. That is nonsensical. There is fundamentally less leverage today than there was before the war began. Let's just go through it for a second.

When Obama was negotiating the nuclear deal, he had the oil sanctions in place. Those are the most serious sanctions, right? Iran runs on oil revenue, so the primary leverage Obama had during those negotiations was the oil sanctions. We are releasing all of the oil sanctions before the nuclear negotiations happen. That is malpractice. Overnight, immediately, the leverage available for nuclear negotiations essentially goes up in smoke.

We are also giving them billions of dollars in frozen funds.

In the earlier negotiations, President Obama had Russia and China on our side. Donald Trump has mishandled foreign relations such that now China and Russia are on the Iranians' side. It is fundamentally different leverage.

Maybe most importantly, President Obama had the threat of military action. If you don't get a deal, we can always take military action. Well, that leverage is gone as well because Iran took our best shot and not only survived but got the United States to sign an agreement where we are paying them billions of dollars in order to end the war, including a suggestion that we are going to create a $300 billion reparations fund. Guess what. If you have studied history, you know that the winning side doesn't pay reparations. The losers pay reparations.

So the Iranians don't have to worry about oil sanctions. They are gone. The Iranians don't have to worry about getting back their frozen funds. We are transferring them. They don't have to worry about an American military response because they have already seen it, and they have survived. And they don't need to worry about going up against the United States, China, and Russia because China and Russia are now on their side.

These nuclear negotiations are just destined to fail. I hope I am wrong, but on the backside of this war, the President has almost no leverage. What is left? This agreement drops the oil sanctions. It frees up the frozen funds. He has already played the military card.

There is a suggestion in this document that there is going to be a specific negotiation about the enriched uranium that Iran holds. Now, remember when Obama was negotiating with Iran, they had 15-percent enriched uranium. They weren't close to the enrichment capacity to make a bomb. Today, they have a 60-percent enrichment capacity. Because Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement, Iran now has 60 percent. Everybody knows that, to get from 60 to the quality you need to produce a bomb, it takes a matter of days.

Iran says in this agreement that they will talk about the enriched uranium, but they are willing to talk about the enriched uranium being degraded to 3 percent, which is the number in the JCPOA. So they basically signal in this agreement that, yeah, we will talk about getting rid of our enriched uranium or diluting it, but we are just going to talk about the same thing that we were talking to the Obama administration about.

All of this was predictable. All of this was predictable. I have listened to my hard-line colleagues argue that the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or to destroy their missiles or to stop their support for terrorism is to go to war with Iran. Well, we went to war with Iran for 100 days, and on the backside of it, they still have their nuclear program, they still have their missiles, they still have their drones, they are still supporting terrorism. It didn't work, and most of us knew it wasn't going to work. Most of us said that, if you go to war with Iran, we will end up in a worse position, and here we are in a fundamentally worse position.

The entire scope of this agreement basically boils down to a multibillion-dollar payment to Iran so that Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz. What a disaster that is. To add insult to injury, the text says that Iran promises to open the strait--for 10 years? No. For 5 years? For a year? No.

Iran says: We will open the Strait of Hormuz for 2 months toll free. Then, after that period of time, we will consult with the Government of Oman on the tolling structure.

So open for 60 days and then Oman and Iran will talk about the new structure.

I knew it was going to be a humiliating agreement. I didn't know it was going to be this humiliating. I want the war to end, and I am willing to stomach a bad deal, but this agreement exposes what a colossal mistake it was--the biggest foreign policy blunder of 20 years--to start this war and why every hawk who cheerled us into war with Iran was wrong. We didn't get anything that you thought we were going to get out of this.

I am hopeful that I am wrong about these negotiations. I am hopeful that new leverage will materialize, but I don't see any leverage at all. It is given up in this agreement. It is given up in the way that this war has been perpetuated. I am glad the war is over, but I am furious that it has resulted in our Nation's humiliation and in Iran's becoming stronger and in America's becoming weaker, and everybody-- Republicans and Democrats--should be furious about that.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Official Text ↗

Iran

Bernie MorenoRepublican, Ohio

Mr. President, just really quickly and with all due respect to my colleague from Connecticut, he wasn't part of the negotiation process. He has no idea what conversations were had with the Iranians.

What I do know is that we are on the verge of a historic possibility that my kids and my grandkids will live in a world that is not threatened by Iran and that we won't live under the fear of an Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon.

