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.
18Recognizing 25 Years of Macarthur Museum of Arkansas Military History
19Recognizing Mid-States Companies
20Remembering Vera Benesby Jordan
21Tribute to Barry Gosnell
22Tribute to Major General Thomas O'Connor
23Tribute to Dashaun Brown, Ryan Gillespie, and Giuseppe Marturano
24Messages From the President
25Executive Messages Referred
26Presidential Message
27Report of the Continuation of the National Emergency That Was Originally Declared in Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations: Pm 64
Twenty-five bills and two resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 4958-4982, and S. Res. 802-803.
Pages S3938-39
Measures Passed
Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from further consideration of S. 2120, to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, and the bill was then passed.
Pages S4077-87
Great Outdoors Month
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 798, designating June 2026 as ``Great Outdoors Month'', and the resolution was then agreed to. U.S.
Page S4087
Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry 70th Anniversary
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 742, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the United States Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S4087
Congratulating the Carolina Hurricanes
Senate agreed to S. Res. 803, congratulating the 2025-2026 Carolina Hurricanes for winning the Stanley Cup.
Page S4087
Measures Considered
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027: Senate began consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year.
Pages S3919-24
Prior to consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 50 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. 195), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.
Page S3918
Senator Thune entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.
Page S3919
Appointments
Congressional Award Board: The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, pursuant to Public Law 96-114, as amended, appointed the following individual to the Congressional Award Board: Matt Zabel of Minnesota.
Page S4077
Swearing in of Senator Graham
The Chair laid before the Senate the certificate of appointment of Senator-designate Darline Graham, of the State of South Carolina, and the oath of office was then administered as required by the U.S. Constitution and prescribed by law.
Page S3918
Message from the President
Senate received the following messages from the President of the United States: Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency that was originally declared in Executive Order 14078 of July 19, 2022, with respect to hostage-taking and the wrongful detention of United States nationals abroad; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (PM-63)
Page S3935
Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the continuation of the national emergency that was originally declared in Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, with respect to significant transnational criminal organizations; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (PM-64)
Page S3935
Westercamp Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Kara Marie Westercamp, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade.
Pages S3924-26
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a vote on cloture will occur on Thursday, July 16, 2026.
Page S3925
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S3924
Kuntz Nomination: Cloture
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 10 a.m., on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, Senate resume consideration of the nomination of Jeffrey T. Kuntz, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida; that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the motion to invoke cloture ripen at 12 noon on the nomination; and that if cloture is invoked, all post-cloture time be expired at 2 p.m., and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at that time.
Page S4087
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 50 yeas to 45 nays (Vote No. EX. 194), Matthew A. Schwartz, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.
Pages S3915-18
19 Coast Guard nominations in the rank of admiral.
Pages S3926, S4092
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: Gerard Klomp, of Utah, to be Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services. Maria D'Avanzo, of New York, to be Inspector General, General Services Administration. Gregory Carl Cook, of Alabama, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama. David Slade, of Florida, to be First Vice President of the Export- Import Bank of the United States for a term expiring January 20, 2029. John Peter Cronan, of New York, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2029. Timothy Westlake, of Wisconsin, to be Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, Department of Health and Human Services. Robert R. Fleck, of Pennsylvania, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for the term of fifteen years. David M. Jones, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for the term of fifteen years. Jason Manion, of Ohio, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2029. Daniel F. Rendleman, of Illinois, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for the term of fifteen years. Anna St. John, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. Routine lists in the Foreign Service.
Pages S4090-92
Nominations Withdrawn
Senate received notification of withdrawal of the following nominations: Juan Rodriguez, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala, which was sent to the Senate on March 9, 2026. Konstantinos Ligris, of Florida, to be an Assistant Attorney General, which was sent to the Senate on June 24, 2026.
Page S4092
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S3942-46
Record Votes
Two record votes were taken today. (Total--195)
Page S3918
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:34 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4087.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 48 of 119 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, as the Senate and House are currently working on the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, it is important--very important--that Congress pass this bill. We need a very strong and capable military, and we need to hold the Pentagon accountable for taxpayer dollars.
For 240 years, the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government has been national security. A nonnegotiable tenet of America's national security is ``peace through strength.'' In preventing war, a strong Department of War is also an instrument of peace.
So, to achieve peace through strength, we must invest in our Nation's defense and modernize military capabilities to be best prepared for any threat. Our military ought to be strong enough to deter any aggressor. We have learned from our history that preventing conflicts is less costly and spares more lives.
I support the $1.1 trillion authorization put forth by our Senate Armed Services Committee. The fiscal year 2027 Defense bill supports our servicemembers, boosts our national industrial defense base and allows for historic investment in our national security.
This legislation also includes important provisions that I back to hold defense contractors accountable. This includes a requirement that contractors provide notification when the price of a product or service increases beyond a predetermined threshold.
While our investments in defense increase, ensuring accountability and fiscal responsibility is very paramount. Companies that work for the government should not be ripping the taxpayers off.
I am also pleased that a provision I worked on is included in the bill that reinforces the notion that Russia's aggression toward Ukraine is unacceptable. This provision prohibits funds being used to recognize Russia's control over any Ukrainian territory that has been forcibly seized by Russia.
I have offered several amendments to this Defense bill to combat crime and support law enforcement, strengthen security provisions and cooperation in the Baltics, and condemn very strongly Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children, which has been in the amounts of tens of thousands of children.
If the Defense bill is passed this year, it will be the 66th consecutive year that Congress has passed this important annual Defense legislation. So I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass a Defense bill that strengthens our national security and best supports our military readiness.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, before I begin my remarks this morning, I want to offer a word of welcome to the new Senator from South Carolina.
Later today, we will swear in Darline Graham to fill the seat of her brother and our friend Lindsey Graham. I know Darline will carry on Lindsey's tireless service for South Carolina, and I look forward to serving with her.
Mr. President, like many of us, I represent a State with a rich heritage of military service, and South Dakota continues to punch above its weight in our Armed Forces.
Our National Guard is frequently called up for critical deployments at home and around the world, and Ellsworth Air Force Base is a key asset to our national defense. In fact, today Ellsworth is the largest construction site in the Air Force as it prepares to host the first B- 21 bombers next year.
During the recent State work period, I was glad to welcome Air Force Secretary Troy Meink--a South Dakota native--to Ellsworth. We met with the base leadership and some of the airmen stationed there, and we saw the progress the base is making as it prepares for its important new mission.
Whether responding to a natural disaster at home or fighting our enemies abroad, the men and women in America's Armed Forces stand ready to answer the call.
They are our most important national security asset, and we have an obligation here in Congress to ensure that they have everything they need for whatever the mission may be. I know Senators on both sides of the aisle take that obligation seriously, and we must.
As I have said so often before, if you don't get national security right, the rest is just conversation.
If we don't make national security a priority here, we run the risk that Americans serving in uniform won't have what they need when they need it.
That is why the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important bills that we do each year. It is the bill that helps ensure our military is ready today and prepared for tomorrow, and I am proud that our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee--with the leadership of Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Reed--have reported out a strong National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027.
For the 66th year in a row, the Armed Services Committee has produced a bipartisan NDAA. And later today, we are going to have a vote to proceed to this important bill.
We have had regular reminders over the last few years that we live in a dangerous world, that America still has enemies--enemies that want to attack us, our allies, and our interests. We have seen too how quickly warfare evolves in this day and age.
This year's NDAA will not only help ensure that America can keep pace with those challenges but also that we can outpace our adversaries.
It puts a heavy emphasis on unmanned systems, especially drones and counterdrone measures. It also continues shipbuilding efforts to strengthen our naval fleet.
As for our airpower, this year's bill will help ensure we maintain a force of at least 1,800 fighters and supports the new B-21 long-range strategic bomber.
There is a lot I could talk about in this bill--from investing in our nuclear deterrent to supporting munitions production--but I will mention just two more important aspects of this year's bill.
First, it builds on efforts in last year's NDAA to reform defense acquisition. That includes allowing multiyear procurement contracts that allow the Pentagon to do business more efficiently with greater predictability and savings for taxpayers.
I need to mention what this bill does for the men and women serving our country and their families who serve alongside them. This year's NDAA supports a 3.6 percent pay raise for our troops, and it invests in a number of quality-of-life improvements for them and their families: investments in education, housing, healthcare, and childcare.
Our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have put forward a strong bill--a strong bill for our national security and for the men and women who defend our Nation. It is my hope that we will be able to pass this bill out of the Senate soon and begin the process of working with our counterparts in the House and with the White House on a final bill.
Republicans are ready to go. The question is: How will Democrats vote today? Are there enough Democrat Senators who support moving forward with a bipartisan--bipartisan--defense bill?
I see no reason that there shouldn't be. But then again, Democrats have allowed the politics of obstruction to determine so many of their actions for the last year and a half.
I certainly hope that Democrats won't now put politics ahead of support for our men and women in uniform, but that is up to them.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, how long will Republicans let Trump's secret police continue to sow chaos and violence in our American streets?
For the second time in less than a week, ICE agents fatally shot someone, first in Texas and again in Maine yesterday.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about these two shootings, but what little we do know is disturbing, to say the least. Both cases appear to have involved ICE agents who were not wearing body cameras--killing individuals who were not the subject of the agents' warrant.
Why were these two people shot at and killed? We don't know the answers. There are no body cameras yet. There are no body cameras as we would require. The ICE agents in Texas were also riding in unmarked vehicles. If Republicans had passed our bill, there would be body cameras, proper agent ID, warrant requirements, and other commonsense reforms, and these killings might not have happened.
I hope our Republican colleagues are listening. If they had passed our reforms, these killings might not have happened. With those reforms, we would have at least had a better idea as to what exactly happened so that we could have avoided further killings in the future. Instead, Republicans poured tens of billions of dollars into Trump's rogue Agencies with no strings attached--no strings attached. While every other police department in America has rules, our Republican colleagues and Trump said: No rules. Do whatever you want. And look at the results. Look at what has happened.
It is dangerous to give ICE agents free rein when we expect every other law enforcement agency in the country to follow basic codes of conduct. Allowing unidentified Federal agents to roam through American streets, to
I am calling on the Trump administration to release all information related to these two shootings, and we need to conduct independent investigations of each.
The American people need to know how and why this chaos is spreading through their streets. Republicans who refuse to go along with real reforms of ICE--reforms that we see in every police department in the country--should pivot, change their minds, realize these shootings were just awful and work with us to reform this rogue Agency. The American people need to know, of course, how and why this chaos is spreading through their streets, and we need a complete investigation that is independent.
Now, Mr. President, on Iran and the NDAA, when all the Trump administration can say about his disastrous war with Iran is that Vietnam was worse--a point Trump made yesterday--he reveals the scale of his failure. This is what Donald Trump said. The only thing he can say is that Vietnam was worse.
Oh my God, a war that killed close to 50,000 Americans, a war that lasted almost a decade, a war that ripped America apart in ways that took decades to recover is what he compares Iran to? Oh my God.
Trump's supposed cease-fire deal has completely collapsed. Our troops are coming under attack. The Strait of Hormuz is a minefield, and gas prices are going back up. Donald Trump is totally out of his depth. In fact, Donald Trump is drowning in the Strait of Hormuz because he has no plan. He had no plan when he got America into this war, and he has no plan on how to get us out. Trump started the war without authorization, without a strategy, without an exit.
The reason that we have war powers acts is to force an administration to think through the consequences of going to war ahead of time. Trump, of course, didn't listen. Finally, after weeks, bipartisan majorities in both Chambers of Congress voted to end it. We had tried and tried. Finally, enough Republicans joined us, but Donald Trump ignored them.
Now the White House has formally notified Congress that hostilities have resumed; that American strikes are underway again; and that our forces remain positioned for more. Yet Republicans want the Senate to take up the NDAA--the Defense bill--as though none of this is happening, as though Congress can debate the Nation's central national security bill while ignoring the Nation's most urgent national security crisis. We cannot.
I will be voting no.
The President is waging an unauthorized war in defying bipartisan majorities in Congress and in refusing to level with the American people about the cost, the mission, or the endgame. The NDAA cannot become a permission slip for that recklessness that we see occurring in Iran. Donald Trump does not get to drag the American people deeper into a war he cannot explain and does not know how to end and then demand Congress look the other way.
Donald Trump and the administration have no authorization, no strategy, no peace, no blank check. Therefore, a day after the President told Congress that his war is back on, I am a no--a strong no--on the NDAA.
Mr. President, on this Trump election task force--it just gets crazier and crazier with this administration. Yesterday, the White House announced that Trump and his election task force will reveal intelligence reports that supposedly corroborate his baseless lies about the 2020 election. Give me a break.
Donald, start focusing on lowering Americans' costs, not on your conspiracy theory that the 2020 elections were stolen from you. You don't have proof. You haven't come up with proof for 6 years because there is no proof, Donald Trump. You haven't come up with the proof because it isn't there. There is no proof.
