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.
24Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
1 member spoke
25Senate Resolution 811: Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding the Adverse Impacts on the United States of the Recent Canadian Wildfires and the Importance of the Government of Canada to Take...
Thirty-three bills and one resolution were introduced, as follows: S. 5062-5094, and S. Res. 811.
Pages S4230-31
Message from the President
Senate received the following message from the President of the United States: Transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the continuation of the national emergency that was originally declared in Executive Order 13882 of July 26, 2019, with respect to the situation in Mali; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (PM-65)
Page S4227
Clayton Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Walter Clayton, of New York, to be Director of National Intelligence.
Pages S4204-08
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 Friday, July 24, 2026.
Page S4204
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 S4204
Pozos Nomination
Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Antonio M. Pozos, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Pages S4213-22
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 54 yeas to 44 nays (Vote No. EX 205), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4213
Traynor Nomination: Agreement
Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.
Pages S4222-24
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. EX 206), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4222
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, the post-cloture time with respect to the nomination be expired and Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination immediately following disposition of the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress, or at 12 noon, on Thursday, July 23, 2026, if no motion is made; that it be in order for Senator Van Hollen, or his designee, to make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180, from the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Page S4234
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that if Senator Van Hollen, or his designee, makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate vote on the motion to discharge at 11:30 a.m., on Thursday, July 23, 2026; that at 1:45 p.m., Senate execute the order of Tuesday, July 21, 2026, with respect to the nomination of Antonio M. Pozos, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Page S4234
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: By 49 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. EX. 202), Benjamin M. Flowers, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
Pages S4208, S4239
By 62 yeas to 36 nays (Vote No. EX. 204), Michael C. Martin, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Pages S4208-13, S4239
During consideration of this nomination today, Senate also took the following action
By 60 yeas to 35 nays (Vote No. EX. 203), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the nomination.
Page S4208
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Page S4233
Record Votes
Five record votes were taken today. (Total--206)
Pages S4208, S4213, S4222
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:49 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 23, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4234.)
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: 61 of 146 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. President, once again, I am here to educate my colleagues about the necessity for passing the ethanol issue of E15 in this Congress.
As Iowa families are going on their summer vacations and people visit or pass through my home State, we are seeing the evidence in Iowa that drivers are demanding E15 with their pocketbooks.
New data from the Iowa Department of Revenue shows Iowa drivers purchased 47 million gallons of E15 in May. This is a new monthly record. That puts E15 on track to be about 50 percent of all gasoline sales in Iowa in 2026, up from 27 percent last year.
Drivers know that E15 delivers lower costs for families, saving them up to 40 cents per gallon. This can be hundreds of dollars per year, giving working families more money for groceries, housing, and necessities.
When Iowans are allowed to make choices at the pump, more are choosing E15. The growth of E15 in Iowa shows that American consumers want this chance to save money. This is another reason why the Senate must pass year-round E15, putting $14 billion more in the pockets of farmers with the increased price of corn.
Mr. President, on a second matter, I want to talk about Caitlin Clark, a native of West Des Moines, IA. Caitlin Clark played basketball at the University of Iowa. She changed women's college basketball but also inspired athletes of all ages across all sports. She plays professionally for the Indiana Fever.
Since joining the professional ranks 3 years ago, Caitlin has been the subject of very unfair treatment on the basketball court, and the referees are not doing their job.
Recently, she got a fist to her throat by a player. Yet, the refs at the time did not call a foul. I am glad that the WNBA corrected this matter a few days later by charging a foul and suspending the player, but the unfair treatment of Caitlin and others in the WNBA has got to stop.
Officials are human, but we have seen time after time where Caitlin has suffered physically--beyond what you would expect in competitive professional sports--with little accountability from the people that run the WNBA or from the referees.
So I hope for Caitlin--and for the growth of women's basketball-- things improve quickly in the WNBA. Caitlin is a generational talent. Her hard work and dedication should be rewarded, not penalized.
She has revolutionized WNBA. Attendance has shot up since she has been with the Indiana Fever, and income has shot up for the league and their teams. Salaries for players went from five figures to six figures, all because of her playing. So every player of all teams are better off. They should be thanking Caitlin as opposed to mistreating her on the floor.
Someday I would like to meet Caitlin Clark.
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 legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, the Senate is in the middle of a busy work period, and we have a lot to accomplish in the coming weeks and months. We have some great opportunities for bipartisan collaboration: market structure legislation; the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act; the National Defense Authorization Act; FISA.
But at the top of the list right now is funding the government. If there is any responsibility we have as Members of Congress, it is that. And our country cannot afford another shutdown like the two shutdowns we have experienced over the course of this fiscal year. Shutdowns take a toll on our economy, on our national security. They create havoc at airports. And, of course, they take an incredible toll on hard-working Americans inside and outside the government whose paychecks depend on the government being open.
I think a lot of Americans remember pretty clearly what things looked like during the Democrats' two recordbreaking shutdowns this past year: government workers lining up at food banks, charging essentials on credit cards, and taking up any work they could find in hopes of being able to make ends meet; government services reduced; national security Agencies strained.
I don't think any American who traveled will forget the effect those two shutdowns had on air travel: hourslong TSA lines snaking around airport concourses and out airport doors; canceled and delayed flights; a nationwide reduction in air traffic, when our air traffic control system could no longer safely maintain regular flight schedules.
The list goes on.
We cannot--cannot--have this again, and that is why I have asked Appropriations Chair Collins to draft a bipartisan and clean continuing resolution to fund the government until after the November election. I intend for the Senate to vote on that before we head to our States to work during August.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is hard at work reviewing anomalies from OMB to ensure we have a bipartisan product ready to move quickly. No one is served by our waiting until the last minute to take this up.
And after all that our country has been through with the past two shutdowns, the American people deserve to have confidence that the government will be open and running, not to mention the fact that government employees--like our own staffers and the Capitol Police officers standing guard around this building--deserve to know that their paychecks will be coming.
It was not a good year on the government funding front, with two recordbreaking government shutdowns, but we have an opportunity now to chart a new path.
I am encouraged that, so far, my Democrat colleagues have signaled that they do not want to force another government shutdown, and I appreciate Chair Collins' work to engage with Democrats and produce a bipartisan continuing resolution.
No one--no one--is served by a shutdown, not either political party, and most of all not the people that we represent.
So I look forward to bringing up a bipartisan CR in the coming days, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and give the American people the certainty that they deserve.
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, Donald Trump's cavalier disregard for the lives of our servicemembers is beneath contempt and beyond despicable.
In a Truth Social post, yesterday, Trump seemed to brag that 18 servicemembers had been killed in his disastrous Iran war compared to the tens of thousands who died in Vietnam.
Donald, stop treating our servicemembers' lives like they are points on a scoreboard in your twisted game.
Asked about his handling of the Iran war, yesterday, Trump said:
Very impressed? What kind of bubble does he live in?
Every survey shows how much the American people are against this war. Americans are not impressed that Trump has botched this war from the start. Americans are not impressed when they see headlines like the one behind me right here--that the price of gasoline is back over $4 a gallon because of Trump's war. And Americans are certainly not impressed that 18 Americans have been killed and hundreds more wounded and that Trump has tried to cover it up.
Donald Trump may believe that, if he conceals the casualties, Americans will forget the war. But our servicemembers are not numbers to bury. They are human beings with families who have lives. They are the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers who are sent into harm's way without a strategy for bringing them home--and bring them home we must.
This week, Senate Democrats will force another vote on our War Powers Resolution to end this unauthorized war and get our troops out of harm's way. Every Senator will have to make a choice. You cannot claim to support the troops while leaving them trapped in a war with no mission and no end. You cannot call it a victory while the battlefield keeps expanding. And you cannot hide the wounded and call it peace.
Mr. President, the American people deserve to have more money in their own pockets. The Working Families Tax Cut law made that happen. Republicans stopped the largest single tax increase in American history. That is what the Democrats wanted.
Americans already filed their taxes this year, and working families are keeping more of what they earned, and the data proves it.
More than 7\1/2\ million Americans benefited from the no-tax-on-tips policy that we put into place right here on this Senate floor. So today, there are waiters, barbers, bartenders, tour guides--all were able to claim deductions--and it averaged over $7,100 in deductions-- because of no tax on tips. More than 29 million Americans benefited from no tax on overtime. These are firefighters, police officers, and nurses. They are linemen and coal miners in Wyoming. They claimed an average deduction of over $3,000--all as a result of the law the Republicans have passed. Money that once went to bureaucrats in Washington, DC, now stays in the pockets of hard-working Americans, and that is where it belongs.
Had Democrats gotten their way, taxes would have gone up by a lot. Every Democrat in this Chamber voted to continue taxing tip income, overtime income. They just wanted to get a hand on people's money. Every Democrat voted to raise taxes by $4 trillion. Well, because Republicans were in the majority in the Senate and in the House, we were able to stop this Democrat price increase and tax increase.