President Trump is the only President in my lifetime who had the courage to actually do what was needed. What this agreement will get to is what we should all hope for, all of us--Republicans, Democrats, and just anybody who is a citizen of the United States of America. We should be here, hopeful that we have an opportunity to get to this historic place.

It is always just incredibly disappointing to me, as somebody who is new to politics, that everything has to be turned into a political game. It is not a game. People have put their lives at risk to make this country safer. Instead of cheerleading for failure, we should be cheerleading for success.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Official Text ↗

Saving the Ooi Act of 2026

Jeff MerkleyDemocrat, Oregon

Mr. President, I rise to address an issue of importance to our commercial fisheries and to our weather and to scientific studies. Specifically, that is the issue of sustaining the Ocean Observatories Initiative. It is a system of 900 sensors that we have in five different arrays around the oceans surrounding the United States that provide immense information--these anchored sensors--on the salinity, which is the salt content of the water, on the temperature, on the current direction, and on the phytoplankton at the bottom of the food chain. All of that information gives us enormously improved understanding of our ocean conditions. In fact, that information has been used in over 500 academic studies.

Now, what value is this?

Well, understanding our commercial fisheries is essential for maintaining the success of our commercial fisheries, and a huge amount of our weather is affected by the temperature of the ocean in different locations. That is why you hear weathermen talking about El Nino and La Nina--because they are large, massive bodies of water that are either colder than usual or warmer than usual and are changing all the patterns of weather.

It is also important for understanding climate change because the ocean stores some--I think it is--90 percent of the temperature increases that come from carbon dioxide and monoxide.

To get to the point, the National Science Foundation has started pulling out these arrays--it started yesterday--with an array called the Coastal Endurance Array off the coast of Oregon. But to everyone who represents any oceanfront in the United States, these are incredibly valuable investments. We have spent $386 million in developing these arrays. They are supposed to provide information for 30 years, and pulling them out makes no sense.

So this bill that we have teamed up on--Alaska and Oregon, myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski--is simple.

It says: National Science Foundation, stop dismantling this enormously valuable array until we can have a full study of the pros and cons and stakeholder input because we cannot make a mistake and undermine the success of our commercial fisheries, our recreational fisheries, and our understanding of the weather and climate.

With that, I would like to turn this over to my colleague from Alaska.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

Mr. President, I appreciate being here on the floor with my colleague from Oregon and working on this very important Ocean Observatories Initiative.

As he has outlined, understanding what is happening in our oceans is so key; it so critical. It is not just about how it impacts the fish and the habitat within our oceans; it is about the impact that our oceans have on the planet, recognizing that when you see warming waters, that has impact on the weather, on the jet stream, understanding all of that--understanding from the purposes of what it means from an industry perspective.

In my State and in the State of Oregon--also a State that has strong fisheries--it is important to understand the science so that we are making sound fisheries management decisions--sound for the fisheries and the resource itself, sound for the economies in those coastal communities that rely on them. So good science is really, really important.

As Senator Merkley has mentioned, we have an extraordinary system in place with this Ocean Observatories Initiative--a network of 900 deep- sea instruments that are providing real-time data to help us monitor the ocean conditions, predict extreme weather, and protect the coastal communities and maritime industries.

These are all over our oceans. As the Senator from Oregon has noted, the Coastal Endurance Array is in the Pacific Northwest. There is an array that is in the Gulf of Alaska, the Global Station Papa Array. This is 600 nautical miles off the coast, more than 2\1/2\ miles beneath the surface of the water. So these are down deep. These are gathering information that is hard to get. These are systems that are not only in the Pacific, but we have the array that is situated between Greenland and Iceland. I was just out in that region, and people were talking about the significance of the data that comes from this.

So, again, we have an extraordinary system that has been put in place, and then you have an announcement that caught everyone by surprise when the National Science Foundation said: We are going to begin dismantling one of our most complex ocean-monitoring systems.

This is all happening at a time when everybody is talking about El Nino and what that is going to bring in terms of the potential for extreme weather events. This is not the time to be turning off one of our most valuable scientific assets.

So this is an investment that has been made. It represents actually decades of investment. It makes the data publicly available so that every American--whether you are a fisherman, a university researcher, our U.S. Coast Guard who is performing rescue operations--they can all safely operate.