Trump should get off all of this nonsense, all of this wishful thinking, all of this lunacy and focus on what people actually care about--their higher costs. If Trump thought about November 2026 half as much as he thinks about 2020, maybe his party wouldn't be scrambling right now.
Apparently, Trump also plans to say that Senators Ossoff and Warnock were illegitimate because of election fraud. How desperate can Trump get? He is flailing. His effort to overturn what happened in 2020 is a mission impossible. He ought to wake up, smell the coffee, and abandon this frivolous, ludicrous, diversionary effort. Trump's obvious desperation might be amusing if it weren't so dangerous. Without question, it is part of Trump's effort to subvert the 2026 midterm elections.
The whole reason Republicans are in their current mess is that Trump refuses to drop his radical SAVE Act--to strip millions of Americans of their voting rights. Trump has made clear, once again, who plans to force a shutdown--Donald Trump; yes, Donald Trump. Yesterday, Trump said Republicans have to get rid of the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act ``otherwise we're going to have a shutdown.'' That is what he said yesterday.
So, Americans, hear this: If there is a shutdown, it is on Donald Trump's back.
Donald, do you remember the last time you demanded a shutdown when Nancy and I were in your office? It didn't work out too well for you then, and it won't work out too well for you now.
America, hear this: If there is a shutdown, it is on Donald Trump's back.
Unless Trump changes his course, realizes the SAVE Act cannot pass, and starts working on more productive things, we could be headed for another Trump shutdown.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to honor my good friend and colleague Lindsey Graham.
Our colleague from South Carolina led an impactful life. He leaves an impressive legacy, and he left all of us important lessons for life.
The great cause to which Lindsey Graham devoted his life was the United States of America. That is what it was from day one all the way to the end. Lindsey Graham loved America. He believed that our Nation is exceptional, as do so many of us. He believed our Nation was worth fighting for. He believed especially in the American people. He fought for the people of his home State of South Carolina and the people of this great country every single day, and he did it with determination. He always believed that America was a nation that he needed to fight for every day to make us safer and stronger.
His life was shaped early on by duty and by love. Tragedy came early. At the age of 21, he lost both of his parents within 15 months. At the time, he began raising his 13-year-old sister Darline. He made sure that she stayed
Lindsey once said that he was most proud of the woman that Darline had become. Now Darline is going to fill her brother's seat right here in the U.S. Senate, and there is nobody better to carry on Lindsey's legacy than his beloved sister.
Lindsey was a strong advocate for our military. He joined the Air Force right out of law school, and he served our Nation, in uniform, for 33 years. He remained in the Reserves even while serving in Congress. One year, over New Year's, Lindsey was serving in Afghanistan. I went and met him there, and we went and visited with the troops from my home State of Wyoming and with his troops from South Carolina. He never let anyone forget how proud he was of our servicemembers and of our country.
Lindsey's dad ran a bar in South Carolina. Lindsey talked about it often. He used to say it was good training for his life in politics. Lindsey told me that one of the key lessons he learned from his father was this: The key to being a successful bar owner in South Carolina-- probably or anywhere--is you have to be funny enough that people will keep coming back, and you have to be tough enough so people won't take over your business.
That was Lindsey Graham. He was the funniest man in the U.S. Senate. His humor was like Super Glue. It brought people together. It kept them together.
Lindsey and I traveled the world, often to war zones, and when you traveled with Lindsey, you visited a lot of tough places around the world. We visited Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine. We traveled to show our support for the men and women of our military. Lindsey and I got to know each other on those long trips, and we shared a lot of laughs. I will never forget how much fun it was with Lindsey to sing the lyrics of the old television shows, the ones from the fifties, sixties, and early seventies. Some of his favorites--and he knew all the words--were ``Gilligan's Island,'' ``The Beverly Hillbillies,'' ``The Addams Family,'' ``Green Acres,'' ``F Troop,'' and, of course, ``Car 54, Where Are You?''
We would sing together, we would laugh, and these moments will stay with me forever. His friendship meant the world to me.
You know, Lindsey was constantly on the move. He just returned from Ukraine this past weekend. He was scheduled to be on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday morning in the studio. I think his favorite three places to be were at home in South Carolina, on the golf course with President Trump, and in front of the TV camera for Sunday morning news shows.
His greatest strength, of course, was his character. In Congress, people are often divided into show horses and workhorses. Lindsey was both. He was a show horse and a workhorse, and he was the best at both.
As President Trump said on Sunday morning, Lindsey was uncommonly hard-working, energetic, and steadfast. When Lindsey believed in something, he fought for it, and no one was more effective. The American people remember his stirring defense of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It was an incredible moment, and his words changed the course of history.
Lindsey was a true conservative, and he also believed in working across the aisle. He wanted to tackle our Nation's most pressing challenges, and he knew in many ways you had to do that in a bipartisan way. He believed in the Reagan approach: If you can't get the whole loaf at once, take it a slice at a time. That is how the Senate is supposed to work.
Lindsey chaired some of the most powerful committees in this Chamber. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he led the second fastest confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice of all times--Amy Coney Barrett.
When this Congress began in 2025, he became the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He made clear that he would carry out the agenda that the American people had just voted for in November of 2024. He guided the Senate through some of the toughest battles we have ever had. The Working Families Tax Cut law and the Secure America Act are a direct result of Lindsey Graham's leadership.
As whip, my job is to count the votes, and I could always count on Lindsey to help when the votes were close. The Senate has taken 135 votes on hostile amendments from the Democrats in the last year and a half. They were trying to undermine the Republican agenda. Thanks to Lindsey's persistence and his help, we did not lose a single one.
Lindsey truly was a force of nature here in the Senate. From the cloakroom to the committee room, to the campaign trail, he brimmed with ideas and with energy. That is what makes his passing and the timing of it so tragic. He was at the peak of his influence and impact. He still had so much more to do and to give.
The U.S. Senate will never see anyone quite like Lindsey Graham again. He was a happy warrior, he always put service before himself, and he believed in the Senate as an institution. He continued to shape it throughout his successful and significant career. He helped make America stronger and safer.
I join the entire Senate and his friends and his family in mourning the loss of our dear friend Lindsey Graham.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, Lindsey Graham was a self-made American original. Born in Central, SC, Lindsey grew up in a room behind his parents' bar and pool hall, where he worked to help the family make ends meet and earned the nickname ``Stinkball'' from its patrons because of his sense of humor and his irrepressible nature and his rascal streak, as he called it.
I saw that in my first experience with Lindsey Graham. I traveled with him and Senator McCain to the Munich Security Conference in 2013 as a brandnew Congressman. That evening, as I was meeting some of the other Senators on the delegation--Senator Ayotte and Senator Corker-- Lindsey came up to me and slapped me on the back and asked me who the hell I was. I introduced myself, and I told him a little bit about my story, my service in the Army before I was elected to the House. He told me I was great; I needed to run for the Senate; we had to win the Senate seat in Arkansas.
The next morning, we had a 08 briefing with General Breedlove, then the commander of our forces in Europe, and Lindsey stumbled in at about 8:55. Senator McCain hailed the arrival of his illegitimate son, and then we had a coffee break 5 minutes later, when Lindsey came over, slapped me on the back, and said: You were great. We have got to have you run for Senate. Now, what was your name again?
That was Lindsey, self-described rascal that he was. I often joked about it--and with him. You never knew quite what Lindsey was up to, but it probably wasn't nothing.
He became the first member of his family to attend college. After suddenly and unexpectedly losing both parents while attending the University of South Carolina, he stepped in to raise his beloved younger sister Darline. But even in the face of tragedy, Lindsey's grit, determination, and faith enabled him to finish college, earn a law degree, serve in the Air Force, and eventually make his way here to the U.S. Congress.
When Lindsey arrived in the House in 1995 as the first Republican Congressman from South Carolina's Third Congressional District since 1877, he brought with him a sense of duty and responsibility, a love for liberty, and a resolute commitment to America's national security.
He carried this with him to the Senate, where he served for more than two decades and became the first person in South Carolina history to earn more than 1 million votes in a general election. Needless to say, South Carolinians loved him, and it is not hard to see why.
Throughout my time working with Lindsey in the Senate, he fought for South Carolinians, he defended America's founding principles, and he supported the men and women of our military.
While he served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he oversaw the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice and more than 200 Federal judges committed to upholding the rule of law as our Founders intended.
Further, Lindsey knew that strength produces peace and prosperity, and he believed that the United States is the greatest force for freedom that mankind has ever known. Through every bill he introduced, every speech he gave, every statement he made, Lindsey ensured our allies knew our word was good and our enemies feared our resolve. If you loved America, Lindsey loved you. If you fought for freedom, Lindsey would fight for you.
Only in America could a man like Lindsey Graham leave such a mark on our history and our future. That above all is a testament to his strength of character. Lindsey's unwavering love for our Lord, devotion to our country, and commitment to his family defined his entire life. He was an example of what makes America exceptional.
Though we lost a dedicated public servant, a workhorse of a colleague, and an irreplaceable friend, his memory and his legacy will never be forgotten. I extend my deepest prayers, thoughts, and condolences to Darline, Lindsey's family, Lindsey's staff, his friends, and his loved ones.
America and this Senate will forever be grateful to Senator Lindsey Graham for his lifetime of service, patriotism, and courageous leadership.
Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor my dear friend and colleague Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Before he ever set foot on this floor, he wore the uniform of the U.S. Air Force, serving 33 years between the Air Force, the South Carolina Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserve. That service and his upbringing in the back of his parents' South Carolina bar shaped everything about how he approached his work here in the Senate. He understood, in a way too few in Washington, DC, do, what it costs to defend freedom. He was one of the loudest, most persistent voices this institution has seen on the importance of American leadership in this world.
And before I joined the Senate, Lindsey was one of my earliest supporters. I am so grateful for his mentorship and his friendship throughout the years. Lindsey was really dear to my family. My mother's birthday was just a few days before Lindsey's, and through the years, he would call her on her birthday and wish her the happiest of birthdays. As my daughter entered the U.S. Army, he would call her and just give her words of encouragement--in the hilarious way that only Lindsey Graham could.
He was such a good and decent man.
One thing we all knew about Lindsey was his great sense of humor. I will never forget the gift he gave me after I won Iowa's Senate seat. In fact, I may be the only Senator in history to be handed a mounted castration clamp with a plaque engraved ``Make `Em Squeal, Joni!'' just off the floor of this Chamber, courtesy of Lindsey Graham. And I think he is probably still laughing about that one.
Earlier this year, we were talking about Lindsey, doing dinner with Lindsey, as many of us did, and we were talking about this year's race because he was running for another term in the Senate. And my mother, again, being very close to Lindsey and his No. 1 fan in Iowa--in fact, she had a screen saver on her computer. It was her and Lindsey Graham. If you asked my mother who her favorite Senator was, it wouldn't be Senator Chuck Grassley or even her own daughter; it would be Senator Lindsey Graham.
She was agonizing: Should I send Lindsey a donation for his campaign? And I was laughing about this with Lindsey.
So he was like: Give me your phone.
He said: Let's shoot a video for your mom.
And so he took my phone, and he made this cute little 10-second video. And it went something like this: Marilyn, we love you. We love Joni. I know times are hard, but send money anyway. Lindseygraham.com.
He did that all the time, and he was always so funny. And I can't tell you how many times I have watched that video, over and over again, and just laughed.
He was certainly a very funny man, even when times were difficult, but behind the jokes was one of the most serious and effective legislators this body has ever known. He didn't care whose name was on a bill if the policy was right. He brokered friendships and alliances that many in this town said were no longer possible. He fought hard, and then he would sit down and crack a joke with the people that he had just been arguing with.
All of us here on this floor know that Lindsey was always moving. The man never stood still. He was always working the phones--phone call after phone call--whether it was President Trump or my mom back in Iowa. He was always certain that presence was power.
I had the privilege of traveling many times over with Lindsey. The very first codel, which is a congressional delegation trip, that I took in the U.S. Senate was with Lindsey. It was to the Munich Security Conference in Germany. The other Senators on that trip were former Senator Joe Lieberman, a dear friend of his; Senator John McCain, who was his deepest and truest friend; and Senator Kelly Ayotte. We had a wonderful trip together. And it was such a great experience for me to see him on the world stage, easily moving from conversation to conversation with some of the world's most important and powerful leaders, and to see how much they deeply respected Senator Graham.
His contributions to conflict resolution went well beyond the United States. Just days ago, Lindsey was in Ukraine meeting with President Zelenskyy and standing with a nation fighting for its survival because he believed at his core that American leadership was the difference between peace and oppression.
Lindsey Graham was tough, he was funny, and he loved this country.
To the people of South Carolina and to Lindsey's family and, most especially, to his sister Darline and all who loved him, we are all mourning together. As a Christian like Lindsey, I know God will bring comfort where there is fear, strength where there is shock, and hope where there is loss.