Now what we see is that extremist Democrats in Governor mansions across the country and State legislatures are trying to undermine the Working Families Tax Cut law, and they are doing it in city halls and in State capitals.
In Washington, DC--right here--the city council tried to force hard- working Americans to pay taxes to the city. They can't force them to pay it to the Federal Government; hey, the city wants the money on tips and on overtime. The city council of Washington, DC, refused to allow the hard-working waiters, bartenders, police officers, and firefighters to keep that hard-earned money. They didn't have to pay it on Federal taxes, but local taxes in DC--the DC city council said: Give it to us. This is the city that is soon going to get a socialist mayor, just like they have in New York City right now.
Right now, in 21 different States, we have far-left Governors refusing to allow the tax cuts that we passed to be passed down to the State level. So Democrats in California, in New York, in Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia continue to take away people's tip money and overtime money so they can spend it locally. That is the States and the cities, not the people, the individuals.
So just like Democrats here in Congress, the leaders in Democrat States around the country want to raise taxes, not cut them. They believe they can spend your money better than you can. They believe they make better decisions than you do. They decide, and you end up as a loser if you are living in one of those liberal States.
Well, we know why Democrats refuse to loosen the grip on your tax dollars. Democrats want to take more money out of your pocket to give free healthcare to illegal immigrants. And that is what we see in so many of these States with sanctuary cities, sanctuary States--free healthcare. And it is not free. People pay for it. It is taxpayers. It is people going to work every day and having their tax dollars taken to pay for healthcare for illegal immigrants. That seems to be part of the manifesto that the extremists in the Democrat Party are trying to slam down the throats of American taxpayers.
We know these extremists are winning Democrat primaries all across the country. Their manifesto includes mass amnesty, open borders, and elimination of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the country. That is what they are demanding, and it is not for the benefit of the American people. That is the agenda of the radical left.
In far-left States, from California to Minnesota, we have seen their policies in action. Working families are overtaxed, and fraud is out of control.
Now Democrats are going to make life less affordable. That is what we see. That is their model. Take it to the
Here is what Republicans are doing: We are protecting taxpayers. We are putting more money back in their pockets so they can decide how to spend it, how to save it, and what to invest in. We are fighting the fraud. And that is what I hear about so much in Wyoming--the fraud in Democrat States that Democrats ignore, that Democrats enable. It is awful fraud. You look at it and say: How can this continue?
Just this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that we stopped nearly $100 million in taxpayer money from going to dead people--going to dead people.
Just yesterday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services stopped more than $1 billion in Medicaid funding from going to California and Minnesota. Why? Because of fraud and failure to comply with the regulations to make sure that the money is actually not wasted, that the money is spent as it is supposed to be--taking care of people who need those services, and there are people who need those services. Every time a fraudster takes $1 or $100 or $1,000 or $1 million, that is services that don't go to people that need them, desperately need them.
Here in the Senate, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa is a leader in the war on fraud. When it comes to exposing that fraud, Senator Ernst is both a watchdog and an attack dog. She has proposed a comprehensive anti-fraud piece of legislation. Her bill cracks down on fraud. It claws back stolen money. It prosecutes the crooks and the criminals and the scammers who prey upon the taxpayers. I support what Senator Ernst is doing. I am a cosponsor. Her anti-fraud legislation would save taxpayers $240 billion. That is what kind of fraud is out there.
Senator Schumer recently said on this very floor that Democrats want to fight corruption. It is time for Democrats to prove it.
Republicans are cutting taxes. We are stopping fraud. Democrats, on the other hand, are voting to raise taxes and, up until now, have been protecting the fraud.
Mr. President, I would like to react to the statement of my friend and colleague from Wyoming. I am against fraud. That is it. On the record: I am against fraud. I am a Democrat, and I don't know where he reached this different conclusion, but I want to make it very clear.
Having said that, I am also a realist. I know that the families I represent in Illinois and across the Nation are facing budgets, family budgets, which are impossible to live with. They are not only struggling paycheck to paycheck, they are also watching the price of groceries go up. They know the price of gasoline goes up and down, and now it is on the upward trend because of the President's war in Iran. Utility bills in my State are up 15 percent this year over last year because of President Trump's energy policy, which is opposed to sustainable, renewable sources of energy, which are the most affordable. The list goes on and on.
The Big Beautiful Bill, which Republicans brag about, was a bill that ended up with millions of Americans losing their health insurance because the cost of premiums had gone up too high.
So I think it is just great that we have tipped income exempt from taxes and that other breaks are given to working people. I would support those any day. But the bill that created those also gave the biggest tax cuts in the history of the United States to the wealthiest people in the United States--nothing, very little, for families in comparison. That is the difference.
I think we ought to be honest with the American people. The No. 1 issue in this campaign is the affordability that families worry about every single week. There is an issue I am going to address here more particularly, which gets to the heart of this as well.
Mr. President, I come to the floor once again, as I have before, to discuss misleading reporting in the New York Times.
The New York Times has a global reputation. They work hard to maintain that. So I don't understand why their journalists can miss so many important facts. This time the misleading article was written by Devlin Barrett and a second one was written by Charlie Savage.
Barrett's article discusses the White House's release of government records about an alleged scheme by China to meddle in the 2020 election. The records at issue showed that FBI personnel suppressed intelligence of that alleged Chinese interference.
Barrett's article said, in part:
That is not what I said when I made those records public. That is what the FBI said 6 years ago.
The Albany memo, as the New York Times called it, is actually an FBI memo. It contained information from an FBI Confidential Human Source and was titled by the FBI. The titles by the FBI:
End of the FBI title.
Let me emphasize what I said. The memo was an FBI memo based on an FBI Confidential Human Source. It was not a Chuck Grassley-created memo.
The FBI analyst involved said the FBI memo ``was coordinated and disseminated in textbook fashion.''
But based on the records the FBI provided to me, the allegations weren't fully investigated at the time because the FBI decided to recall its own memo.
The FBI also described the FBI's sources as competent and authentic with reporting. So let the FBI do their job and investigate.
An FBI analyst said in an email--and when I quote this email, the words ``me'' and ``I'' refer to the FBI analyst.
This FBI analyst raises legitimate concerns. Is the New York Times digging into those concerns? In other words, is the New York Times journalist doing what journalists should be doing? They ought to be good investigators, get all the facts.
And guess who was involved in recalling the FBI memo: That person was then-Deputy Assistant Director Nikki Floris. She was also the main briefer for the fake briefing Senator Johnson and I received in August of 2020 from the now-disbanded Foreign Influence Task Force. You will remember, that was the briefing that was used to attack the Grassley- Johnson Biden family investigation.
So I ask, Is the New York Times investigating that material connection?
By the way, my and Senator Johnson's investigation was based on authentic bank records, authentic Treasury records, authentic Obama administration records, and transcribed interviews. In other words, it was not Russian disinformation, as the partisan media tried and failed to argue.
Here, with this FBI memo, I released records last year because the facts and evidence ought to breathe. Let the American people see what is happening on their watch.
I also issued the records as support to those FBI agents and analysts who were just trying to do their job under extreme pressure from inside the FBI.
I don't know why people in the FBI care if the truth gets out, but a lot of people at the FBI get pressured not to let the truth out. And I want you to know that I will continue to make records public because that is what the taxpayers need and deserve and expect.
As I said last July about this same FBI memo:
End of this Senator's quote from last July. That is a quote, by the way, that the New York Times failed to mention.
Now, turning to the Savage article from the New York Times, Charlie Savage wrote in part:
Referring to Chuck Grassley--
The New York Times seems to be very obsessed with how I have obtained government records, maybe because they haven't been able to or maybe they haven't even tried to get these records. For too many years, the executive branch, under both Republicans
Now, I am still not fully satisfied. There are many more records that ought to be public. For many years, whistleblowers have been hard at work to expose those and many other records. As difficult as it may be for the partisan media to understand this, I have made public thousands of pages of records to this Congress pursuant to lawful whistleblower disclosures. True whistleblowers stick their neck out just for telling the truth, and they do it no matter the risk to them. And a lot of these whistleblowers ruin themselves professionally by just doing what the law requires. So when I do get records, I owe it to the whistleblowers to make those records public. That is called congressional oversight, and it is my constitutional responsibility to get the job of congressional oversight done as the Constitution requires.
This Senator's work will continue. I encourage the Trump administration to continue making records public for transparency, and hopefully the New York Times will get future stories right.
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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 46, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The 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 nomination of Michael C. Martin, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, shall be brought to a close?
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Mr. President, Trump's corruption has no ceiling, and it apparently doesn't have an altitude limit either. Trump's $400 million luxury jet is the single biggest bribe an American President has ever accepted from another country in all of American history--the single biggest bribe in all of American history. And make no mistake about it, Trump's so-called palace in the sky is a boondoggle at 40,000 feet.