So Congress has made really clear that we intend to maintain this cost-effective system by ensuring that we have funding for the program in our annual appropriations bill. As appropriators, that is our job. And enough Senators and Congressmen have agreed that it was a prudent use of taxpayer dollars to do just that.

Normally, we would reiterate our intent through the appropriations process by funding the system and including language prohibiting funds from being used for the dismantling, but we just felt that time was of the essence. As the Senator from Oregon has noted, when they are dismantling--they have already begun as of yesterday--expedient measures are necessary.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4822, which was introduced earlier today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

I know of no further debate on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the bill, the bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?

The bill (S. 4822) was passed as follows:

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon. This was fast-moving. He and I were able to join together with letters. We were able to gather additional colleagues who weighed in on this. And then to be able to move with the consent of the rest of this body this evening to advance rapidly this measure I think speaks to the importance of the initiative itself.

But I also want to acknowledge the strong support from Senator Merkley in this initiative as we work to ensure that we have good, sound science and the investments that we have made to allow for that to continue. I just wanted to publicly thank him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Jeff MerkleyDemocrat, Oregon

Mr. President, I would like to very much thank my colleague from Alaska. We were both shocked to hear about this plan to remove these sensors.

The sea off Alaska and certainly off the coast of the Northwestern United States--Oregon, Washington--are incredible assets that we need to understand. And I think about how, off Oregon, you have the California current and the Pacific upwelling that give some of the most productive fisheries to be found anywhere on the planet--from the salmon to the rockfish, to the groundfish, to the whiting, to the shrimp, to the crabs. And I know there are very similar, very rich conditions in the seas off Alaska.

So it is a pleasure to collaborate with my colleague and for us to gain the support of our fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to say it is very important to protect this system of sensors, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, for the good work it is going to help provide for weather, for commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, and understanding climate. So thank you.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Official Text ↗

Resolutions Submitted Today

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 776 and S. Res. 777.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The resolutions were agreed to.

The preambles were agreed to.

(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Official Text ↗

Arms Sales Notification

James E. RischRepublican, Idaho

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:

Official Text ↗

Arms Sales Notification

James E. RischRepublican, Idaho

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Arms Sales Notification

James E. RischRepublican, Idaho

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Arms Sales Notification

James E. RischRepublican, Idaho

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Arms Sales Notification

James E. RischRepublican, Idaho

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Official Text ↗

Tribute to Christopher J. Scolese

Mark R. WarnerDemocrat, Virginia

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the career of an outstanding civil servant Dr. Christopher J. Scolese, who will retire this summer after nearly five decades of government service, most recently as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office. Dr. Scolese has shaped U.S. leadership in space across civil and national security domains, leaving an indelible mark on the Nation's aerospace and national security capabilities, as well as the people and culture of the Nation's space community.

Dr. Scolese began his government career in 1978 as a U.S. naval officer in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. His work focused on developing sophisticated instrumentation and multiprocessor systems for naval and Department of Energy applications while serving at Naval Sea Systems Command. Dr. Scolese was personally selected by Admiral Hyman Rickover for assignment to Naval Reactors, where he contributed to advancing nuclear propulsion technology until completing his Active- Duty service in 1983.

Following a period of service working in government and industry, Dr. Scolese joined NASA, where he was assigned to the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. He held multiple senior leadership roles at NASA, including chief engineer, Associate Administrator, Acting Administrator, and director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. His impact on the Nation's civil space program has been profound and enduring, from guiding NASA through the retirement of the Space Shuttle and early planning for what became the Artemis Program, to overseeing milestone achievements at Goddard, including the Earth Observing System and the buildout of the James Webb Space Telescope.

As the first Senate-confirmed Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, Dr. Scolese led the NRO from 2019 through 2026 in its mission of developing, acquiring, launching, and operating U.S. space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Serving under three Presidential administrations, he has championed the most comprehensive technological transformation in the NRO's 65-year history.

Under Dr. Scolese's leadership, the NRO significantly advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology. The agency expanded

Under Dr. Scolese's leadership, the NRO has strengthened partnerships with other government Agencies, industry, academia, and international allies. The Agency has also expanded its relationships with new and existing commercial partners.

Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Scolese's legacy extends beyond technological achievement to the thousands of professionals he has mentored, developed, empowered, and inspired across NASA, the NRO, and the broader space community. He recognized that America's competitive advantage in space depends on its people, leading him to expand recruitment pipelines, strengthen professional development programs, and create opportunities for emerging talent. His commitment to workforce excellence is reflected in the NRO's expanded Cadre program and highly competitive internship initiative, ensuring that the next generation inherits not just advanced capabilities, but the expertise and dedication required to maintain and further expand them.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Scolese for his valuable contributions to the space community over his decades of service to the Nation. I also thank Chris' family for their critical role in supporting him throughout this time. Dr. Scolese leaves a legacy of leadership across national security and civil space, one that has profoundly shaped the future of space exploration and intelligence capabilities for generations to come. On behalf of myself and all my colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I congratulate Dr. Scolese on the occasion of his retirement and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Official Text ↗

Recognizing the 150th Anniversary of Lick Observatory

Alex PadillaDemocrat, California

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a jewel of American science and a California landmark: the Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton. June 7, 2026, marked the 150th anniversary of the Act of Congress that reserved land for the construction of this observatory that has been the site of countless scientific discoveries.

Established through the visionary philanthropy of James Lick, whose 1874 endowment of $700,000, valued at over $1 billion today, laid the foundation for what is now the Lick Observatory, Lick Observatory was the world's first permanently staffed mountaintop observatory. When it opened in 1888, it housed the 36-inch Great Refractor, then the largest telescope on Earth, cementing California as an early epicenter of astronomical research.

For 150 years, Lick Observatory has been the site of monumental breakthroughs. In 1892, its researchers achieved the first photographic discovery of a comet and identified a fifth moon of Jupiter. A 1922 Lick Observatory eclipse expedition provided the empirical confirmation of Einstein's general theory of relativity, a moment that fundamentally shifted our understanding of the physical world.

These innovations and discoveries continued into the 20th and now into the 21st century. In the 1990s, Lick Observatory pioneered adaptive optics to pierce through atmospheric distortion and was at the forefront of the search for exoplanets. Its robotic telescopes have monitored over 1,000 supernovae, which provided crucial data revealing the acceleration of the universe's expansion, a discovery honored with the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Today, operating under the University of California Observatories, Lick Observatory remains a vital keystone for education. It serves nine UC campuses and two national laboratories and partners with California's State universities and community colleges, training the next generation of scientists while inspiring tens of thousands of visitors through its outreach programs.

The legacy of Lick Observatory exemplifies the pioneering American spirit and our enduring commitment to discovery. I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating this 150th anniversary and honoring the observatory for its extraordinary contributions to humanity's understanding of the cosmos.

Official Text ↗

Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Alex PadillaDemocrat, California

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the FIRE SMART Act. This legislation would expand eligibility for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to allow for funding of certain water infrastructure needed for fighting wildfires in rural communities at high risk of wildfire.

There is a growing need for improving infrastructure to ensure adequate water storage and flow for fire suppression. Federal assistance is critical because many smaller rural communities in the wildland-urban interface that are at increased risk of wildfire lack the ratepayer bases to upgrade their firefighting infrastructure on their own.

The importance of water infrastructure investments to protect communities in the wildland-urban interface was demonstrated during the Caldor Fire in the Lake Tahoe area in 2021. Firefighters were able to successfully defend the Christmas Valley neighborhood in South Lake Tahoe from the Caldor Fire due to the combination of one, investments in modernized watermains sized for fire suppression flows and a sufficient network of fire hydrants, water tanks, and water sources, and two, thinning of forests and the creation of defensible space around homes. This combination of thinned forests to slow the fire and improves water infrastructure to prepare homes is particularly effective.

The FIRE SMART Act would expand eligibility for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to allow States to include water infrastructure projects with both drinking water and fire suppression benefits in rural areas to address gaps in Federal assistance programs. This eligibility expansion would help rural communities invest in projects to improve water system transmission, distribution capacity, and storage.

I would like to thank Senators Curtis, Kelly, Sheehy, Merkley, Boozman, Schiff, and Crapo for coleading this bill, and I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass it as swiftly as possible.

Official Text ↗

Introductory Statement on S. 4812

Alex PadillaDemocrat, California

I would like to thank Senators Curtis, Kelly, Sheehy, Merkley, Boozman, Schiff, and Crapo for coleading this bill, and I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass it as swiftly as possible.