Lindsey, we miss you, and this Chamber will never be the same without you. Godspeed, my dear friend, and thank you for your service.
Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Matthew A. Schwartz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mr. Schwartz joins the growing line of Trump personal lawyers who have been nominated to the bench during Trump's second term.
Even as we consider his nomination, Mr. Schwartz is actively representing the President in two cases on appeal: Trump's 34-count conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case and the $464 million judgment against him, his family members, and businesses for inflating business assets.
During his hearing, Senator Booker asked Mr. Schwartz about the President's reported outstanding $400,000 debt to Sullivan & Cromwell, an obvious conflict of interest. Mr. Schwartz downplayed that sum as ``an extraordinarily small amount.''
Mr. Schwartz also represented Tesla in its successful appeal of a judgment from the Delaware Court of Chancery voiding Elon Musk's $50 billion compensation package.
While Musk raked in the billions Mr. Schwartz helped secure, he took a chainsaw to nearly every aspect of our government.
For these reasons, I will be opposing Mr. Schwartz's nomination.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) and the Senator from Kentuky (Mr. McConnel).
Mr. DURBIN: I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 45, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the certificate of appointment to fill the vacancy created by the death of Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina. The certificate, the Chair is advised, is in the form suggested by the Senate.
If there is no objection, the reading of the certificate will be waived, and it will be printed in full in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator-designate will now present herself at the desk, the Chair will administer the oath of office.
The Senator-designate, Darline Graham, escorted by Mr. Scott of South Carolina and Mrs. Britt, advanced to the desk of the President pro tempore; the oath prescribed by law was administered to her by the President pro tempore; and she subscribed to the oath in the Official Oath Book.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Congratulations, Senator.
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 executive 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 motion to proceed to S. 4784, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague but, most of all, to my friend, Senator Lindsey Graham.
We were all shocked to learn of his passing this weekend, and I mean it--stunned. It is hard to imagine the Senate without Lindsey. It already seems quieter. We will miss his humor, his advice, and, of course, his friendship.
Lindsey was dedicated to serving the people of South Carolina and the Nation. He spent nearly his entire adult life in public service, from the military to the South Carolina House, to the past 31 years--31 years--here, both in the House and in the Senate. In having spent 33 years in the Air Force, the South Carolina Air Guard, or the Reserves, Senator Graham was a staunch supporter of our men and women in uniform.
Since 2010, he served as co-chair of the National Guard Caucus. With his help, we were able to successfully convince the Department of Defense to change its policy and allow guardsmen and reservists to concurrently receive their Federal tuition assistance and their GI bill benefits in full.
Given our close, personal friendship and his ardent support of our servicemembers, our national defense, and our military, I liked to call him ``Grambo.'' For me, that was his nickname, ``Grambo''--you know, kind of like ``Rambo.'' Well, he was ``Grambo.'' He really was the Senate version of ``Rambo'' in all things military, and he was relentless, as we saw. I mean, right up until almost the day he died, he was working and advocating for our military, on behalf of American military strength, and our role as, truly, the leader of the free world.
As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Graham advanced conservative causes that have made our Nation stronger and more prosperous. He helped steer through the Working Families Tax--the One Big Beautiful Bill, or the OB3. It has got a lot of names, but the important point is that it really made a huge difference for our country and for working families. He cared about that. He cared about taking on the big challenges and doing big things.
Likewise, as the Budget chair, he was instrumental in helping us fund border security and law enforcement. He was a big part of helping us implement the Trump agenda, and that was so appropriate. Lindsey was really--you know, as they say in sports, he was a triple threat. He was a triple threat. He was a force in our Republican caucus, and he could work with the Democrats.
Of course, he had a tremendous relationship with President Trump, and they truly cared about each other. They were real friends. They worked together, but they truly were friends.
We will miss all of that.
As the former chairman and the senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham shaped the Federal judiciary. Think of how impactful that has been from the Supreme Court down to the district courts. He played a central role in the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices, including Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, while also helping to oversee a massive conservative shift in the Federal judiciary.
I think the time that, on the Judiciary Committee, he really said what he thought, what he felt in his heart about Justice Kavanaugh was perhaps, if not his finest moment, one of his truly finest moments where he truly stood up and said what he felt was right on the national stage and made an incredible difference, a lasting and important, incredible difference. And it wasn't rehearsed; it was just Lindsey spontaneously being Lindsey, saying what was in his heart. There is that old saying: Speak from your gut and your heart. Boy, did he, and it made a huge difference. That was vintage Lindsey Graham.
His leadership on defense, judiciary, and budget issues will be felt for years to come.
But for all his accomplishments in the Senate and around the globe, Senator Graham was most proud of his family. He was a loyal and loving brother and uncle who once said of his sister:
It is only fitting that his sister Darline will serve in his place. We extend her a warm welcome to the Senate like Senator Graham did with so many of us.
It is almost as if Lindsey and President Trump had one more call after the call that night where they talked. Lindsey had gotten back from Ukraine, and the President called him or he called the President. They talked on the phone, and it was shortly after that that Lindsey had his heart attack and died.
But it is almost like they had one more call--one more call--where Lindsey was able to call President Trump again or President Trump was able to call Lindsey and they talked about, you know, who should replace Lindsey during that period before the election when the people of South Carolina will elect their next Senator to replace Lindsey, and they decided on Darline.
And how fitting. How appropriate. So big thanks to President Trump for recommending to Governor McMaster that he appoint Darline. We are so pleased to have her here, and it is so fitting and appropriate.
My wife Mikey and I are praying for Lindsey and for his whole family. I have to say that my wife Mikey was always a big Lindsey fan. One time, we are at dinner or something, and she just tells Lindsey how much I like and respect Lindsey.
I said to her: Why did you do that?
She goes: Well, because you do. You really like him. You respect him.
So I just said: Yes, I know I do, but he is my buddy. You are not supposed to tell your buddy that; they are just supposed to know it.
But it is true. I think we all did, both sides of the aisle.
We will miss him incredibly. The country, the State of South Carolina will miss him. Our country will miss Lindsey Graham and his incredible service.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for those kind words about our mutual friend. We are both going to miss him.
I have given a tribute to him today in the committee and partially on the floor, but it is still hard to imagine the Senate without Lindsey.
(The remarks of Mr. DURBIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 4979 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, 4 years ago, Congress passed our legislative response to one of the deadliest school shootings in American history. It happened in Uvalde, TX, at Robb Elementary School. Nineteen innocent children and two adults--teachers--lost their lives that day.
It was a devastating--a devastating--occurrence. Unfortunately, it was not
Flags at Federal buildings and military installations were lowered to halfstaff. We all knew we wanted to do whatever we could do to prevent something like this from happening again if there was anything that we could actually do legislatively.
The much harder question was, What would that look like?
In the days that followed, we heard from many Americans--Texans, North Carolinians, and folks all around the country--saying that no parent should ever have to send their child to school wondering will that child be safe, and no child should have to go to school wondering if they were going to be a victim of a mass shooting.
We knew that whatever we did, it would not bring back those teachers and innocent children from the act of pure evil that unfolded on May 24, 2022. But we knew that--Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, Senator Murphy, and I took on the task of trying to come up with a bill that would actually make a difference, that would save lives.
But we knew we had to do it consistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we felt like we could make some progress and save lives.
As negotiations continued, there was pressure mounting from some corners of this Chamber to do things that maybe sounded pretty good, but they wouldn't actually change the results or maybe they would be unconstitutional in depriving law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
During the meetings that we had together, I think we concluded that if we actually wanted to be successful in doing something that would make a difference and save lives, that we couldn't just try to do something that perhaps was a good press release or might make the evening news; we actually had to do something that would be meaningful and that would result in saving lives.
I have long been a champion of Second Amendment rights. That is probably no surprise. Texans believe in the Second Amendment. But some of these proposals, obviously, were unacceptable to me, personally, but they, as I said, failed to address the problems that we have seen in these school shootings in a way that would be meaningful.
The best solution, in my view, was that we needed to find some way to come to grips with the mental health crisis in our country and particularly that affecting young people and, in this case, in the wake of COVID and the isolation many of these young people had.
But we also knew that we needed to be narrow and specifically tailor policy changes that would save those lives. So we worked together and passed a bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which passed the Senate on June 23 and was signed into law June 25 of 2022, 32 days after the shooting.
Now, the Senate does not ordinarily operate at that sort of speed, I can assure you, as we all know, but we wrote this law carefully and deliberately to ensure no law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights would be impaired.
To be plain, if you didn't suffer from a mental illness or you weren't a criminal, you would not be affected by this law. That was true then, and it is true today.
What this bill did do is made a historic investment in mental health and school safety and commonsense measures to prevent dangerous individuals from being a harm to themselves and others.
Texas, like all the States, has received significant amounts of money; in the case of Texas, hundreds of millions of dollars from this law--more than $312 million, to date, to strengthen our mental health care and school hardening--to make it more difficult for violent individuals to attack soft targets like schools typically have been but no more.
Universities use these resources to partner with local school districts to provide training for mental health professionals to support students, and school districts have used these resources to upgrade their security systems, to implement threat alert systems, and improve emergency response plans.
I saw some of these firsthand when I visited R.L. Paschal High School in Fort Worth, which received more than $350,000 for specialized emergency radios and safety upgrades.
The BSCA, as it is called, also expanded certified community behavioral health clinics around the country, which has allowed mental health clinics to expand their coverage to include not only mental health but substance abuse disorders.
We have all come to be aware of the fact that we simply have not treated or provided the resources for people suffering from mental health challenges that are necessary to help them not only get better but prevent them from descending into self-harm or harm to others.
There are now more than 500 community-based mental health centers operating in 46 States, and additional States have added to the CCBHC Demonstration Program recently announced by the Health and Human Services Secretary, Secretary Kennedy, that was directly linked to this law that we passed 4 years ago.
Now, of course, there has been a lot of misunderstanding living in the world we live in with social media and officeholders and would-be officeholders running in political campaigns. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what this law did and what it did not do.
For example, some have described this bill as a gun control law, which it is not. So, today, together with my colleague--our colleague-- Senator Tillis of North Carolina, who is a great partner in this legislation, we want to address some of the widespread misconceptions about the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and just set the record straight.
One of the things I heard most in the recent campaign I ran in was that we had passed a red flag law which would make it possible for an aggrieved partner or spouse or family member or maybe even a neighbor to basically turn in somebody and have their firearms confiscated without due process of law.
We decided upfront that although some States did have red flag laws, that No. 1, it was important that there be appropriate due process requirements before they can access any of the resources in this law and, secondly, that there not be a national red flag law--leave this up to the States.
The truth is, the BSCA actually makes it harder to implement red flag laws because you can't do so and access this money unless you enhance the due process protections that are necessary to protect what is a constitutional right.
Our legislation created this due process framework that I know you will hear more about from Senator Tillis, but I knew that my State, Texas, would never pass a State red flag law, and the last thing I was going to do was to support or embrace a red flag law, national law, that would preempt Texas law. So we wanted to make sure that the funding that was available was available for crisis intervention programs, veterans courts, mental health courts--just to use a couple of examples--that did not have those red flag laws while making sure those States that did could not gain access to this money unless they provided an enhanced due process procedure.
So it is false to argue that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act created an incentive for more States to pass new red flag laws, and the statistics bear it out.
Only 4 percent of the total money appropriated was obligated to red flag-related activities--4 percent--in States with existing red flag laws, and those States now had to comply with the law so a stricter due process standard applied.
The vast majority of BSCA funds have gone, instead, to State mental health programs, veterans courts, as I mentioned, crisis intervention, school safety measures. The only States to implement a new red flag law were two States that already had begun the process to pass one before the BSCA passed.
So the BSCA--Bipartisan Safer Communities Act--did not cause or leave any State to pass new red flag laws. What we did is made it harder for those laws to be abused in those States that had them by providing for this enhanced level of due process protection of this Second Amendment constitutional right.
Another misconception I heard on the campaign trail or saw on social media was that we somehow created a mandatory waiting period before somebody could access a firearm if they were going into a store to purchase it for those under 21. Once again, this is false.
Many individuals who create acts of violence like school shootings have a history of violence, are known to local law enforcement, and are essentially ticking timebombs. That is what happened in Uvalde, TX, 4 years ago. The Uvalde shooter was a deeply troubled young man known by everybody in the neighborhood to be trouble, and there were warning signs that, I think, demonstrated the fact that he was not only a potential danger to himself but also others.
He was isolated, a bully. He self-harmed. He had a history of fighting, threatening fellow students, and abusing animals. He bought weapons and ammunition within days of turning 18 because the juvenile records in Texas were not uploaded into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System like they are for adults.
So there was virtually no possibility of any record of this potentially derogatory or disqualifying information that would have been available at the time of his purchase.