If you thought this illegal gift was bad before, it is even worse now. We just learned that this new jet wasn't safe enough for Trump to make the return flight from the NATO summit in Turkiye, a country that borders on Iran. It doesn't have the countermeasures for heat-seeking missiles and the other security equipment that it needs to keep the President safe.
The rest of the Air Force One fleet had all these security features, but Trump left them in the hangar back at home.
So I call on Senate Republicans to pass my Presidential Airlift Security Act so Americans don't have to pay to upgrade Trump's luxury jet when he already has access to a fleet of U.S. planes that are far safer and far less expensive to maintain.
The luxury jet may have come wrapped in a bow for Donald Trump, but it came with a massive price tag for the American people. Trump is asking taxpayers to fork over an estimated $1 billion to retrofit and max out his flying palace so it can meet the security standards of the existing Air Force One fleet that, of course, we already paid for.
Americans can't afford gas, can't afford groceries, can't afford the electric bill, but Trump thinks they can afford to fly him in style.
Trump's luxury jet also poses a great risk to our national security. All the experts agree: no matter how many modifications are made or how much is spent or how intensely it is retrofitted, there will never be 100 percent confidence that the plane is secure. This is not a gamble anyone should be willing to take.
I introduced this legislation last year, but every single Republican Senator voted against the bill. Now, with this new information, hopefully they will see the light, what a boondoggle this is.
Why do they back up Trump on every one of his boondoggles that is as plain as can be for Americans to see is a gross waste of taxpayer dollars and gross corruption?
Why don't they ever stop him?
Whether it is the slush fund, the ballroom, the family tax exemption deal, or this Air Force One nonsense, we see a new grift coming out of this administration every day.
Where are the Republicans?
Senate Republicans need to stop letting Trump off the hook for fleecing the American people.
And so, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1804; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to say a few words about Senator Schumer's legislation on the Presidential airlift.
This has been discussed before, and it was voted down earlier this year as part of a vote-arama that we participated in.
Senator Schumer's legislation would prevent any funding to be used to modify a foreign aircraft for Presidential airlift. We made this point during the vote-arama. The Senator is trying to make a political point today, of course, about the VC-25 Bridge aircraft, which was made in America and then owned by Qatar.
Unfortunately, this legislation would also apply to a different aircraft, the Survivable Airborne Operations Center aircraft, or SAOC. Those aircraft were actually purchased from Korean Air. So this legislation would hamper a crucial program that ensures Presidential safety in the event of a nuclear war.
Thus, Senator Schumer's bill would significantly harm our U.S. nuclear deterrents. To be clear, the SAOC is the cornerstone of our NC3 modernization. This is the plane that will command and control our nuclear weapons on America's worst day.
We cannot play these political games with the NC3. So with that, I object.
Mr. President, Lindsey Graham, a friend, a colleague, and a tireless national security advocate. He was a true leader in strengthening our military and our country's defense, and I miss him dearly. I am so pleased that his sister Darline now serves here in this institution. She is carrying on his legacy and honoring his commitment to the people of South Carolina and to this country.
So I rise here today to, yes, pay tribute to Lindsey Graham, but to also call on my colleagues to help us carry on one of his greatest efforts: ending Putin's barbaric and unjust war against sovereign Ukraine.
For more than 4 years, the Ukrainian people have shown extraordinary resilience and resolve. They have defended their homeland with courage that has inspired the world.
In 2022, Putin thought he could seize eastern Ukraine in days. He thought he
But he is neither strong nor powerful; he is a war criminal.
Putin has made clear his intentions to push beyond Ukraine and into NATO territory. Russian drones have encroached on Polish, Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, and Romanian airspace. These were deliberate--deliberate--provocations to test NATO's resolve.
Putin seeks to push deeper into Europe to see just how far he can go before we push back. That is why the United States and our allies must raise the stakes through tougher sanctions and a stronger United States' deterrence posture along NATO's eastern flank.
I commend the Polish and Dutch, German, and the Italian Armed Forces for their swift and also their professional response in intercepting drones that could have killed innocent civilians during these incursions. Their actions remind us that NATO's strength lies in that unity and readiness.
President Trump has made clear that Europe must carry more of the burden for its own security. Poland, in particular, has answered that call, committing 5 percent of its GDP to defense. Other allies are stepping up as well.
This is the path forward, a stronger more capable NATO prepared to deter but also to defeat any threat. But make no mistake on this: Putin understands only one language, and that is power. The surest road to peace in Europe lies in NATO's strength and Ukraine's survival.
Yet, strength must also be economic. The Kremlin's war machine runs on money it makes from selling cheap oil and gas to countries like China and India and Brazil. Those nations, well, then they profit by turning around and reselling Russian energy at a markup, and that must end.
It is long overdue for the financial enablers of Russia's atrocities to pay a price. They cannot keep fueling Putin's war and expect business as usual with us, with the United States.
That is why Congress must pass the Sanctioning Russia Act. This legislation would impose mandatory sanctions on Russia's political leadership, financial institutions, energy sector, and sanctions evasion networks. By employing targeted tariffs, this policy would pressure the world's largest purchasers of Russian energy to reduce their dependence on Moscow.
This gives the President maximum flexibility to enforce these measures, ensuring both legal strength and political durability.
I am grateful to Senator Blumenthal who worked closely with Lindsey on this important bipartisan legislation, and I am encouraged to see him carry this effort forward.
I was proud to be an early supporter of the bill, and I am proud to support this updated version now. The Sanctioning Russia Act is the sledgehammer that we need, decisive economic pressure that cripples Putin's lifeline, and it hastens the day that his war with Ukraine is finally going to end.
Peace will not come from weakness or hesitation; it will come from strength--military, economic, and moral strength, welded together by the free nations of the world.
So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our broad coalition in supporting this bill. Let us carry on Lindsey's mission. Let us stand up to evil. Let us bring freedom and security to the people of Ukraine.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to highlight and ask unanimous consent to pass a resolution I introduced to call for greater action from the Canadian Government to fight the almost annual wildfires that send smoke over the border, blanketing much of the United States.
Over the past several days, more than 100 million people nationwide have been under air quality alerts due to the smoke from Canadian wildfires. This smoke has real impacts to the health and well-being of individuals and families. In my home State of North Dakota, this is an issue we are very familiar with. Unfortunately, over the past number of summers, we have been experiencing hazy skies from wildfires in Canada.
The United States and Canada have a longstanding and close relationship based on our shared values and common interests. I know; I grew up 50 miles from the border. But with that shared border between the United States and Canada, we need to manage it to the benefit of the people that reside in both countries. I mean, we have water that flows up into Canada, and we are always working on water quality issues and all those kinds of things. We understand that what we do here in the United States affects our friends in Canada as well.
So we feel for those in Canada whose homes and communities are directly impacted by the fires. We also recognize and thank the thousands of firefighters and emergency responders who are working to combat wildfires and protect lives and personal property under dangerous conditions.
But at the same time, we need responsible forest management, including hazardous fuels reduction, timber harvesting, grazing, and other forest restoration practices that help reduce the severity and frequency of catastrophic wildfires.
With more than 3,640 wildfires in Canada this year alone, it is clear that more action needs to be taken to prevent and stop these fires. And, in fact, in the United States, we have worked many years to help our friends in Canada battle these fires, but, clearly, more action needs to be taken.
So the resolution I have introduced does three things: Specifically, it recognizes the significant impact that smoke from the Canadian wildfires has on the safety, health, and well-being of the American people, and it calls upon the Government of Canada to take responsibility for the cross-border impact of these wildfires, including immediate efforts to extinguish the fires and prevent their reoccurrence. And finally, the resolution urges President Trump to further discuss with Canadian Prime Minister Carney the importance of extinguishing these fires and finding ways to prevent their reoccurrence, something that we can do together and we should do together for the mutual benefit of both our great countries.
So with that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 811, which is at the desk. I further ask 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.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I am going to ask pretty bluntly, what on earth are my colleagues doing here? I don't know why Republicans are focused on making a really petty and offensive statement to Canada, saying they need to do a better job of containing wildfire smoke as if the Canadian Government is letting their forest burn and its own citizens inhale wildfire smoke just to spite us. This is a joke. Maybe my colleagues across the aisle don't realize this, but Canadian firefighters cross that border to help us fight our wildfires right here all the time.
And guess what. Our firefighters do the exact same when they are able. In fact, for the information of all Senators, a firefighter actually just passed away who was helping us fight a wildfire in Colorado; he was from British Columbia.
Now, what we don't do is pass resolutions here telling our friends and our neighbors to do a better job of handling wildfire smoke.
And also, maybe somebody should alert the President and my colleagues, but wildfire smoke from the United States often makes its way into Canada. It is happening right now where wildfires are burning in Oregon and in Washington.