Official Text ↗

Senate Resolution 773: Recognizing Father's Day and the Role a Father Plays in the Lives of Children and Adults

Ashley MoodyRepublican, Florida

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the Presiding Officer as a father and so many others that this weekend will be celebrated as part of our Nation's day of celebration of all of our fathers here in our country. This is especially meaningful to me because I think it is so important to highlight a group of very special individuals that have played such a large role in my life. And I know everyone here today, including the pages that help us out, is going to be spending the weekend celebrating their fathers too, as they should.

Dads play an indelible role in our lives, and I am proud to be married to a great dad. In fact, when I became the attorney general of the great free State of Florida, I had a young child at home, and my husband, who is a true hero, a hero dad--he is a career law enforcement officer--really stepped up. Our entire family was involved in that effort when I served.

Just to illustrate, when I became the attorney general, I was the first mom of a school-age child on the Florida cabinet. So I really relied on my incredible husband Justin--and what an amazing dad.

Just to illustrate, I wanted to put up a picture of my family at the time--my young son--when I became the attorney general, and without their support, we wouldn't have done all that we did to protect the great State, strengthen our communities, and make it the free State of Florida that it is today.

My husband Justin works long hours as a law enforcement officer, as you can see. More recently, when I became a U.S. Senator, he is still waking up every day, being a dad first and foremost but then putting on a badge and a bulletproof vest and going to work to protect others while he supports everybody else in the community as much as he supports those of us at home.

I just have to say I know I am not alone as a mom that wants to praise the dad in her life. In fact, the first celebration of Father's Day in 1910 was spurred on and founded by a mom. She had just become a mom--her name was Sonora Smart Dodd--and she recognized after hearing a Mother's Day sermon that she thought we should give something that was just as emphatic and passionate to support our dads. So it was a mom that launched and initiated the first Father's Day recognition back in 1910.

So it is an honor for me, as one of the very few moms of a kid under 18 in the U.S. Senate, to be the one to recognize Father's Day this upcoming weekend and introduce a resolution recognizing Father's Day and the role that fathers play in the lives of children and adults. I have introduced that for the Record, and it is an honor to do so.

I remember so many times when my law enforcement husband would go away for extended periods of time--whether it was to become a firearms instructor with the DEA or when he went to the National Academy at Quantico for months--he would come home--fly late at night--to make sports games or to help with homework.

I know all fathers around the Nation give 110 percent to their kids, and as Father's Day approaches, I wanted the U.S. Senate to recognize how important having good fathers in children's lives is.

I was so proud of my own State when I was attorney general and we passed the Responsible Dad Act, which provided mentoring, one-on-one support, and evidence-based educational programming to help enhance parenting skills and help fathers stay actively involved in their kids lives.

I am so proud of the Senate. Just today--and I know the Presiding Officer joins me in this--on the HELP Committee, we passed out legislation just today, before I came in here, as part of the Healthy Start Reauthorization Act that supports dads being involved in their kids' lives. It also supports mentoring, a dad initiative, and we know that is so important for our young kids to develop into healthy, independent adults.

So I recognize my own benefit from having a father that was engaged. He showed me how to live a life of service professionally. I have also benefited from having father figures in my extended family that have played a large role in my success in life, and I will always be grateful.

With that, I thank the Presiding Officer for permitting me time to introduce the resolution to recognize this weekend as Father's Day and to say thank you and to give encouragement to the fathers across our country that will raise the next generation of leaders that will guide our country for the next 250 years.

Official Text ↗

Authority for Committees to Meet

Marsha BlackburnRepublican, Tennessee

Mr. President, I have seven 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 Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 10 a.m.

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Official Text ↗

Privileges of the Floor

Richard J. DurbinDemocrat, Illinois

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be granted floor privileges until August 1, 2026: Mark Maddock, Sydney Rogers, Zaria Chatman, Nicholas Talley, and Margaret Sturm.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Official Text ↗

Orders for Thursday, June 18, 2026

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 18; 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 resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 6644.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

For the information of colleagues, there will be a cloture vote in relation to the Scott of South Carolina substitute amendment to H.R. 6644 at 11 a.m.; and at 1:45 p.m., we expect to vote on confirmation of the Holding nomination.

Official Text ↗

Adjournment Until 10 A.M. Tomorrow

Lisa MurkowskiRepublican, Alaska

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:29 p.m., adjourned until Thursday, June 18, 2026, at 10 a.m.

Official Text ↗