If a person's record includes disqualifying criminal convictions or mental health adjudication, it shouldn't matter whether it occurred a day before their 18th birthday. And what the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act allowed law enforcement officials to do was go back and look at those juvenile records. That information must now be available on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The BSCA incentivizes States to upload these juvenile records, but it places a strict time limit on how long the review process can take place. If a determination is not made in that window, the purchase proceeds.
Interestingly, far less than 1 percent of firearms background checks are affected by the checks for under 21-year-old buyers that this bill deals with, but yet we know that it has made a real difference.
There was the 18-year-old attempting to purchase a long gun in Nebraska who as a minor made terroristic threats and was placed in a mental institution, or the 20-year-old drug dealer with a juvenile felony adjudication who attempted to purchase a long gun in Arizona. These individuals would have never been discovered before the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
States agree with its efficacy, including Texas, which passed the law soon after the BSCA passed to ensure that juvenile mental health records would be available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
This leads me to another important provision in the BSCA, which gives the Department of Justice tools to prosecute individuals for straw purchases. So, for example, if a drug dealer knows that his or her criminal conviction would disqualify them from purchasing a firearm legally, they can't get their boyfriend or girlfriend to buy it for them without violating the law. Straw purchases are the primary way that criminals and illegal aliens arm themselves, and the Trump administration has used these new criminal provisions enacted in the BSCA to target cartel members.
Ryan Routh, who made an attempt against President Trump's life at Trump International golf course in September of 2024 acquired the gun via a straw purchase because his prior criminal record would have prevented him from buying it legally.
Before BSCA, the only penalty a criminal faced for a straw purchase was lying on their firearms transaction, a minor offense which many prosecutors would not bother to pursue.
The BSCA also created a new firearms trafficking law. Since drug cartel members can't legally purchase firearms, they rely on firearms traffickers to arm them and carry out their violence.
Now because of this law, the Department of Justice has a tool to combat cartel violence and prosecute individuals who engage in firearms trafficking. Indeed, the Department of Justice has convicted 459 criminals under the straw purchasing and firearms trafficking laws-- 459--while another 716 violent criminals are currently facing charges under this law.
So we all want our communities to be safe, but we also want to make sure that we respect the rights of law-abiding citizens; and no law we would pass restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, were we to do so, would make a difference. No law-abiding citizen is a threat to their community.
But this is one of the reasons why I was a vocal critic of President Biden's open border policies which allowed millions of people to come into the country, including some criminals and cartel members. It is the reason why I opposed the ``defund the police'' movement that left a wave of unchecked violence and crime in America's blue cities.
And that is why working together with Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, and Senator Murphy, we made sure we passed a law which actually would invest in mental health resources to identify individuals who were suffering before they became a danger to themselves or others.
We literally made the single largest investment when we passed this law 4 years ago of community-based mental healthcare and made our schools safer for all of our children so they can focus on why they are in school in the first place: to learn.
And parents don't have to worry at home about is my son or my daughter going to be safe, all the while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
So as I reflect back on my time here in the U.S. Senate, there are a few legislative accomplishments I have made that have helped the people of Texas and our country at large--at least I hope that is the case-- but out of all of these, the BSCA was one of the most critical in tangibly making the country safer for families and children.
Parents may not know when they interact with security systems at the entrance of their child's preschool that they are actually benefitting from this law, but the BSCA has made a difference, and it will continue to do so.
So I am proud, working together with Senator Tillis and Senator Sinema and Senator Murphy, that we were able to accomplish this even in the face of organized opposition.
What I did learn--and maybe it shouldn't have been a surprise to me-- is that there are cottage industries in Washington, DC, that spread misinformation about legislation that is actually challenging to pass because it does involve something like a constitutional right--the Second Amendment--but strictly they do it for the purposes of raising money from their membership for using in political campaigns.
But the one reason we are here in the Senate, the one reason I am proud to be here is because we are willing to take on some of these hard, complex issues on occasion and to try to come up with tangible results that benefit our constituents and all the American people.
Senator Cornyn, I would describe as probably the ultimate statesman and gentleman here in the Senate. I am not.
And so Senator Cornyn talked about all the merits of the bill, and we stand by them. I should also say he gets special credit for a lot of those provisions because they are in there because of his participation.
I have long said that I don't hold grudges, but I settle scores. And today is a good day to settle a score on another anniversary of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
We had a lot of people, actually organizations I have been a member of in the past, spread a lot of false information about this bill. They said it was going to be a red flag bill.
Well, the fact of the matter is, there is funding in this bill for red flag, for States that have implemented red flag laws. Here is the little secret: not even Republican red flag States satisfy our rigorous standards for due process, which is why they haven't applied for any funding. They wouldn't qualify for it unless they changed their plans.
So this didn't cause a wave of red State laws to be implemented. Quite the contrary, it provided resources in behavioral health and veterans courts and drug courts and family courts to help people that may be in crisis ahead of them.
Those same people who were saying: Send money now, support us because
I am a concealed carry permittee. I have more than one gun, but I am a responsible gun owner who also finished the concealed carry class and also hunter safety. And I think we all need to be responsible gun owners.
But at the end of the day, you have got to decide whether or not a kid going into a gun store on their 18th birthday, if that is their day to buy a gun.
So let's talk a little bit about what this bill really does versus what the mercenaries were trying to do to raise money and kill this bill.
All we are saying--show of hands, do we have any pages that are 18 years old? OK. Younger or older? Younger, OK.
So these kids right now, whatever--sorry, these young adults right now, whatever they are doing, if they have got a committal, a behavioral health committal, if they assaulted a police officer, shot at one, got prosecuted for it when they were 16\1/2\ years old or 17 years old, on their 18th birthday, it is like that device in--what was it--``Men in Black,'' where you erase that. Can you imagine that?
If you were 18 years old on your birthday and you had been convicted of a crime or had a serious legal entanglement, when you go to the NICS system, it was as if you were a day old. Does anybody think that really makes sense, that the crime you committed a couple of months, let's say a month, 60 days, 90 days earlier, would have not been relevant? That is absurd.
Of course if you are under 21, we need to have some insight into what your life looked like when you were 16 or 17 years old. That is what the enhanced background check was, and yet some of these gun advocacy organizations thought that was horrible. It was going to lead to a mass confiscation of guns. It was a backdoor, I think. It was a backdoor into just taking all of our guns away.
It was going to devastate the Second Amendment protections of our Constitution. I heard them all saying it, saying some of it. Let me tell you what actually happened. All we did was say: If you are under 21, we are going to try and find out as much as we need to know about you for your safety and for the safety of your community.
So all we did was say: We are going to go to local law enforcement. We are going to try and get information out there and encourage States to provide the information to our national center for clearing gun purchases in West Virginia sooner so that those who do not have a bad record can get their gun purchased sooner so that we can in a matter of 3 to 10 days get this done.
All the people that were opposed to this bill said that we were not going to get any approvals done, that even the good law-abiding over 21s were going to get swept into this somehow.
Well, let me tell you what has happened since June of this year. The NICS system is doing just fine. About 4,000 people who were going to be denied based on the law have been denied.
So look at these numbers again. Talking about mass confiscation, how disruptive this was, how nobody was going to be able to get guns, right? That is what all the people said: Send money, we are defending your Second Amendment right here in Washington.
Almost 551,000 transactions for purchasing guns have been processed as of June of this year. About 3,800 of them were denied for reasons that existed before we ever passed this law. What we have done though is found some 1,630 young people that that was not their day to buy a gun.
That was--I could go through a long list. I could talk about people being convicted of assaulting a police officer. I could talk about people who had a long gun after they had been convicted of a crime in their car. I could talk about people who accidentally in North Carolina shot their girlfriend a year before and all of a sudden--at 17 and wanted to get a gun.
Does anybody in their right mind think that is a good day for that kid to get a gun?
I am not talking about a 38-year-old person going in. I am talking about an 18-year-old. I am talking about a 19-year-old. I am talking about a 20-year-old. All we did was say: Guys, let's make sure that this is a safe decision for the child and for the community. That is what this bill did, and that is why this bill has withstood the test of time and not a single--not one scintilla--and I would defy anybody who was against this bill to find one of the things that they predicted and guaranteed would happen have actually occurred.
What has happened is we may have saved 1,600 people who may have been buying that gun to hurt themselves, maybe to hurt their community-- maybe not. But what we know is that day was not the day that we should allow them to leave that gun store with a weapon for their safety and the safety of the community.
This is Congress at its best. It is looking at the people that you generally support--and Senator Cornyn was first among them--and the gun rights community and saying: Guys, I can't take the top-line arguments against this because you all know it is not really true. It is this black-and-white world that we live in here, and it requires the very seldom impactful language like, and legislation like, the Communities Act ever get done because people get afraid of the noise and they back into their corners.
And I want to give Senator Cornyn an enormous amount of credit for stepping up and doing what he did to make Texas safer, make the country safer, and make these people and their loved ones and their neighbors in the community safer.
The last thing I will leave you with is, to the States that do have red flag laws--including, I believe, the State of the Presiding Officer--let's get those red flag laws consistent with due process and show respect to gun owners because I am not aware of any red flag law, even in red States, that come close to the sorts of protections that we also put into this bill.
So let's give them an incentive to get it right. Let's make sure that every law-abiding citizen who wants to have a gun can--like me and like Senator Cornyn and like so many other people--but let's be smart about it.
And let's make sure that we continue this trend of being sure that when a person applies for a weapon, that they can safely own it, they are going to be safe for themselves and their community, and stop this nonsense of fearing any sort of positive change because of political repercussions.
This bill is one of the best bills that I had the privilege to work on. And the thing that is amazing about this bill is, it went from concept to implementation in fewer than 6 weeks. That is what happens when Congress gets together, they set aside their partisan differences, they refuse to listen to the false information trying to kill a bill, and they do something good for their State and their country. That is exactly--on this anniversary of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act-- what we accomplished.
I want to thank Senator Cornyn for his partnership. It was not an easy bill. It was a lot of work, but we got it done. I thank Senator Murphy, and I should have mentioned Senator Gillibrand--or not Gillibrand--wrong Kirsten--Senator Sinema for working together.
I mean, we had people across the political spectrum, folks. Chris Murphy, whom I consider a friend and colleague, about as liberal as anybody in this Chamber--and I think he would admit that. And we have got John Cornyn, who is one of the most conservative. And then you have got me and Sinema probably somewhere in the middle.
We got together, and we got this done. And there are more people safe, and I believe there are people alive today that may not have been if this bill hadn't passed.
So, Senator Cornyn, I appreciate the work that you did on this bill. I believe we have got something that we should be proud of. And I also believe, Senator Cornyn, that the straw purchases, the gun trafficking, all the other things that we didn't spend a lot of time on--we can come down here and do a colloquy and talk about more and more of the positive aspects of this bill. And I appreciate your leadership in moving it.
Mr. President, I just wanted to say there is one thing that Senator Tillis said that I disagree with, and that is that he said he is not a statesman. He is. And it took a lot of
But one of the things that I think, as we are talking about the harm of a young person who is suffering from mental illness or with a criminal record, a juvenile record of that--I am sure you are aware of this, but I just happened to double-check. The Pew Poll says that 62 percent of the gun deaths in America are suicide.
These are people--perhaps a disturbed young person--
You take a look at the--I spend a lot of time and focus on behavioral health, Senator Cornyn, and the data is compelling.
There is no question in my mind--just the sheer number here--there is no question in my mind that we saved the life of somebody who is buying a gun for that purpose. There is no doubt in my mind the numbers stipulate that.
And one of the things that I learned back, years ago, when I had a protective detail and I was the whip, is my Capital Police officer said there is this phenomenon, which I never fully appreciated before. If you think about it, some of these mass shootings are actually an act of suicide themselves because these shooters go into these situations, knowing--or likely knowing--that they will never make their way out of it. But they don't have the courage to take their own life. They need to take other people down with them, and there is a phenomenon called death by cop, where they know that by engaging a law enforcement officer, that they ultimately will be killed of necessity by the law enforcement officer to prevent causing more harm.
But I want to ask just one last question. Are you aware, has anybody contacted your office, or have you read anything in the press or seen anything on broadcast media that would indicate that a single law- abiding American has been denied access to their Second Amendment rights because of this law?
No, quite the contrary. That is why I am saying--look, I love saying I told you so, and I believed that that was going to be the case here.
But, Senator Cornyn, let me just say it for anybody--for the 20 people watching on C-SPAN--and, hopefully, some will cover our statements--I defy anybody--anyone--who opposed this bill, who scored it, who threatened Members to vote against it, I defy them to come to my office and find one example of what they were telling people to oppose this bill that actually came to pass--one.
Here it is: Public challenge. Guys, you who so--you were out there. You were emailing. You were raising money. You were saying the world is going to end, guns are going to be confiscated, that straw purchases were going to destroy--you know, that we weren't going after trafficking, that we were going after law-abiding officers, and their licenses were going to be--all these things, all this noise.