I think what this might be really about is telling Trump that, Mr. President, look how much we agree with you.
This is a waste of everybody's time. So, respectfully, to my colleagues, understanding that time on the Senate floor is precious, here are my suggestions: Maybe we should pass legislation to rehire all of the red card holders that Trump fired. Those are the Forest Service employees who are trained here to help fight wildfires.
Or how about we pass legislation to stop the Trump administration's so-called reorganization of the Forest Service, which would actually shutter offices across our country, including the research labs that helped us study the wildfires and pushed out even more Forest Service employees.
Or maybe instead of entertaining Trump's outrageous requests for a $1.5 trillion war budget, Republicans could work with us to adequately fund our needs here at home.
Our Forest Service, right here in the United States, is understaffed and underresourced. Maybe my colleagues don't realize it, but Trump's chaotic funding cuts and freezes, along with the chaotic mass layoffs, have actually hurt our public lands and leave us here less prepared to prevent and respond to wildfires here at home.
I remember speaking with a Forest Service ranger last year. He was a longtime dedicated employee. He was a former marine. He served our country in more ways than one, and he did an incredible job. He literally saved people's lives on forest trails, and he fought wildfires here and even saved a small rural town in my State from being burned to the ground. Know what happened to him? Trump and DOGE fired him. No cause, just fired him. That was a huge loss for our State and for our country.
So I do want my colleagues to get serious about the wildfires. And I will just say this, the President should actually apologize to our Canadian neighbors for the many threats and insults and, of course, drop those absurd tariffs he is imposing on these wildfires. I am not holding my breath, so enough with gimmicks, Mr. President. You want to work together to prevent wildfires? My door is wide open, and I hope we can all work together to do that.
But I will tell you what I am not going to do: insult our Canadian friends to suck up to a President who does nothing but threaten our neighbors.
Mr. President, if I could, I am wondering if my colleague heard the speech I just gave. I guess I want to repeat it because maybe she might have missed it.
The United States and Canada--this is what I said, so I can't think of a bigger mischaracterization of what I just said. And I am not even sure why. If she wanted to come down and criticize our President, that is fine. She can do that, I guess, whenever she wants if that is what she wants to do. But to completely mischaracterize what I said, I don't think is fair.
So I am going to reiterate what I said just a minute ago for the record.
I even referenced the fact that I grew up 50 miles from the Canadian border. I went back and forth to Canada so many times I couldn't even count.
But, and I go on, with a shared border between the United States and Canada, we want to manage it to the benefit of people residing in both countries.
I am reading from the speech I just wrote; I was listening to the mischaracterization.
That is what I am calling for. And in the resolution itself, I make it very clear that this is something that is important to benefit both countries.
So, again, you know, I think it would be--if my colleague wants to object, I understand she has that right. But I think it is unfair to characterize that other than I am saying we need more action on these wildfires.
Now, if she feels we don't need more action on these wildfires, it is just fine, OK. But she shouldn't misrepresent what I am trying to do, which is call attention to the fact that we need more work done so we can avoid these wildfires in the future and that that is something that is mutually beneficial for both of our Nations.
And with that, I would yield the floor to my colleague the good Senator from Ohio.
Mr. President, let me just say to my friend, and he is a friend, and I do hear his quiet, calm tone. I appreciate it. It is not something we all often hear here. But I will say this, in the words that you hear from this resolution, if you are a Canadian, it is that we are insulting them by saying you are not trying to fight your forest fires.
And I will tell you this, I am working my tail off to help us fight our wildfires; our Canadian friends are as well. And I think, in this very heightened time--when I know I don't live far from the border either; we have a lot of trade with our Canadian friends; we go back and forth--they feel very insulted by a lot that is going on. So I think this adds fuel to that fire.
So what I say to my friend, let's work on our country, making sure that we are fighting our forest fires, which I outlined in my response to you, of some of the things we can do, and I believe that our Canadian friends are doing the same. But that is why I object at this time.
And to my colleague from Washington, we work together on many things, important things. I appreciate that. I think we both come from border States and recognize the importance of this incredible bond and relationship that we have with our friends in Canada, and I want to make clear, I have tremendous respect, appreciation, and admiration for our friends and allies and that this is about working together for mutual benefit.
And with that, I would yield to my good friend and colleague from the State of Ohio.
Mr. President, very briefly, let me make a couple of things clear. This resolution isn't about insulting Canadians; this resolution is about calling out inept leaders in Canada. I have total and complete respect for the people of Canada. Unfortunately, they are victimized by terrible leaders.
To just turn a blind eye to the fact that they just dumped in your State and my State the equivalent of a year's worth of auto pollution in America, on the Midwest, and pretend it isn't manmade--they don't have centralized response.
This idea that they helped us is totally false. They charge us to come to the United States to help put out our forest fires that, by the way, are also created by ineptitude in Washington, Oregon, and California. And then when our firefighters ask to go to Canada to help them, they prevent them from coming in.
So this is completely a manmade disaster, but it is not made by the people of Canada; it is made by the leaders of Canada. And shame on them, and shame on anybody apologizing for what they are doing to the people of our States.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 36, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Antonio M. Pozos, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 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 am beginning a series of Senators who are speaking about Haiti and TPS.
The Haitian community is woven into the fabric of our great American family, but Donald Trump is trying to tear it apart by terminating Haiti's temporary protected status.
As someone who takes great pride in representing the State that is home to the largest Haitian population in the country, I know just how important the Haitian community is to the American economy, to culture, to society.
But, unfortunately, Donald Trump clearly doesn't. Trump has vilified Haitians with his bigoted attacks and stereotypes, over and over again. Now, Trump is trying to force Haitians who are here legally to return to the dangerous conditions they fled in Haiti.
Let's be clear: Revoking Haitians' temporary protected status will not only hurt them; it hurts our entire country.
In New York, you can't go into a hospital, a nursing home, or a clinic without seeing scores of dedicated healthcare professionals who are fiercely proud of their Haitian heritage. That is true in cities and towns throughout the country.
We have heard warnings that if Trump expels our Haitian TPS holders, it will strain our health system and create a gap in our caregiving workforce that will be difficult to fill.
These people are our friends. They are our neighbors. They take care of the elderly and people with disabilities. They are entrepreneurs and small businessowners. They work hard and pay taxes.
Let's not forget Haitian TPS holders add nearly $6 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
Ending TPS doesn't fix our broken system; it only makes things worse. It is cruel. It is counterproductive. Sending 300,000 people to Haiti with little or no support will further destabilize an already severe humanitarian and security crisis on our country's doorstep.
I urge all of my colleagues to support our legislation and preserve Haitians' TPS status. I will keep fighting for Haitian Americans in New York and beyond--any time, any place.
Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1689, a bill to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status through March 20, 2029.
I thank my colleagues Senator Markey and Senator Blunt Rochester for their leadership on this important humanitarian issue.
This bill passed the House on a strong bipartisan vote, and the Senate should pass it as well. Supporting this legislation is the right thing to do; nationals of Haiti cannot safely return to their home country.
The Department of State has issued a level 4 travel advisory, telling Americans that it is unsafe to travel to Haiti due to the risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.
The Federal Aviation Administration prohibits U.S. carriers from flying to Haiti because of the danger to planes of being shot at by the gangs.
But this bill is not just a humanitarian action. Haitian TPS holders have become integral parts of their communities.
In fact, our former Senate colleague Mike Dewine--now the Republican Governor of Ohio--called the Trump administration's decision to terminate Haiti's TPS ``a mistake'' and a ``job killer'' that is ``not in the best interest of the United States nor Ohio.''
He noted that Haitian TPS holders are opening small businesses, working, and raising families in Ohio communities.
Illinois is no different; hundreds of Haitian families in Illinois will be impacted by the terminations of TPS.
In fact, there are 350,000 Haitian TPS holders nationwide, with 50,000 U.S. citizen children who will be harmed by the administration's decision to terminate Haiti's TPS.
They work in critical industries, providing essential care to our elderly and harvesting the food that we rely on each day.
Business organizations and labor unions have warned that the decision to end work authorization for many TPS holders could have sweeping consequences for both workers and the U.S. economy.
DHS Secretary Mullin has tried to deflect, saying, ``Either try to fill out the paperwork and be here underneath a permanent status, or we'll help you get back to your country.''
But he leaves out the important part: The Trump-Mullin Department of Homeland Security has indefinitely banned processing for any immigration application from a Haitian national. So there is no way for Haitians TPS holders to apply for permanent status.
The administration's goal is clear: to force Haitian TPS holders to go back to a country where they are at risk of violence, kidnapping, or death.
That should tell you everything you need to know. But the President showed his hand long ago; I was at the meeting in 2018 where he used the term ``s-hole'' nations to describe Haiti and African countries.