I will dedicate an hour to somebody who wants to come into my office and prove to me that one--one--negative behavior by any State or local government or Federal Government has occurred. This is what happened, folks.
But you want to come to my office, I will guarantee you, you refer to this C-SPAN segment and you want to come to my office and prove that something bad happened, I will take that. My guess is, I will get that hour back, and that is what I mean.
You know, at some point on these tough issues, we keep kicking the can down the road because we let people off the hook for saying things that are patently untrue and then not hold them to account a year or two later. Well, I am here to tell you: I am here for the next 173 days before I retire. Anybody who wants to come in and prove one bad outcome from this bill, give me a call.
And, Senator Cornyn, again, you and I are both--we are both here for another 173 days. We got--and I say that not because I am counting the days to leave, but I am counting the days that we have to make an impact. And I hope I can continue to work with you on this and other bills to even make it better.
We are, unabashedly, unapologetically, pro-Second Amendment Republicans. But we are smart about it, and we have the courage to step up when we see a change can be made that will keep us true to those values but also keep our communities safer. And I appreciate your leadership on this.
Mr. President, I rise, as so many others have, to give tribute to Senator Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey was effective as a Senator, in large part, because he was so well-liked by colleagues and because he liked them in return.
He was affable, always willing to work with others, regardless of how different backgrounds, beliefs, and positions were. He just focused on getting things done and had the courage to take on issues that others would not.
We collaborated on something called Graham-Cassidy, a bill which would have replaced Obamacare with coverage for everyone--literally everyone--but at a lower cost than the Affordable Care Act. I always chuckle when I say the Affordable Care Act.
And we were a good team because we complemented each other. I was a doctor, always thinking about healthcare. He was the politician's politician.
He told me: Bill, you are good at policy, but you are a terrible politician.
And I would say that many people knew exactly what he was talking about. At one point, I was talking to him about healthcare. He said: Oh, Bill, don't talk to me about policy. It gives me headaches. But he said he would fight to get it passed. We came up short but not because he did not and I did not fight.
Once he said: I am going to go on ``FOX Morning.'' If I go on ``FOX Morning,'' I know the President is watching. And if the President is watching the ``FOX Morning'' show and I say we should be fighting to replace Obamacare, it will get the President engaged.
He just knew how to find that audience that was important. He knew how to speak to them. He had a great sense of humor, and, again, he knew how to get things done.
Ultimately, that is why somebody comes to Washington. Some people come to Washington to be a Senator. Others come to Washington to do something as a Senator. Lindsey was someone who came to Washington to do something as a Senator.
I speak for myself, but I echo what colleagues have said. Lindsey Graham shall be missed.
Mr. President, we have got to do something about healthcare. Now, I am a physician. You might think I--of course, Bill cares about it. I can tell you who cares about it is the American people.
I was with an Uber driver last night: What do you think--you know, if you were the President, Uber driver, what would you be talking about right now?
She said: I can't afford things. I can't afford my gas. I can't afford my groceries, my housing. I can't afford my healthcare.
Now, that has been echoed.
And, in fact, what we are seeing is that the inability to afford healthcare is impacting the ability of small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. The employer-based health insurance system is the most dominant form of providing health insurance for those less than 65, and it is crumbling. The percentage of working-age adults getting health coverage from a job has decreased from 67 percent--oh, about 25 years ago--to about 60 percent now. And the reason why is that premiums are going up so much, particularly for those 62 percent of Americans who get their insurance from a small business.
There is a recent article in STAT which, based upon Federal Government information, if you look at inflation since about 1985, premiums should have
Now, by the way, these premiums continue to rise after the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, the rise became higher, faster after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
And so, if you are a small business, you are trying to make ends meet. Businesses contribute to the health insurance of their employees. Typically, they may employ--it depends upon the business, but they may give, oh, 100 percent. They may give 80 percent. They may give 60 percent. But whatever percent that the small business is contributing to their employees is going up.
The other thing to recognize is that, when it begins to rise too much, then the employer pays less and less for the employees' health insurance. This can be manifested in a couple ways. Instead of paying 80 percent of the cost of the policy, they may pay only 60 percent. Or the small business may decide to get a less expensive policy, in which case they increase the deductible.
Now, the deductible is what we pay out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. That is the problem.
And so, if you look at, since about 2000, the amount of deductible at a big business is about $1,700. At a small business, for a single worker, among workers with a deductible, it is now about $2,600.
So before the insurance begins to work for the employee, they have to come up with, on average, $2,600 to pay before the insurance kicks in.
Now, it may be something like a routine visit, which is covered. They may have preventive care covered, like a mammogram or a screening colonoscopy. But, typically, they have got to put up $2,600, on average, if they go to the emergency room after a car wreck, and only then does the insurance begin to kick in.
Now, why is that important? Because most families have less than $500 of cash in order to pay for their healthcare.
In previous speeches, I have talked about how people are putting their healthcare expenditures on their credit card. And that credit card debt factors into 60 percent of household bankruptcies. So they have a $3,000 deductible, and they don't have the money in their bank account. Their child gets sick, and they bring them to the emergency room. They don't have the $3,000. So they put it on the credit card, and that credit card debt mounts.
Indeed, if you look at the percent of income that Americans are now paying upon credit card interest, which means that they are carrying a balance, it has risen from about 1 percent to 3.2 percent. So 3.2 percent of their income is going to pay for interest on credit cards.
This shows that they are rolling these big credit card balances forward. So with credit card balances not paid, but being the minimal amount being paid, they are up to $10,000.
Much of this relates back to: How do you pay for healthcare? I don't have the money in my account. So I am going to use my credit card in order to pay for these large deductibles.
Well, I have got a way to address that, Mr. President. We call it the MVP Act. Under our plan, we would give an advance, an income tax credit, to the family--on average, for a family of four, about $2,000-- that would go into an account that they use to pay for their benefits.
By the way, this is paid for. This is paid for.
But they would prefund a health savings account.
Now, we don't give it to the insurance company because, if you give the money to the insurance company to subsidize the premiums, the insurance company takes 20 percent of it for overhead and for profit. You give it to the individual or family, and they are going to use 100 percent of it for the healthcare that they need.
Now, we have coupled that. So it is money in your pocket. We couple that by adding value, price transparency, so that the family knows the price they pay before they go in for the service. That could be powerful.
I was up here in DC once. Actually, I remember we were having a crawfish boil. Every year, Louisiana people have a crawfish boil. And there was a woman who saw me on the street. She stopped me.
She said: Hey, Dr. Cassidy.
And I said: Yes.
She said: I am from Texas, but I saw that you gave a speech about price transparency, and that if I paid cash, it would be cheaper than if I went through my insurance. So the doctor ordered an MRI on my son's shoulder, and they told me it was going to cost $2,000. Well, my deductible was whatever it was--say a thousand dollars. So I said: How much, if I pay you cash? They said: Well, if you pay us cash, it is only $600.
In this case, paying cash was cheaper than paying her deductible.
So if you know, if you have price transparency, if you say, ``Wait a second; I am going to have at least a thousand dollars out of pocket because of my deductible, but if I paid cash right now and don't go through my insurance, it only cost me $600,'' you are going to bring value to the patient.
In this transaction, under the MVP plan, there would have been money placed into her health savings account. She could have used--in this case, she did it on her own--price transparency to find out the price. So there is money and value for the patient.
We take the power away from the middleman, the power away from the insurance company to approve or disapprove of the care that the patient knows that she needs; and, instead, we would give the money directly to her, with the tools of price transparency to bring value to the patient.
Now, we are making steps on this. Right now in the HELP Committee-- the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--of which I am the chair, we are working on price transparency legislation. We hope to get that passed in the next 2 weeks out of Committee, and we hope this passes on the floor of the Senate. This is how we bring value to the patient, by bringing the power of price transparency, as she chooses what healthcare and where to get her healthcare.
Now, we can get this done. Whenever there is a big idea like this, how do we actually help the American people with affordability? How do we actually put money in their pocket and couple it with tools that would give them the power of price transparency, in order to bring money in their pocket and value for the patient?
People say: Oh, that is too big. We can't get that done--no way.
But, folks, we have actually achieved a lot on healthcare in the last few years. The No Surprises Act blocks about a million surprise medical bills per month for the American people. A PBM reform bill, which was signed into law by President Trump a few months ago but that was negotiated by Congress--and it was tough, but we actually got it so that the value to the patient in terms of lower drug prices, if you will, cutting out or restricting activities of the insurance company in the middle--we got that through. The administration is working on TrumpRx, which allows patients to buy drugs without hidden costs.
So if we are going to make healthcare affordable to the American people, we have to build on that record, and we have to work together.
So my challenge to the Senate, to the House, and to the President: Let us come together. Let us get things done. Let us work for the American people.
Ask any Uber driver, ask our constituents: What is the biggest issue right now?
And they will say: Affording life.
Affording life means to be able to afford healthcare.
And, Mr. President, with the MVP health agenda, we help our constituents afford healthcare.
Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times over the last year to warn of the looming threat about Islam infiltrating the United States of America.
You know, I know there are people who sometimes roll their eyes when I talk about this, but I express serious concerns about what Islam teaches and how it is incompatible with our Judeo-Christian values.
This is why I say that Islam is not a religion. It is a death cult.
Don't believe me. Just look at the report that came out recently in the United Kingdom. This report, which I have a picture of behind me, made international news: the ``Rape Gang Inquiry Report.''
This report, of which I have a picture--this isn't a flimsy report. It was introduced into Parliament by Rupert Lowe, who had a successful career in finance before running for Parliament in 2024. It is also cosponsored by five other Members of the UK Parliament.
The explosive report says that Muslim rape gangs are operating in over 40 percent of the United Kingdom. The report details how White British girls are being trafficked and exploited by Muslim men across the United Kingdom. The report claims that there have been at least 250,000 victims who have been trafficked by these third-world Muslim immigrants.
You know, the report describes a consistent pattern for the Muslim rape gangs. Girls as young as 11 were groomed with gifts, alcohol, and drugs. They were picked up from schools, from care homes, and subjected to gang rape, trafficking, torture, forced Islamic conversion, and lifetime trauma. These are some of the worst things that you can possibly imagine that really make you sick to your stomach, but it is real, and it is happening to hundreds of thousands of young women across Europe.
The report states that, roughly, 87 percent of those convicted in the child sexual exploitation cases ``bore distinctively Muslim names.''
Surprise. Surprise.
That is because these heinous acts are acceptable and even encouraged under the teaching of Islam. Islam teaches that Muslims are superior to nonbelievers, and it enables Muslim men to treat non-Muslim girls as property--as property--available for sexual abuse.
The doctrine of Muslim superiority is drawn from documents written by Muhammad, which clearly state that Muslims are superior and have a duty to ``correct'' nonbelievers. For example, in one part of the Quran, it says that Muslims are the ``best of peoples for humanity'' as long as they maintain faith in Allah. At the same time, Muslims are taught to be hostile toward non-Muslims.
In addition, Muhammad taught his followers that men are superior to women; that men can marry women without consent as young as 6 years old; and that men can sexually abuse and rape non-Muslim women. It is their right, they think.
Where is the outrage from the so-called feminist groups on this issue? They are nowhere to be found, unfortunately.
The report goes on to say that there was a deliberate failure in the United Kingdom to protect victims or to stop this from happening. Police discouraged reporting, destroyed evidence, and sometimes even shielded the evil men who were doing this to young women.
The National Health Service discharged victims without making sure they had a safe place to go home to. Schools excluded victims rather than protected them. Taxi licensing authorities renewed permits for drivers without bothering to check if they were involved in any of the trafficking of victims. The major political parties, along with the UK Government, willingly--willingly--turned a blind eye to the blatant sex trafficking happening right under their noses--all in the name of being politically correct.
Let me be clear about this: By refusing to address the Islamist sex trafficking of hundreds of thousands of innocent girls, the UK Government enables these sick criminals.
Folks, Europe is gone. Just go over there and visit. They have fallen victim to mass migration, which is wiping out the cultural identities, security, and foundations of their countries.
Did you know that the No. 1 most popular name of baby boys born in the United Kingdom now is ``Muhammad''? It has been that way for 3 years. You would think it would be ``Charles,'' after the King, or ``William,'' after the next in line to the throne. No, it is not. The millions of Muslims who have moved to the UK are having babies, and they are naming them after the most popular figure, which now in Europe is Muhammad.
This is a takeover--a hostile takeover.
I have said this many times: Europeans have the right to fight in the streets to take back their countries. They have got to fight back. We saw an example of this last week in Scotland. A Scottish man took matters into his own hands when he reached a breaking point. He knew his government had sold him out. There was no one to protect him or his family from violence from these Third World Muslim migrants. It wasn't there. There was no protection.