I will never forget it--it was an embarrassment to the White House, to the Oval Office, and to the Presidency.
At the time, President Trump denied making this statement, but now, he proudly proclaims his bigotry toward the Haitian people.
I happen to disagree with the President. Haitian TPS holders make our country better every day. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this live unanimous consent request to extend TPS for Haiti.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I rise today to underscore the critical importance of maintaining temporary protected status, or TPS, for Haiti.
TPS allows nationals from designated countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or extraordinary conditions to live and to work legally in the United States until it is safe to return to their homeland.
First of all, I would like to thank my colleague Lisa Blunt Rochester from Delaware for leading this effort in the U.S. Senate. Thank you.
I want to thank the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his statement today, which is basically reflecting the views of millions of Americans who are outraged at what is transpiring and affecting dramatically the Haitian community in the United States.
I would really like to thank Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley for leading the successful effort in the House of Representatives to extend Haiti's TPS designation. I am also thankful to Congresswoman Pressley for her partnership, not only today but in her yearslong fight to advocate for our Haitian-American communities.
In January of this year, we cohosted a field hearing in Massachusetts to hear from Haitian TPS holders, business and union leaders, and advocates about the importance of Haiti TPS.
And in April, alongside Senator Van Hollen and Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, we led an amicus brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of 180 Members of Congress in support of Haiti and Syria TPS.
But last month, the Supreme Court delivered a devastating ruling in the case. The far-right Justices green-lit the Trump administration's unlawful, racist termination of TPS for Haiti and for Syria. The Court failed a test of morality. It slammed the doors of justice in the face of more than a million TPS holders, including 45,000 Haitian TPS holders in Massachusetts. It is an outrage; it is a travesty.
For years, Donald Trump has demonized and attacked Haitian TPS holders. Trump has spewed racist, cruel lies about Haitians.
We know that Trump does not want to make America great again. Trump wants to make America hate again. That is what these policies represent--to make America White again.
And to do so, he is terminating the critical TPS protections that nearly hundreds of thousands of Haitians rely on. The Trump administration plans to force Haitian TPS holders to return to dangerous and life-threatening conditions.
But Haiti continues to confront overlapping crisis, political instability, widespread violence, and a humanitarian emergency that has strained every single facet of daily life.
In the wake of Hurricane Matthew, in September of 2016, I traveled to Haiti to deliver relief goods and meet with aid providers, even amidst devastation. The resilience of the Haitian people was palpable.
At the time, the country was still battling the cholera epidemic caused by the U.N. peacekeepers after the devastating 2010 earthquake that killed thousands and thousands and thousands of Haitians. Haiti faced this crisis without sufficient international support.
And, ultimately, I led the effort to get the United Nations to apologize to Haiti for what the U.N. had done to that country. And, finally, the United Nations did that.
I came away from that trip knowing that Haiti would continue to hurt and that the United States should do everything in its power to help the Haitian people.
Sadly, Haiti is still hurting. Haiti's security crisis is eroding the promise and future of an entire nation. Armed groups now exert control over much of Port-au-Prince. Kidnappings, targeted violence, and blockades have made it difficult for people to reach hospitals, attend school, and access basic services.
At the same time, natural disasters, including earthquakes, hurricanes, and recurrent flooding have further damaged infrastructure that was already stretched to its limits.
Together, these forces have left millions without certainty or without security. It is clear that Haitian TPS holders cannot return home safely.
And yet--and yet--the State Department currently advises American citizens against traveling to Haiti because of the dangers and instability. That is utter hypocrisy. You can't tell Americans it is too dangerous to go to Haiti and then say that you are going to tell 350,000 Haitians that they have got to go back to a place that is too dangerous for any American to go and visit.
It is protected status. It is protecting them against that which is too dangerous.
Instead of meeting this undeniable humanitarian catastrophe with compassion, the Trump administration has chosen to compound the trauma. And this brings us to the dangerous and politically cruel reality that Haitian TPS holders face today in our country.
For families with children born here--American children--it may mean a choice no parent should ever be forced to make: tearing their family apart or taking a child who has never stepped foot outside of the United States into danger in a country that child has never lived in and that the State Department is telling every American is too dangerous to go to. But parents may have to take children into that situation.
Imagine a mother or a father sitting at their kitchen table tonight, looking across at their child and trying to decide if that child has a better chance of survival returning to Haiti, a country consumed by violence, or staying in the United States, separated from the loving care of their parents.
If we do not act, this is the brutal reality of family separation that will play out in thousands of homes across this country. Families are being forced to endure agonizing and impossible calculations. We cannot stand by while hundreds and thousands of Haitians who have lived and worked and built lives in the United States are suddenly staring into an abyss of uncertainty.
What of the daily life for those who will remain? The moment these protections lapse, TPS holders--who have been here legally for years working, paying taxes, and raising families--will stare down the looming threat of detention and deportation.
That is what the Trump administration wants: to give ICE agents more work to do on our streets, to give his private army the authority to arrest a million more people to meet racist, cruel quotas. And no one should have to live through that constant fear of a sudden knock on the door or the panic of a random traffic stop.
To strip Haitians of their status of protection, which we have given them because of the catastrophic conditions that still exist in Haiti, is to strip them of their agency, of their safety, of their peace of mind.
Haitian TPS holders are Massachusetts. They are the United States. They are hard working. They are kind. They are resilient. They are strong in the face adversity and deeply committed to the communities in which they live, whether it is Mattpan or Brockton or Malden. And the same thing is true for all across our country.
A Haitian TPS holder is a friend and home-health aide who has taken care of grandma or grandpa for years. A Haitian TPS holder is a coworker and a construction worker that has helped build homes in our neighborhoods.
A Haitian TPS holder is a neighbor and a small business owner on Blue Hill Avenue who helps support the livelihoods of others.
Haitian TPS holders are essential workers. They are nurses. They are home health aides, educators, grocery store workers. They keep us safe. They keep us fed. They keep us healthy. They have followed the rules. They have committed no crimes at all, and yet they are now being told they are going to be sent home.
And these are the same people who have made our seniors smile, that have been in homes all across our country, in homes taking care of our loved ones, in hospitals taking care of our loved ones. That is who they are. They have protected our babies. They soothe our sick. They are us. We have a moral duty to protect TPS holders and provide them with protections and a permanent pathway to citizenship. Let's help them make America home.
For generations, Massachusetts has been shaped by our immigrant communities. It was one of our own, Congressman Joe Moakley, who served as one of the architects of the TPS statute and who understood both the moral clarity and the practical necessity of providing refuge in times of crisis.
In defending his provision for TPS protection on the House of Representatives floor in 1990, Congressman Moakley emphasized our ``deep moral obligation'' to protect innocent victims fleeing violence abroad. His words remain as urgent and relevant today as they were when he spoke them.
Protecting the vulnerable is not a political choice; it is a moral duty. Congresswoman Pressley's success in passing the Haiti TPS bill in the House of Representatives is an inspiration. And now the Senate must pass the bill, which I introduced alongside Senator Blunt Rochester, to designate Haiti for TPS until after the next Presidential election.
I have called on every recent administration to designate, extend, and redesignate TPS for Haiti. I have also supported legislation to provide a legal pathway to residency for TPS holders. I will keep supporting this community.
The narrative of TPS holders in the United States is a story of resilience, of hope, and of an enduring spirit. Despite facing adversity, TPS holders have continued to contribute to build lives and set down roots.
Haitian TPS holders deserve our full protection. We cannot turn our backs on them now. That is the choice which we have to confront right now.
And, again, I thank Senator Blunt Rochester for her leadership on this issue as well. And if you would like to be recognized now, or I will make the motion right now and then we will continue the debate.
So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 374, H.R. 1689; further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
I object to this legislation, which would once again extend Haitian temporary protected status. Washington has invented a new definition of temporary--it means permanent.
Haitian TPS was supposed to be just 18 months when it began in 2010. Sixteen years later, 350,000 Haitians are still here. Today, after the Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to end TPS and send them home, Democrats are trying to change the law to keep the 350,000 Haitians here permanently. Not on my watch.
I rise today to block the bill, and also do something else, to make clear that those supporting this bill have a message for the American people: Your vote doesn't matter. Your community doesn't matter. Your livelihood doesn't matter.
They are trying to use Washington's oldest immigration trick: Call it temporary, extend it forever, and cash in on a new voter base.
The American people voted to end this scam. Washington Democrats are voting to keep it alive and remind you who they think is really in charge.
Here is the truth Democrats won't say out loud: They never, ever plan to end any of these programs. They call them temporary to get them started, then they manufacture an excuse for every extension--another year, another election, another deadline ignored.
By the time the public notices, temporary status has become permanent residency in everything but name.
Democrats can use this scam to build a new political constituency, a new voter base. Haiti was first designated for temporary protected status following the 2010 earthquake. The designation was supposed to last for 18 months; it has now lasted 16 years. Yet, we are still being told that this is a temporary program. In Washington, temporary, apparently, means forever.
A child born when Haitian TPS began is nearly old enough to vote or sponsor their family for green cards now. That is how long Washington has been calling this program temporary for the Haitians who are here. TPS was created for emergencies. Democrats turned it into a one-way racket towards permanent mass migration.
Here is how the racket works: An emergency creates temporary status. Then the emergency passes, but the status stays. The deadline arrives, but Washington extends it. The voters demand enforcement; the Democrats refuse.
Every click moves towards permanence; none moves back toward the law. That is the TPS racket. Democrats have decided that mass migration must continue and that no President chosen by the American people, who ran on this issue, by the way, will ever be permitted to end it. That is the real purpose of the bill. Its supporters will wrap this bill in language of compassion, but they never seem to have any compassion for the American worker, competing against an ever-expanding cheap labor supply.
They have no compassion for families priced out of housing, workers whose wages are undercut, schools punished and pushed beyond capacity, or communities forced to absorb decisions Washington made for them that they voted against. Their compassion always flows outward, but the bill always arrives on your doorstep.
America is not a global refugee camp. America is not a get-rich scheme for the Third World. America is our home. And when houseguests become squatters, you don't delay enforcement; you call the sheriff and you send them home. That is exactly what we must do here today.
If Democrats want 350,000 Haitians to stay permanently, they should say it plainly. Introduce a bill. Put your name on it. Vote for the permanent status. Then explain that vote to the American people. Quit with the games. But stop calling permanent immigration temporary. The voters are not stupid, and they already made their choice. The voters demanded enforcement. President Trump is delivering on that, but Democrats are fighting to keep the same old scam alive.
I have the power to stop this nonsense bill, and I am going to use it. That is why I am here today. So I object to the bill, which would keep 350,000 Haitians here permanently. I object to changing temporary to permanent. I object to flooding American communities with cheap foreign labor.
Temporary must mean temporary; and elections have consequences, therefore, I object.
Mr. President, the objection we just heard is exactly why this law to protect Haiti TPS is necessary, and I am incredibly disappointed in my Republican colleagues for turning their backs on the Haitian TPS community in this dire time.
TPS represents America's longstanding commitment to serve as a beacon of hope and refuge for the vulnerable. To honor and to protect Haitian TPS holders is a moral duty. It is also an acknowledgment of the immense contributions TPS holders make to our families, to our neighborhoods.
And for years, TPS holders have reliably, patiently, and emphatically offered stability and dignity and security to so many.
The Senator from Missouri said the keyword is ``temporary''; no, the keyword is ``protection.''
The duration of how long it should be extended to give people protection is what we are debating here today. If the State Department says it is too dangerous for Americans to go to Haiti, then Haitians who are given TPS protections are also living with a danger that is too great for them and their families to be returned to a State Department- designated country too dangerous to visit.
They only ask for something that is just so clear, so decent, so obvious--just the stability of preserving their status, the dignity to live without fear, the security of not being returned to danger. It is the least we owe to them. But this fight to protect Haiti and its TPS protections is not over.
To the families lying awake tonight afraid of what comes next: We will continue to fight for you. To the children asking if their parents will be here in the morning: We will continue to fight for you. To every person who did everything right, who followed the rules, who believed in the promise of America: We will continue to fight for you.
We are not done. This administration and Senate Republicans cannot take away your humanity, your dignity, your future. We are going to continue to fight, and it is my honor to be able to partner with the great Senator from Delaware, my partner in this effort, the great Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester.
Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senator Ed Markey for your leadership, for your compassion, for your brilliance on this issue, as well as the great Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, who we are proud to have in the room today.
You know, the State of Massachusetts is such a powerful State for freedom, justice, and liberty. You embody the ideals that we were sent here to fight for.
And so I too am disappointed in our colleague's objection. I think what we proposed here that Congresswoman Pressley was able to pass in the House on a bipartisan--she got it done. She was doing what we need to get done here in the Senate.
And what we wanted to do was clear and simple. We wanted a bill that would extend temporary protected status for Haitian immigrants.
Why is that so important?
TPS is a designation the Department of Homeland Security can give to a foreign country to indicate that it is unsafe for its citizens to return home. Home. They weren't fleeing here because they don't want to be home; it was unsafe.
And there are many reasons that a country could receive this designation: Ongoing conflicts like a civil war or gang violence, a natural disaster like a hurricane or an earthquake, or temporary conditions like civil unrest.
Unfortunately, at this time, Haiti meets all three requirements. Yet, the Trump administration, with the help of a Supreme Court decision, as well as colleagues here, has decided to terminate TPS status for Haiti.
This policy decision is driven by cruelty and xenophobia, and it has real consequences. The decision to uproot your entire life and start again in a different country isn't something someone takes lightly. The reality for many Haitians is this: decades of corrupt governance was ended by a political assassination 5 years ago. The country has been in political turmoil ever since. Daily life is characterized by civil unrest, violence, and kidnappings by armed gangs.
On top of that, hurricanes and earthquakes have left the country with limited access to healthcare, food, and public services.
There are real, tangible reasons that 350,000 Haitians have fled to the United States for pursuit of a better life: real reasons, reasons that your own families could not withstand.
In my home State of Delaware, this is deeply personal. Delaware is called the ``State of Neighbors,'' and over 5,000 of those neighbors are Haitian immigrants with TPS status. And at this moment, they are scared. They are terrified that they will lose their status and be unable to work and, ultimately, deported back to Haiti. Families are worried that they won't be able to make ends meet or, worse, be forcibly deported from a country they have grown to call home.
These are real people with a real stake in the decisions that we make here in this body, people like Marie, who came to Delaware with her family when she was 12. Her memories of growing up are full of Sundays spent at church, going to mass in the morning, spending the day with her family at the pastor's house, and then going back to afternoon service.
Now an adult, Marie became one of the very first Haitian Realtors in our State, where she helps families buy their first homes, establish roots, and get one step closer to the American dream.
Or people like Anne--she received a deportation letter last April. Everyone in her family received the letter, including her 1-year-old niece--her 1-year-old niece.
Anne and her family fled to Delaware after a gang war broke out in Haiti following the assassination of the President in 2021. Receiving deportation letters left them depressed and scared. They were sent into a tailspin and faced a devastating choice: Do you stay here illegally? They don't want to do that. Do you stay here illegally? Do you try to figure it out and go back to a country with danger and chaos with a small child or do you flee?
As I said before, Delaware is a State of neighbors, and we are losing neighbors. Anne and her entire family have fled.
Now, if the moral imperative doesn't convince you, I will try the economic. Hundreds of thousands of Haitian TPS recipients are in our workforce. These are good, hard-working people. They work in healthcare, in agriculture. They are small business owners, Realtors, pastors, and more.
They are necessary contributors to our economy. They provide over $800 million in taxes every year and generate over $5.9 billion for our economy.
The loss of the Haitian TPS workforce would impact and cause harm to multiple industries, from the ag sector to education, to healthcare, including nursing homes, hospitals, and senior centers. My office has already heard reports from private employers who are being forced to let these employees go, whose authorizations are tied to TPS.
Today, we had a chance to set things right. We had a chance to extend these protections to our Haitian neighbors. We had a chance to do the right thing. But I am here to tell you, yes, elections have consequences, and people are watching. And we are not giving up.
Thank you to all of the individuals who are supporting these families. Thank you to our staffs who are receiving the phone calls. Thank you to the pastors who are praying. Thank you to all who are fighting for our neighbors. As I said, we won't give up.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Markey and Senator Blunt Rochester for bringing this motion to the floor.
I do want to thank Congresswoman Pressley--who I know had to leave the floor--for her leadership in the House.
And like my colleagues, I am extremely disappointed that Republican Senators today blocked our ability to move forward and have a vote on this
As my colleagues have said, temporary protected status--TPS--was established decades ago with bipartisan support because Congress understood then a very basic truth: When people cannot safely return to their countries of origin, we do not put their lives at risk by forcing them to go back. That is the essence of the protection in TPS, and that principle is worth defending today.
For years, hundreds of thousands of Haitians have lived and worked legally in the United States of America under TPS. They built their lives here. They have paid taxes here, including Social Security taxes. They started small businesses here. They are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues. They are our community members.
They are deeply rooted in communities all over the country, including in my State of Maryland. Some have lived here for decades--again, legally--with this status. To rip all of that away, while the danger in Haiti persists, is wrong and it is cruel. And it does not align with the values that the United States claims to stand for, and yet that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing. And, sadly, it is what our Republican Senate colleagues just did in their motion.
And I do want to underscore what Senator Blunt Rochester and Senator Markey have said. They may be able to block it today in the U.S. Senate, but we will keep working on this matter because it is a matter of important American principles.