To be clear, I am not advocating for violence, but this will soon be the reality in every European country if they don't start sending foreigners back to their home countries as soon as they possibly can-- ASAP. When a government imports millions of Third World Muslims who refuse to assimilate and who actively want to destroy any semblance of Western civilization, people are going to start taking matters into their own hands. That is what usually happens.
I wish I could say that the United States is immune to such dangers, but, sadly, what is happening in Europe is a foreshadowing of what is to come here in our own backyard if we are not careful. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, Third World Muslims flooded--flooded-- American cities like Minneapolis; Dearborn, MI; and parts of Virginia with one goal in mind--one goal--to radically change the ethnic, religious, and political makeup of our country, the United States of America. That is their plan. They are doing it in Europe. Now they are coming here.
Thanks to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the enemy, folks, is now inside the gates.
You would have to be stupid to think that what is happening in Europe couldn't happen here. ``Oh, it can't happen in the United States.'' It is happening as we speak. The same cult ideology that empowered the human trafficking of White women in the United Kingdom is alive and well here in the United States of America.
In the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood created a blueprint known as ``The Project,'' outlining a long-term plan to establish Islamic dominance worldwide by infiltrating Western institutions. That is their plan. ``The Project'' explicitly instructs Muslims to create parallel societies within their host countries and to reject all assimilation into Western culture.
Since 1986, Herndon, VA--not too far from here--has been home to the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Think about that--just down the road. This institute was established with the sole purpose of eliminating Western influence in every field of human knowledge. We are talking science; we are talking history, psychology, and politics. Then they would rebuild it. They
In short, ``The Project'' outlines a long-term plan to establish Islamic dominance worldwide by infiltrating and eventually taking control of the nation that they are in. This document is operational, and it has a manual that has guided Muslim Brotherhood networks for several decades.
It isn't just getting here; it has been around a long time. You are seeing parts of their plan play out today in several States, like Texas, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. You know, even my State of Alabama has become a focal point of the Islamic Network's goal of destroying Christianity and of eliminating Western society.
The RAIR Foundation recently uncovered some disturbing facts about the Birmingham Islamic Society in my State. Their so-called Islamic Society admits to being 100-percent rooted in Sharia law. It has got ties to the North American Islamic Trust, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The RAIR Foundation's research also claims that the Birmingham Islamic Society has employed imams with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The mosque's constitution reveals that every aspect of the mosque's operations, memberships, finances, and even the personal affairs of its members is subject to Sharia law. The Birmingham Islamic Society's constitution declares Sharia to be the supreme authority over the entire organization. To them, Sharia overrules all of our Federal, State, and local laws.
I know the State of Alabama has passed a law to prohibit State courts from enforcing or considering any foreign international or religious law if it violates the U.S. or Alabama Constitution. I trust the Alabama courts will look into this as soon as possible in Birmingham.
You know, I have talked many times about how Sharia law is fundamentally incompatible with our Constitution and our society. It has no place--no place--in the United States. We are living in a dangerous time during which people are afraid to say the truth because they don't want to be canceled or talked about. Bad things start to happen when good people sit idly by and do nothing to address the problems that are plaguing our society today. We can't stay silent. If we do that, we are no better than the leaders of the UK, who sat on their hands while 250,000 young girls were raped and trafficked-- 250,000. What is wrong with these people? The young girls were raped and trafficked just over the last few years.
For too long, people have tiptoed around the issue. They have been afraid to hurt somebody's dang feelings or to make somebody uncomfortable--but the time for being politically correct had better be over. The truth is that radical Islam extremists want every single freedom-loving American to convert to Islam or be killed by the sword. That is what they study and believe.
Thanks to President Trump, our borders are secure. We are stopping mass migration and are turning away people who want to hurt our country when we have got them here already. This action is saving our country right now, but it only takes the next Democrat-Communist President to reopen the floodgates to mass immigration.
The disease of Islam has been allowed to fester and spread in our country for a long time. The mullahs are just waiting until they are in the majority to take our country and force Sharia law on everybody who lives in the United States of America.
Folks, it is coming.
So the question is, Will we continue this path and end up like the UK and the rest of the European countries, or will we say ``Enough is enough,'' and refuse to give up our country to the enemy?
I was glad to see President Trump officially designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, but that is not quite enough. I am calling on President Trump to ban the Muslim Brotherhood from this country. They don't need to be here. They are our enemies. They are inside the gates. We also need to ban Sharia law on a Federal level, not just on a State level. This hateful, murderous ideology has no place in our country. It is growing, and we are not saying anything about it. It doesn't need to be here now--it doesn't need to be here ever--and we had better wake up.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar No. 767, with the exception of RDML Matthew W. Lake; Calendar No. 768, with the exception of CAPT Andrew D. Meverden; and Calendar No. 769 through Calendar No. 773; and all the nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard, with the exception of Jesse M. Millard (PN846); that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To clarify, that is Calendar No. 769 through Calendar No. 773.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Government Accountability Office's determination letter on the matter of ``U.S. Small Business Administration--Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to Policy and Procedural Notices Updating Citizenship and Residency Requirements for 7(a) and 504 Loans,'' dated July 1, 2026, be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, on March 21, 1901, a town in Aroostook County was incorporated and named after the region's pristine clear waters. Today, it is a great joy to join the people of Crystal, ME, in celebrating the 125th anniversary of a town that epitomizes rural life in the northern parts of our country and people who have shown the power of resiliency.
Crystal's founding was just one piece of an already illustrious history. First established by William Young of Searsmont in 1839 as Township No. 4, Fifth Range West of the Easterly Line of the State, Crystal quickly classified itself as a plantation--and not just in name. Drawn by the fertile land, settlers determined that potato cultivation could be successful, and they started shipping their products southward on railroads that exist to this day.
By the mid-1900s, the town of Crystal began facing the challenges that afflict many rural communities, leading to population decline that rendered Crystal one of the smallest and most rural communities in the entire State. Yet the people of Crystal persevered. Their farming and logging industries remain strong, creating an economic model for formerly industrialized towns.
Throughout its history, Crystal has been recognized as having outstanding natural resources. Crystal Bog, also known as the 1000 Acre Bog, encompasses an extensive area of wetlands found south of Fish Stream. This area represents one of Maine's best examples of a Domed Bog Ecosystem and is classified as a National Natural Landmark. It also supports some of the State's most diverse fens, plants, and animals, including circumneutral fen, Clayton's copper butterfly, and swamp-fly honeysuckle.
Crystal's 125th anniversary is more than just a celebration. It is recognition of a people who have thrived in the face of adversity. While every town has its unique challenges, I am sure that Crystal's best days lie ahead. I congratulate the town of Crystal, ME, on this wonderful achievement, and I look forward to witnessing its bright future.
Mr. President, I commend the Administration for Children and Families, ACF, for its achievement in securing the participation of all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in the A Home for Every Child Campaign.
This milestone represents a meaningful bipartisan accomplishment: every jurisdiction choosing to join a voluntary effort focused on improving the lives of vulnerable children and families. At a time when consensus can be difficult to achieve, this campaign demonstrates that leaders across the political spectrum can unite around the fundamental goal of ensuring every child has a safe, stable, and loving home.
This initiative is rooted in Idaho, where it is transforming the child welfare system and resolving the shortage of quality foster homes. The Gem State's model has improved foster care outcomes by achieving higher home-to-child ratios, prioritizing kinship recruitment, and preventing both unnecessary placements into care and burnout by current foster families. With the support of every State, that innovative approach is now being successfully implemented at the national level by Dr. Alex Adams, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Family Support, who previously served as Idaho's Health and Welfare Director.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I was proud to help enact the Working Families Tax Cuts that made the adoption tax credit partially refundable up to $5,000, helping offset the costs of adopting a child. And the Trump administration announced plans to help foster youth participate in the Trump Accounts created in the law to help the next generation build wealth,
By strengthening collaboration between the Federal Government and States, ACF is helping transform outcomes for children and families while establishing a model for strategic Federal-State partnerships. I thank the foster families across Idaho and the country who provide the stability and love every child deserves. I commend ACF, participating State and Territorial leaders, and all those working to make this vision a reality.
Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Iowa small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to honor ShinyTop Brewing of Webster County, IA, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.
With a vision of building a local craft brewing scene in north central Iowa, brothers Nate and Todd McCubbin founded ShinyTop Brewing in 2016 after Nate, a military veteran, discovered a passion for homebrewing. The brothers' venture was born from a desire to create something their hometown could take pride in. What started with sharing their craft beer among friends and family soon revealed a deeper purpose: building community through brewing. A simple hobby quickly grew into a meaningful opportunity to bring people together, foster connections, and create a gathering place centered around great craft beer.
Over the years, ShinyTop experienced significant growth, expanding both its physical space and its menu offerings. More than a decade later, the brewery has become a fixture in Fort Dodge. The brewery has remained a beacon of opportunity for the city. Fostering a welcoming environment, the McCubbins have sought to build relationships and connect their visitors to the city's vast art, music, and philanthropic spheres. Yet for Nate and Todd, the true measure of success is not the brewery's growth, but the positive impact it has had on the area and the relationships it has helped foster along the way.
The brothers successfully turned a dilapidated building into what ShinyTop is today. Although the business physically resembles a brewery, the brothers say that it is representative of much more than that, ShinyTop is an instrument to cultivating community growth, while sharing family values. As a member of the Greater Fort Dodge Growth Alliance and the chamber of commerce, ShinyTop prioritizes economic and social development in the city. In addition to ShinyTop's engagement, the McCubbin brothers are also heavily involved in the community; Nate is on the board of the Fort Dodge Fine Arts Association, and Todd is a member of the city council. Through individual and group efforts, these entrepreneurs are looking to positively impact their community.
By partnering with local organizations, the brewery has fostered meaningful engagement while supporting local initiatives, strengthening neighborhood connections, and contributing to the overall growth and well-being of Fort Dodge. In the spirit of supporting the area, ShinyTop has partnered with the Fort Dodge Fine Arts Association, Serving our Servants, Fort Dodge Firefighter's Association, and has collaborated with other local organizations. More recently, the brewery has introduced its Giving Tuesday initiative in which 10 percent of its sales are donated to a partnering charity or organization. ShinyTop and the McCubbins continue to prove their generosity and enthusiasm to give back to the area.
I am pleased to recognize Nate and Todd McCubbin along with the entire team at ShinyTop Brewing for their dedication to the Fort Dodge community. I look forward to their continued success and wish them the very best in the years ahead.
Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
By Mr. CRAPO for the Committee on Finance.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)
Mr. President, I would like to speak on a separate topic.
In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt decided to try something. The idea was to create a pension plan for every American. Why? Because many people, despite working hard their whole lives, doing their best to save money, ended up almost penniless when they retired, when they were forced to quit working.
Those were the days when Grandma and Grandpa moved into the spare bedroom in your house. If that didn't happen to you, ask your father or even grandfather--they will remember those times.
So Franklin Roosevelt said: Let's create a pension system so that after you retire, there will be some money coming in. You pay into it all your working life. When you reach the age of retirement, you get a benefit from it.
They called it Social Security. It was passed into law in 1935. It made its first payment 5 years later in 1940.
I think it has become arguably the most important social program in America. Certainly, more Americans have participated in Social Security than almost every other program. And they should. They earned it. They worked for it. They were promised. The promise should be kept.
How is Social Security doing? Well, that is why I am standing here before you today. Last month, the Social Security Board of Trustees released an alarming report about the status of Social Security's finances. That Board found that Social Security will be unable to make full payments to eligible Americans by 2032. That is not that far away--6 years. This is alarming, and it is a call to arms to Congress.
I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Scared to death that I was going to be a one-term Congressman, I was looking over my shoulder every 5 minutes to see what was going to knock me out of my perch there.
Well, they came in and said: There is news for you, new Congressman. Social Security is about to go broke.
The year was 1983, and we could see in the short term, Social Security unable to make its benefit payments. That would have been a disaster in 1983. We rose to the occasion. We had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. We had a Democratic House of Representatives with Tip O'Neill. We set out to write a change in Social Security that would save it so it could keep making payments. Well, it took a long time, it took several months, but we got it done, and we passed it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social Security, make changes to the program so that it would last, keep paying its benefits as promised for 50 years.
That was 1983. I voted for it. Democrats and Republicans all voted for it. To my knowledge, not a single Member of Congress lost reelection over that vote. People said: We had to do it. There was no question about it. It was a tough vote, but it was the right vote.
It was 1983. Fifty years of solvency--where does it take you? To 2033. And what is the situation we were just told? This program that we value so much is going to last until the end of 2032. It worked. Fifty years of changes worked.
Now the question is basically this: Can we respond with the same bipartisan effort to buy 50 years more of solvency in Social Security? I think we can. Social Security unable to make its payments in 2032 is an alarm bell. It is a call to action for Congress, both political parties--not just Democrats but Republicans as well.
Social Security is the bedrock promise of secure retirement and has been for over 90 years in America. Americans pay into the system throughout their careers of hard work, and come the time, that same program was supposed to be there to give them peace of mind when they seek retirement. Well, we know we have 6 short years to achieve that.
What is going to happen at the end of that 6-year period? The Board of advisers tells us Social Security will only be able to pay 78 percent of benefits.
Translate that, Durbin. Put it in English.
That means the average senior citizen faces monthly--monthly--benefit cuts of $450--$450 a month cut from Social Security. For some, that is quite an inconvenience. For others, that is quite a disaster. It would force many seniors to choose between purchasing groceries, paying their utility bills, or filling their prescriptions. Honest to goodness, it is that basic.
Seventy million Americans, including seniors and people with disabilities, rely on Social Security to afford the basics in life: food, medication, housing, utilities, and so many other things.
In my home State of Illinois, more than 2 million people receive Social Security. Twenty percent of Illinois seniors rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income. That is it, that Social Security check.
If Congress sits on its hands and does nothing to respond to this crisis, millions of Americans will be expected to make ends meet with fewer and fewer dollars each month.
The fact of the matter is that Congress has known about this issue of insolvency for quite some time, but year after year, Congress has avoided confronting the question, instead kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to show the courage to step up and save the program. That is unacceptable. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our reputation. We know that the longer we wait, the more drastic the policy changes become. We owe it to every American to save Social Security.
Today, I am doing something that is rarely done in the Senate: introducing a bill sponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators--four Democrats, four Republicans. Our goal is to protect and strengthen Social Security. Our bill is called the PROMISE Act. It seeks to create a fair, bipartisan process to ensure Congress finally debates and votes on the future of Social Security.
Under our proposal, the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board would collect public input and send a proposal to Congress that would keep the trust fund for Social Security solvent for 50 years at least. That would kick-start a process in both the House and the Senate to do something we rarely, rarely do around here. It is called legislating--writing a law, passing a law. Under our bill, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings, offer amendments, debate competing proposals, and ultimately vote on them.
You say at this point: OK, Senator Durbin. What is this plan to save Social Security?
That is the beauty of this proposal. We create an opportunity for alternative plans to be offered, and the one with the most votes--as long as it gets 60 votes in the Senate--the one with the most votes will prevail and will be the work product of the Senate on Social Security.
Our legislation does not lower the 60-vote threshold of the Senate, nor does it predetermine any specific outcome.
It may not work. We may not be able to put together any bill that gets 60 votes. But goodness gracious, we were sent here to try, weren't we? It simply guarantees that the American people, through their elected representatives, are finally going to have an open, transparent debate.
I have gone to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle and said: What we want to do is give you your day in court, give you your day in the Senate. You bring your best idea and the Parliamentarian looks at it and says there is proof here that this has at least 50 years of solvency for Social Security, you can offer this amendment, Senator. Give it your best.
Members would be able to offer substitute proposals provided that it is at least 50 years of Social Security solvency.
Let me say it another way. Every Member with a serious proposal for the most important social program in America would have the opportunity to bring their idea to the table, to the floor, and get a vote. That is so rare around here. It restores the Senate to debating, amending, and voting under regular order--compared to what we see today.
Many of my colleagues have been working on proposals for a number of years. Many are broadly popular. I will note that the senior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a Democrat, recently shared their idea to shore up the program, a bipartisan plan. They may offer an amendment to do just that.
Congress has no shortage of ideas; we simply have a lack of will on both the left and the right. Many stakeholders would rather wait for that perfect political moment. Well, that is a mistake. I worry that moment will never come, and Americans will suffer because of that calculation.
The PROMISE Act finally creates a pathway for those ideas to receive the consideration they deserve.
Americans sent us to Congress not to observe the problems but to solve the problems, and that is what I am trying to do with the PROMISE Act.
There is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than preserving Social Security. No excuses--we can do it this year.
So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to set up the process, the procedure, to bring it to the floor and have alternative substitutes for Social Security's future offered for consideration, for debate, and for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally kick-start the process of tackling this important issue.
We will be working to pass this measure before we depart for the August recess. Is it a long shot? Maybe it is. But I think, when we understand the gravity of the challenge and the important responsibility we shoulder when we accepted this position as Senators, we will understand that we have to rise to that challenge. The eight of us--four Democrats, four Republicans--are willing to step up and say: Let's move forward. Let's not be afraid to legislate. Let's do it for the good of Social Security and the millions and millions of Americans who count on it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I would like to speak on a separate topic.
In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt decided to try something. The idea was to create a pension plan for every American. Why? Because many people, despite working hard their whole lives, doing their best to save money, ended up almost penniless when they retired, when they were forced to quit working.
Those were the days when Grandma and Grandpa moved into the spare bedroom in your house. If that didn't happen to you, ask your father or even grandfather--they will remember those times.
So Franklin Roosevelt said: Let's create a pension system so that after you retire, there will be some money coming in. You pay into it all your working life. When you reach the age of retirement, you get a benefit from it.
They called it Social Security. It was passed into law in 1935. It made its first payment 5 years later in 1940.
I think it has become arguably the most important social program in America. Certainly, more Americans have participated in Social Security than almost every other program. And they should. They earned it. They worked for it. They were promised. The promise should be kept.
How is Social Security doing? Well, that is why I am standing here before you today. Last month, the Social Security Board of Trustees released an alarming report about the status of Social Security's finances. That Board found that Social Security will be unable to make full payments to eligible Americans by 2032. That is not that far away--6 years. This is alarming, and it is a call to arms to Congress.
I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Scared to death that I was going to be a one-term Congressman, I was looking over my shoulder every 5 minutes to see what was going to knock me out of my perch there.
Well, they came in and said: There is news for you, new Congressman. Social Security is about to go broke.
The year was 1983, and we could see in the short term, Social Security unable to make its benefit payments. That would have been a disaster in 1983. We rose to the occasion. We had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. We had a Democratic House of Representatives with Tip O'Neill. We set out to write a change in Social Security that would save it so it could keep making payments. Well, it took a long time, it took several months, but we got it done, and we passed it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social Security, make changes to the program so that it would last, keep paying its benefits as promised for 50 years.
That was 1983. I voted for it. Democrats and Republicans all voted for it. To my knowledge, not a single Member of Congress lost reelection over that vote. People said: We had to do it. There was no question about it. It was a tough vote, but it was the right vote.
It was 1983. Fifty years of solvency--where does it take you? To 2033. And what is the situation we were just told? This program that we value so much is going to last until the end of 2032. It worked. Fifty years of changes worked.
Now the question is basically this: Can we respond with the same bipartisan effort to buy 50 years more of solvency in Social Security? I think we can. Social Security unable to make its payments in 2032 is an alarm bell. It is a call to action for Congress, both political parties--not just Democrats but Republicans as well.
Social Security is the bedrock promise of secure retirement and has been for over 90 years in America. Americans pay into the system throughout their careers of hard work, and come the time, that same program was supposed to be there to give them peace of mind when they seek retirement. Well, we know we have 6 short years to achieve that.
What is going to happen at the end of that 6-year period? The Board of advisers tells us Social Security will only be able to pay 78 percent of benefits.
Translate that, Durbin. Put it in English.
That means the average senior citizen faces monthly--monthly--benefit cuts of $450--$450 a month cut from Social Security. For some, that is quite an inconvenience. For others, that is quite a disaster. It would force many seniors to choose between purchasing groceries, paying their utility bills, or filling their prescriptions. Honest to goodness, it is that basic.
Seventy million Americans, including seniors and people with disabilities, rely on Social Security to afford the basics in life: food, medication, housing, utilities, and so many other things.
In my home State of Illinois, more than 2 million people receive Social Security. Twenty percent of Illinois seniors rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income. That is it, that Social Security check.
If Congress sits on its hands and does nothing to respond to this crisis, millions of Americans will be expected to make ends meet with fewer and fewer dollars each month.
The fact of the matter is that Congress has known about this issue of insolvency for quite some time, but year after year, Congress has avoided confronting the question, instead kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to show the courage to step up and save the program. That is unacceptable. We owe it to our seniors. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our reputation. We know that the longer we wait, the more drastic the policy changes become. We owe it to every American to save Social Security.
Today, I am doing something that is rarely done in the Senate: introducing a bill sponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators--four Democrats, four Republicans. Our goal is to protect and strengthen Social Security. Our bill is called the PROMISE Act. It seeks to create a fair, bipartisan process to ensure Congress finally debates and votes on the future of Social Security.
Under our proposal, the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board would collect public input and send a proposal to Congress that would keep the trust fund for Social Security solvent for 50 years at least. That would kick-start a process in both the House and the Senate to do something we rarely, rarely do around here. It is called legislating--writing a law, passing a law. Under our bill, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings, offer amendments, debate competing proposals, and ultimately vote on them.
You say at this point: OK, Senator Durbin. What is this plan to save Social Security?
That is the beauty of this proposal. We create an opportunity for alternative plans to be offered, and the one with the most votes--as long as it gets 60 votes in the Senate--the one with the most votes will prevail and will be the work product of the Senate on Social Security.
Our legislation does not lower the 60-vote threshold of the Senate, nor does it predetermine any specific outcome.
It may not work. We may not be able to put together any bill that gets 60 votes. But goodness gracious, we were sent here to try, weren't we? It simply guarantees that the American people, through their elected representatives, are finally going to have an open, transparent debate.
I have gone to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle and said: What we want to do is give you your day in court, give you your day in the Senate. You bring your best idea and the Parliamentarian looks at it and says there is proof here that this has at least 50 years of solvency for Social Security, you can offer this amendment, Senator. Give it your best.
Members would be able to offer substitute proposals provided that it is at least 50 years of Social Security solvency.
Let me say it another way. Every Member with a serious proposal for the most important social program in America would have the opportunity to bring their idea to the table, to the floor, and get a vote. That is so rare around here. It restores the Senate to debating, amending, and voting under regular order--compared to what we see today.
Many of my colleagues have been working on proposals for a number of years. Many are broadly popular. I will note that the senior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, a Democrat, recently shared their idea to shore up the program, a bipartisan plan. They may offer an amendment to do just that.
Congress has no shortage of ideas; we simply have a lack of will on both the left and the right. Many stakeholders would rather wait for that perfect political moment. Well, that is a mistake. I worry that moment will never come, and Americans will suffer because of that calculation.
The PROMISE Act finally creates a pathway for those ideas to receive the consideration they deserve.
Americans sent us to Congress not to observe the problems but to solve the problems, and that is what I am trying to do with the PROMISE Act.
There is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than preserving Social Security. No excuses--we can do it this year.
So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to set up the process, the procedure, to bring it to the floor and have alternative substitutes for Social Security's future offered for consideration, for debate, and for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and finally kick-start the process of tackling this important issue.
We will be working to pass this measure before we depart for the August recess. Is it a long shot? Maybe it is. But I think, when we understand the gravity of the challenge and the important responsibility we shoulder when we accepted this position as Senators, we will understand that we have to rise to that challenge. The eight of us--four Democrats, four Republicans--are willing to step up and say: Let's move forward. Let's not be afraid to legislate. Let's do it for the good of Social Security and the millions and millions of Americans who count on it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I have five 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 Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I have five 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 Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following interns in my office to be granted floor privileges until July 15, 2026: Mason Lam and Harper Alspach.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, pursuant to Public Law 96-114, as amended, appoints the following individual to the Congressional Award Board: Matt Zabel of Minnesota.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2120 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
I ask unanimous 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2120) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING THE AGING NETWORK TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OLDER
TITLE VII--STRENGTHENING THE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAMS AND
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING THE AGING NETWORK TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OLDER
TITLE VII--STRENGTHENING THE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAMS AND
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 798.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and 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. 798) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of June 24, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 742.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 742) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of May 20, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, 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. 803) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Kuntz nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion ripen at 12 noon on the Kuntz nomination; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be expired at 2 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at that time; finally, that if the nomination is confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Booker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I think there are profound moments in the course of our 250 years when our Nation was at an inflection point, and I believe this is one of those inflection points where, as we look at the events in our Nation, we don't just ask the question ``What is happening?'' we have to ask the question ``Who are we becoming?''
There are moments where this question of ``Who are we as a nation?'' has to come with the understanding that every generation of Americans has to define themselves. This is a question right now, with the events of recent days, where we must ask that question--who are we as a nation? What do we stand for?
This is a question that is larger than politics, larger than left or right, larger than immigration policy, larger than any one party. It is a question that really asks about the immense power that we entrust to our government and is that still constrained. Do we still live under a Constitution where, by our very definition as a nation, we should have accountability and transparency; that when we do things like pledge allegiance to a flag, it is not simply the banner, but it is also the values, this idea that every single life has worth.
Think about these conceptions of humanity that we put forth 250 years ago--that we are all created equal. I believe this is an inflection point in our Nation that should not be normalized but should really force us to ask this question as American citizens and ask this question as Members of this body.