You know, last year, the administration moved to terminate Haiti's TPS designation, and that action was challenged in court. And the Federal courts temporarily blocked that termination.
Then it went to the Supreme Court, and on a devastating 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and sided with the Trump administration. It was another--in my view--very bad decision from this Supreme Court that will have very harmful consequences for the Haitian community but, really, for all of our communities because now TPS holders face imminent loss of their legal status and of their work authorizations, the latter of which is slated to happen as soon as the end of this week.
So let's be clear about what that means. Let's just be clear about the harm that we are forcing these individuals to face. It means hundreds of thousands of our community members who followed the rules, worked legally, paid taxes, and built lives in this country will lose their ability to work legally and be forced to return to a country where it is not safe to return.
That is the reality right now. Anyone following the situation in Haiti knows it remains very dangerous. Indeed, as my colleagues have said, the State Department continues to warn Americans not to travel to Haiti because of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest, and other factors.
The country remains under a state of emergency, and the U.S. Government has extremely limited ability to provide any emergency assistance, even to our own citizens who are there now.
And the humanitarian situation there continues to deteriorate. When you are evaluating whether it is safe to force anybody back to their country of origin, we are supposed to look at whether the situation is getting better or worse. It is getting worse over a long period of time in Haiti. While there are some small signs of hope right now, the reality is, it is a very, very dangerous place
In fact, 1.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. More than half the population needs humanitarian assistance. More than 5.8 million people are expected to face hunger this year. Meanwhile, armed gangs continue to control large parts of Port-au-Prince and other parts of the country.
A lot of these gangs are responsible for killings, kidnappings, sexual violence, and forced displacements of entire communities. And yet, by the decision the Republican Senator took to the floor, blocking this action, they are forcing people who have been members of our community for a long time--again, working here legally--forcing them back into imminent danger and harm.
You know, we shouldn't be doing this, colleagues. We should not be forcing anybody back into a situation of imminent harm, especially people who have been here and working legally and playing by all of the rules. And now we are changing the rules on them midstream because what had been a bipartisan law of the temporary protected status program is now having the ``protected status'' part of it ripped out by our colleagues. So this is really part of the Trump administration's mass deportation strategy.
You know, the President told Americans that they were going to go after the ``worst of the worst.'' You know, we had a vote on this floor weeks back. I think it was a unanimous vote that, you know, folks who have committed crimes--people who are dangerous to our communities-- yes, the worst of the worst should be essentially held accountable and deported.
But folks under TPS? These are people who are working legally in our country. These are people paying taxes. These are not the worst of the worst. In fact, they have to check in every single year and make sure that they continue to meet the requirements of the law. And yet these are the people--these are the people--that the President and now our Republican colleagues seek to uproot and send into certain danger.
Sadly, the Supreme Court--the Trump-stacked Supreme Court--went along with these decisions, but we have a chance in this body to fix that. And that was what we tried to do today with Senator Markey's motion.
Again, it was blocked by our Republican colleagues, but this will not be the end of this debate. It will not be the end of this discussion because the essence of TPS was, at least at one time in our country, a bipartisan effort. On a bipartisan basis, we agreed that it was wrong to send people back to their home country if they faced certain danger. And that is why we allowed these individuals to stay here. And many of them have made really successful lives here in our communities, working--again legally--paying taxes.
And so it is a very sad day when what once was a bipartisan consensus to stand by important principles that had made this country stronger are shredded by this White House and where we now have a rubberstamped Congress to go along with the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.
So I regret the action that was taken today. I, again, thank my colleague Senator Markey for his efforts, and we will keep at it together.
Mr. President, we have all received that email from a wealthy Nigerian ``Prince,'' asking us to wire him some money with promises that he will return the favor with a huge reward as soon as he can access his fortune, or we have gotten that phone call from an unknown number claiming to be the IRS, warning that an arrest warrant will be issued if we don't immediately pay off our outstanding tax debt, and, of course, everyone has been told that our extended vehicle warranty is about to expire unless we renew immediately.
Folks, we all know these are scams, and we aren't being fooled. Yet, somehow, government bureaucrats are being bamboozled by even less sophisticated schemes, except they are not giving out access to their own bank accounts but, rather, to taxpayer dollars and the U.S. Treasury.
Folks, I am not making this up. A Nigerian socialite actually submitted more than 100 fraudulent applications for unemployment and disability assistance that were approved. He finagled more than $1.3 million of U.S. taxpayer money in this scheme. Some of the funds were intended to provide daycare services for disabled children, but he, instead, spent the money on constructing a luxury resort and nightclub in Nigeria.
This Nigerian ``Prince of Fraud'' was outdone by California prison inmates, who collected about $1 billion in unemployment benefits by using names like ``John Doe,'' ``John Adams,'' and ``Poopy Britches'' while serving time behind bars.
Other con artists successfully applied for COVID cash during the pandemic by using the names of well-known celebrities and fictional characters, like ``Charlie Brown'' and ``Nancy Drew.''
Taxpayer dollars have even been handed out to phony businesses with such obviously made-up names that are so outrageous that no one could possibly believe they were real, such as ``Satanic Lives Matter'' and others that are so tasteless I can't even say them.
Others uploaded pictures of doll faces to ``verify'' their identities on applications for government assistance and were still approved. Too often, the bilking is being done by the very bureaucrats who are overseeing the benefits. Over the years, I have documented countless examples of government employees who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar--embezzling millions of dollars and abusing their positions for personal gain.
As a veteran, one particular example that really makes my blood boil involves a service representative for the Department of Veterans Affairs who was shaking down disabled veterans for bribes to ``grease the wheels'' to speed up the approval of backlogged claims. A $3,385 kickback paid to him via Venmo was listed on the memo line as ``crooked shit.'' I apologize for my language, but that is what the Venmo actually said. We had to modify our chart today. So a VA representative was shaking down disabled veterans. This actually happened. That representative was caught and is being held responsible for shaking down our disabled veterans.
The problem in most of these cases is the money is going out the door before verifying if the recipient is legitimate. If fraud is later detected, then the government has to decide if it is worth trying to recover the stolen money. This pay-and-chase system makes it way too easy for scammers to take the money and run. It is like giving the cash advance and your bank routing number to the Nigerian ``Prince'' who promised you a financial reward for your help only for you to realize, later, you have been ripped off. Good luck getting any of your money back. It is the grift that keeps giving.
As a result, fraudsters are getting away with stealing more than $1.4 billion in taxpayer money every single day. Every single day, folks, $1.4 billion fraudsters are making off with. If grift were a government agency, the ``Department of Fraud'' would be the fifth largest. The $521 billion going to fraud every year exceeds the individual annual budgets of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation, Homeland Security, State, and Justice. That is right, folks. Fraudsters are being better taken care of than our veterans and our farmers.
While hard-working Americans are struggling to make ends meet, fraudsters are living large on the loot that they are taking from the Treasury. Government grift and graft are endless, and so are the excuses for not stopping it, but the public's patience isn't.
So who is responsible for allowing fraud to continue?
Folks, the buck stops right here with Congress. Congress decides how much of your paycheck must be sent to Washington, and it writes the laws determining exactly how every one of those dollars is spent. But the haste to spend trillions of tax dollars as quickly as possible is resulting in outrageous amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse. From fake childcare centers in Minnesota to convicts collecting unemployment checks, fraudsters are blatantly getting away with treating the National Treasury like their own personal piggy bank.
At the request of Majority Leader Thune, I have compiled a comprehensive package of proposals put forth by our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end fraud once and for all.
Specifically, my Protecting American Taxpayers Act will stop handing out quick cash with no questions asked, trigger automatic investigations when there are sudden and suspicious spikes in payment claims, ban convicted fraudsters from receiving taxpayer dollars, take back the money that was already stolen, and send scammers to the slammer. If enacted, this bill would save $240 billion.
The choice is quite simple: Give this money to fraudsters or return it to the taxpayers.
The bill is now before the Senate, and every day we delay in passing it, grifters are getting away with stealing another $1.4 billion. Allowing that to continue is the greatest fraud of all.
Mr. President, I rise today as the son of a small business owner. I rise as someone who has seen how hard an entrepreneur must work to get an idea off the ground, to build a business, to keep it solvent, and to work year after year through ups and downs, to make sure one can put enough food on the table for one's family and all of one's employees' families. And I rise today in support of Senator Ernst's Protecting American Taxpayers Act.
You see, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship--a committee on which I proudly serve--Senator Ernst has really been relentlessly focused on and has been a tireless advocate for combating fraud and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly--responsibly.
So I want to thank Senator Ernst for her good work on this important legislation and for her ongoing efforts to shine a spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse. I am especially proud that in this package is found my Assisting Small Businesses Not Fraudsters Act.