Every life--every life--was created equally, has equal dignity, equal worth. And when government, our government, takes a life, there must be accountability; that is something precious in this Nation, the value of life and the responsibility of those who wield power.
It is not just confidence in government that I am talking about. It is not just faith in how our laws are enforced. It really is the very idea of our Nation. That is how I want to set my remarks here because this is an inflection point in America.
We are a nation that stands for something. Our Nation was founded on the belief that all are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But today, I am rising because of my growing concern that we are not living up to those ideals, and the consequences of that are that we are normalizing something so utterly tragic.
Two more people have fallen in our Nation. Two more families are grieving in our Nation. And I refuse to believe that this is simply the cost of doing business in the United States of America.
Last Tuesday morning, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo climbed into his work van like millions of Americans do all over our country every single workday. He wasn't headed to a protest or a political rally. He wasn't headed into conflict. He was headed to work. He was 52 years old. He was a husband, a father of American children, a man who spent decades in this country building a life, supporting his family, contributing to his community, paying taxes.
On his way to work, Federal agents in unmarked vehicles began following his van. Moments later, an officer fired through the passenger side window, and Lorenzo stumbled from that vehicle. Agents forced him to the ground, and he died right there on the pavement.
Yesterday morning, it happened again. Joan Sebastian Guerrero. He was 26 years old and also a father. He was authorized to work in our country, has a Social Security number. On his way to work, another shooting. Another grieving family. Another life, precious life, gone.
I stand here today because I am deeply worried about something so fundamental to our country that is now in crisis. I worry that we are becoming accustomed to things that should horrify us, that we are becoming so exhausted, so polarized, so overwhelmed that another death just becomes another headline, another investigation, another news cycle, another family left to grieve.
The greatest danger to democracy is not simply injustice; it is when injustice no longer shocks us, no longer moves us, no longer compels us to meet that injustice. It is a poverty--a poverty of empathy, a poverty of concern. It is a tragedy that in the midst of tragedy, our hearts stop breaking, when outrage gives way to indifference, because indifference is where accountability goes to die.
And this is not the first time. Earlier this year, Renee Good was killed, and Alex Pretti was killed. American citizens. Families forever changed. Lives forever interrupted. And what happened? Investigations were literally shut down by our Justice Department. Think about that. The highest law enforcement officers in the land shut down an investigation into those murders. Those investigations were not completed. They did not follow where the evidence led. They were simply stopped, halted. Justice denied.
Every police officer--and I have worked closely with many of them-- every police officer knows that when deadly force is used, there must be scrutiny, not because we assume any guilt but because accountability protects everyone in our democracy.
It protects the public; it protects the officers; it protects the confidence in the very idea of the rule of law upon which our country and our Constitution is built.
No badge and no police officer I know fear transparency. So many of the honorable officers that I dealt with every day as a mayor, they want the truth. In fact, those incredible officers demand it because accountability is not the enemy of law enforcement. It is what gives law enforcement its strength and its true moral authority. It is what gives the laws of this land and those who conduct them their very legitimacy. To not investigate, scrutinize, have transparency and accountability when tragedy strikes, erodes the very foundation of our democracy. Amidst the tragedy of those depths, we see our very constitutional principles at stake, and this is where Congress has an obligation.
Right now, we are seeing with ICE in America, this Congress appropriated billions upon billions of dollars, handing this Agency unprecedented sums of taxpayer money but also in that process allowing oversight to be stripped away, less accountability.
Think about this: We have appropriated to this one law enforcement Agency over $200 billion, more than the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, the Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, Secret Service, TSA, and the Coast Guard combined. ICE in America has a bigger budget than those eight law enforcement organizations, billions upon billions of dollars, over $200 billion.
And yet what do we get? Greater accountability? Greater oversight? No. We get lowering of hiring standards. We get reduced oversight. We get internal watchdogs removed or weakened. We get body cameras still absent, as we saw in these last two murders, as if we can't afford them.
More money, more power, less accountability, less scrutiny, less oversight--this is not conservative government. The fiscal conservatives on both sides understand that you don't shovel money toward an organization, outstripping most law enforcement Agencies in the entire United States of America, whether those that are investigating drug trafficking or insurance fraud or illegal arms smuggling. No, $200 billion--the most spent for ICE--and you get less accountability for those taxpayer dollars and then when tragedy strikes, less accountability for actions of horror.
This is dangerous, not just to families that are being pulled over and detained and thrown onto pavement. It is not just dangerous to the horrible deaths of the names that I have mentioned. But it is dangerous to our democracy.
But perhaps those who have passed under these circumstances, we should listen to them. Perhaps we should listen to their last words.
Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, his last words:
Joan Sebastian Guerrero, his last words:
Nicole Renee Good, her last words:
Alex Pretti, perhaps words that should penetrate us now, his last words:
Now, I thought about those words:
``Are you OK?''
And that is the question. Are we OK? Are we OK? Are we OK when fathers are killed on their way to work? Are we OK when systems of oversight have virtually disappeared? Are we OK when we entrust the extraordinary power, when we entrust that power and yet the people in power face less accountability to the people that put them in power?
Are we, as a nation, becoming so numb that the death of law-abiding people by agents does not motivate us to ask: Why is this happening in America, under what justification? Are we shrinking from our duty as Americans to value every life and understand that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere?
I don't think we are becoming numb, but I worry that the Senate is consciously looking away; that we are not doing our sworn constitutional duty. Our Founders, in their genius, decided to set up a government with checks and balances.
What happens to that government when the article I branch of the government here in the Senate does not ask questions like Alex Pretti did, does not look for answers like people are demanding, does not ask for oversight, not just over the $200 billion being spent but doesn't ask for oversight when the most horrific imaginable thing can happen, when law-abiding people are killed? Are we not asking for answers?
This Senate swore an oath to the Constitution. We have an obligation to provide checks and balances, to conduct oversight, to demand transparency, to hold the executive branch accountable when power is abused. Today, we are failing in our constitutional duty. Today, we are failing our democracy. Today, we are failing families that are mourning and grieving.
Look, this is not an immigration speech. It is not a speech about whether we support strong borders. I do, unequivocally and firmly. America must have secure borders. It must enforce its immigration laws. America must protect all of its communities from any threats.
The first words of our founding document talked about forming a government of common defense and the safety and security of our communities. But we can never ever abandon the fundamental precept that this is a democracy, and therefore we must have accountability.
We are not an autocracy. We are not an authoritarian government. We are not a monarchy where we have Kings and Queens above question, above accountability, and above the law.
We are a democracy, and the very mission of this body is to hold the Executive accountable when they are taking Executive action, especially when they are using the greatest power that could be entrusted into a government that is to take lives, to kill people. To minimize that, to watch people die in our streets without accountability or transparency is a direct assault on the foundational ideals of who we are as a people.
``Are we OK,'' he asks. Are we OK? This is the revolutionary idea of America. No person, not a President, not Senators, not judges, no person is above the law--not a Federal agent in an unmarked car and undistinguished uniform with a gun in their hands firing through a window and killing someone.
Power without accountability is not strength. It is the beginning of tyranny. Every government is asked whether it will preserve the principles it inherited. This is our moment. This is why the Constitution envisioned this body. And yet we are failing in that duty to provide oversight, accountability, checks and balances.
And the consequence is the repeated tragedy within this Agency of seeing people killed on our streets. We owe these families, we owe our democracy an independent investigation. I demand that from my colleagues. I call upon an independent investigation, and I should be joined by a chorus of my colleagues with the conviction that this is not right or left. This is why we were elected in the first place and why we put our hands on our Bible and swore an oath to that Constitution.
I am anguished. I am angry. This is an inflection point in our democracy, another one that seems to be coming with increasing speed and rapidity. We make this presumption that this Nation sits upon a bedrock that will never crumble.
Well, I am telling you, I am not afraid of any nation outside of our own. What I am afraid of is the corrosive, cancerous corruption of a nation who swears an oath to ideals but does not fulfill them in their duty.
I don't know what to say when we have another dead person, when we are seeing people in our streets, law-abiding, loving their families, and they are asking those questions: Who are we in this Nation?
I pray that this Senate changes course, and instead of silence they answer with a commanding conviction that we are the United States of America. We are a nation of laws; that no one, be they the President, be they a Senator, be they an officer in the street, no one is above the law.
Mr. President, I don't have written remarks for this, but I have been stunned that we here in this Nation are at war. We are unequivocally at war.
And I did write down what I have heard from leaders. Let me quote, on March 9, the President of the United States said:
On April 7, the Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, our former colleague here in the Senate, said:
On April 8, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary, said we had ``achieved every single objective on plan, on schedule, exactly as laid out from day one.''
In June, Secretary Rubio came to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, upon which I sit, and testified under oath declaring that ``the war is over.''
Yet that same day, we had kinetic exchanges with Iran. June 18, Donald Trump said the United States had ``defeated'' Iran ``totally militarily'' and that the memorandum of understanding ``probably is unconditional surrender.''
Let's fast-forward to July 14: Missiles and drones are still flying. The war is still raging. The President has achieved none of the goals.
I know what has happened though is that we lifted sanctions on Iran. They got billions of dollars of oil sales done. We have seen the greatest energy crisis in my lifetime upending global oil markets, but more important to me, seeing people's gas prices go up but not only their gas prices, what have we seen? We have seen that everything that touches that fuel source, the transportation of goods and services, has made prices go up for families all across our country.
I have seen the suffering, not just of the American people with higher costs but American military who are being held over and over and over, put in harm's way, hundreds injured, 14 dead, and what have we achieved? The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. The President said that he wanted to deal with the highly enriched material. It is still in country. The President said he wanted regime change. We have a more extreme regime. The President said he was going to get unconditional surrender. They have not unconditionally surrendered. They are firing at our soldiers right now.
Every goal he laid out for a war that he did not come to Congress, as the Constitution says--everything he laid out has not been achieved.
And even the memorandum of understanding that he said was so great had so many holes of Swiss cheese that it fell apart, and here we are back at war.
And what is the President's plan? Can one Senator here say, tell us, what the President of the United States is trying to achieve as we spend billions and billions of dollars a day, a week, in this conflict?
What is he trying to achieve right now? Nobody knows the plan. This is ``deja vu all over again,'' as the great New Jerseyan, Yogi Berra said. This is yet another quagmire in the Middle East with no plan, with no strategy, with no clear objectives, with Americans putting their lives on the line.
And what are we doing here in this body? Nothing. We are going on this week as if this is business as usual. A bunch of us are trying to force more oversight votes or--excuse me--war powers votes.
But this body is doing nothing as a President is spending billions of taxpayer dollars, upending our national economy, putting lives at risk in a war that has achieved nothing but made things worse with the Strait of Hormuz closed.
And what are we doing, Congress? Nothing to check a President that is clearly out of control, who is clearly out of his depth, who is clearly not the great dealmaker because he failed in making deals with Iran before this deal and--even though he claimed to have one--it clearly fell apart.
We have war powers. The Constitution is clear. Yet, you are letting him for month after month after month--since February--conduct a war that is depleting our military reserves, coming at a great cost and sacrifice to military members and their families, and every American is paying the price for it in their everyday costs.
This is outrageous. This is unacceptable. And this body is trying to normalize this: Oh, just another day in America. Well, no, we are at war right now, and we have an obligation to either stand up and vote in favor of that war or stop it.
This is one of the most unimaginable, dystopic realities we are in right now, where the very body that has the power to declare war is not doing anything and letting this President continue to get us into a quagmire. And now he can't even tell us why we are in it, what he is trying to achieve. He is desperately scrambling to get the Strait
This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, if it wasn't costing so many lives, if it wasn't costing so much of our taxpayers moneys, and if so many Americans weren't hurting as a result of it. Come on, now.
How could we be complicit in this unjust war that has no clear objectives and that nobody could articulate a strategy to achieve any objective or get us out, conducted by a President who has lost all authority as our Commander in Chief because of his blunder and mistake and lack of strategy and lack of forethought?
And the very body that was put in place to provide checks and balances, to provide oversight, to hold on jealously, as our Founders said, to the powers assigned to this body, we are doing nothing but surrendering.
And I am not going to surrender on this. I am not going to let this be normalized. This is wrong, what we are doing. This is wrong in every way you look at it. It is a folly. It is a disaster. It is a failure.
And all we need is the majority of this body to say enough, that we are going to hold hearings, that we are going to do investigations, that we are going to bring the leadership of the executive branch here to sit before the American public and explain these months--this 6 months of this war--what it has truly cost us, what we have lost, and how we are going to exit. It just makes sense, but I am seeing none of that.
I am going to yield the floor, but I am going to, again, ask this body to do its job, to create a democracy people can rely on, to end the suffering of the American people, to stop this heinous cost of a war with no strategy, no clear objectives, no reason, that is unconstitutional.