Mr. President, just 2 years ago, we were a land of open borders, crime was surging across the country, and fraud was rampant. But today, the borders are secure; crime,
For years, Washington accepted fraud as the cost of doing business. The government wrote the checks, the fraudsters cashed them, and hard- working Americans were left to foot the bill. Those same hard-working Americans knew intuitively that was driving up their cost of living.
But those days are coming to an end. Under President Trump, we have seen historic momentum to root out waste, fraud, and abuse across the Federal Government. For the first time in a long time, Washington is shining a flashlight on the billions of taxpayer dollars disappearing through fraud, improper payments, and outright criminal activity. Now Congress has the responsibility to finish the job.
The American people are asking a simple question: If Washington knows where the fraud is, why aren't we stopping it? And they are right to ask. Today, an estimated $1.4 billion is stolen from taxpayers every single day. That is money that should be strengthening our military, supporting our veterans, protecting Medicare and Social Security, or reducing the debt we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren. Instead, it is ending up in the hands of organized fraud rings, scam artists, and criminals who have learned exactly where the holes in our Federal Government are.
We are already seeing what happens when the Federal Government makes fraud enforcement a priority. In one of the largest healthcare fraud takedowns in our Nation's history, Federal prosecutors charged hundreds of defendants accused of submitting more than $6 billion in fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other taxpayer-funded health programs. And the best part? People are finally going to jail.
Investigators uncovered transnational criminal organizations, fraudulent medical equipment schemes, and providers accused of billing the government for services that were never provided. These weren't bookkeeping mistakes; they were sophisticated efforts to steal billions from the American taxpayer.
The truth is simple: Fraudsters follow the money, and for too long, Washington has rolled out the welcome mat. This legislation finally starts closing that door. The Protecting American Taxpayers Act is projected to save taxpayers $240 billion--that is $240 billion--by preventing fraud before it happens, recovering stolen taxpayer dollars, and ensuring criminals are held accountable. It doesn't just respond to fraud after the fact; it helps stop it before another billion dollars walks out the door.
One piece of this package that I am proud to see included is my WALZ Act--W-A-L-Z, the WALZ Act--named after, you guessed it, a certain Governor who allowed fraud to run rampant in his State. The idea behind it is about as simple as it gets: Don't pay first and ask questions later. Kansas families don't do business that way. Small businesses don't do business that way. If you are remodeling your kitchen, you don't hand the contractor every penny before a single cabinet is installed. If you are hiring someone to fix your roof, you don't write the check before the work is finished. You pay after the job is done.
Yet that is exactly the opposite of how Washington has too often operated. For years, the Federal Government has pushed billions of dollars out the door up front with little accountability and then acted surprised when criminals disappeared with the money.
My WALZ Act simply says: Federal payments should be made as reimbursements after--after--the services have actually been provided. That one simple reform closes one of the biggest loopholes that have allowed billions of taxpayer dollars to be stolen before they ever get the chance to disappear.
But this package doesn't stop there. It claws back unused COVID funds, strengthens Treasury's fraud detection systems, extends the statute of limitations so pandemic fraudsters can't simply run out the clock. It protects our veterans from scammers. It combats emerging AI- generated fraud and gives law enforcement stronger tools to hold criminals accountable. Taken together, these reforms represent one of the strongest anti-fraud packages Congress has considered in years.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent years responding to every problem the same way: throwing more money at it. We believe the first question should be: Where is the fraud? Where is the waste? Where is the abuse? And how do we stop it before asking taxpayers for another dime?
This administration has created real momentum for the first time in years. We are not just talking about fraud, we are finding it, prosecuting it, and putting criminals on notice that stealing from the American taxpayer has consequences. People are already being held accountable, and more need to be.
Congress should build on that momentum by giving law enforcement and Federal Agencies the tools they need to keep fraudsters out of our programs and behind bars where they belong.
So let's not waste this opportunity. Let's make these reforms permanent. Let's close the loopholes once and for all. Let's protect the taxpayers who fund the government. Let's send a clear message that the era of easy money for fraudsters is over.
I urge every one of our colleagues to support the Protecting American Taxpayers Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, I have been coming up here and talking about, well, a couple of things.
How much does healthcare cost? Right now, people watching from the Gallery, people watching at home, people who happen to be in here--all of us are experiencing a commonality, which is that healthcare is incredibly expensive.
By the way, you may say: No, I have great insurance. It pays for everything.
No, that is coming out of your wages. You are a successful businessman. The people you employ, when you buy them insurance, that comes out of their compensation otherwise, and that is a reality.
The more you pay for health insurance, the less you get paid in your pocketbook because it is coming out of the same bucket.
But if you are one of those who are just having a hard time making it happen, if we look at the things we think of as being expensive-- utilities, entertainment for the family, car payments, groceries, college tuition--it just keeps on climbing--a mortgage. More expensive than all for a family of four is healthcare. That is our problem.
So I have been trying to address it with something that I call the MVP agenda. We, under this plan, would give up to $2,000 to a family of four in a prefunded health savings account, and you add that to price transparency. So money in your pocket with value for the patient--the MVP plan.
It seems really ambitious, but let me just put a little bit more of a point on why this is important. The average family is carrying $10,000 in credit card debt. Now, think about that--$10,000. A family is not paying that off every month. It turns out they are paying the minimum balance due. How do we know that? Because the percentage of income going to credit card interest has almost tripled over the last number of years. They are paying the minimal amount and carrying greater and greater debt in order to make ends meet. Well, they are not really making ends meet; they are just trying to get by right now.
So that is what is stressing the importance of having a plan that actually addresses their needs, not some abstract ``Oh, can't we do it in the by and by, and it may make some indirect difference.'' No. You can directly help a family by putting money in the pocket and coupling that with price transparency to bring value to the patient.
Now, I have some good news. We did something today in HELP Committee, the committee which I chair, called the Price Tags Act--Patients Deserve Price Tags.
Roger Marshall and John Hickenlooper, Senators from Kansas and Colorado, came together for a bill, which my staff helped to put together, and we passed it out of committee, and it is the Patients Deserve Price Tags, which is price transparency for the goods and services you purchase in the healthcare arena.
Now, let's put a little bit of a point on this. I suspect the Presiding Officer
Usually, if that is the case for my wife and me--in fact, always--we excuse ourselves after having a couple of crackers, and we say: Thank you very much, but we have a crying baby at home. We look a little bit old for a baby. Well, it is a grandchild.
The point being: If they are not telling you the price, probably you can't afford it.
Now, audience, people watching, anybody here, when is the last time you went to a hospital and you said ``Show me the price. Show me the price.'' It just doesn't happen. Do you know there are actually laws out there? But I can tell you, if you ask ``Show me the price,'' you are going to cause confusion.
Now, I am a doctor. I have been in this environment. I always kind of admire--kind of chuckle. I am a gastroenterologist. I used to do colonoscopies. So the patient is there. He has been prepped, which means that his colon has been cleaned out and he has been having diarrhea for about 6 hours. He has a gown on that covers everything but the derriere, a thin sheet above him. And he is given a lot of pieces of paper to sign, and at that point, he has the ability to ask ``How much does this colonoscopy cost?''
Now, that is--you are beyond the point of no return. You are not going to find actionable items, if they are even able to give you the price, at that point. You have already ordered at the French restaurant where they don't show you the price, and they are bringing the food to the table, and by golly, you are going to pay for it no matter how much it is.
But we have passed the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, and that means that now, the patient is going to be told how much something costs.
If we have a health savings account or if you are just paying cash or in some way you are responsible for the goods and services that you are purchasing, you are going to be told the price.
Why is that? Why is that important? A cardiologist friend told me recently--a couple of years ago, actually--of a cardioversion for atrial fibrillation. If you did it in the doctor's office, it costs you $130; if you did it in the hospital, it costs you $13,000. Now, would it make a difference to someone, if they had a $4,000 deductible, to know that they either pay $130 if they went to the doctor's office or they pay the full deductible and the insurance company pays more but they pay 20 percent of that more if they went to the hospital? I think it would.
So price transparency lowers the cost of being insured and increases wages over time.
By the way, let's get back to our restaurant metaphor. When you go and they don't tell you the price, you kind of have a sense that no matter what you order, you are going to come out substantially poorer. But you are a little bit tight. You go in--you know, maybe when I was a teenager on a date, this was more common--and I can order the surf and turf with the lobster and the filet mignon, and it is going to cost me four times what the spaghetti costs. Now, depending on my budget, I may decide to get the spaghetti. I still have a great meal, still walk away full, nutrition is all satisfied, but because I had the price, I was able to control how much I spent. That is what price transparency does, and the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act begins to give them that price transparency.
Now, by the way, that promotes competition. If you know that if you get your colonoscopy here it is $1,000 and if you get it over there it is $5,000, I can promise you that the place charging $5,000 is going to lower the price.
And the patient with the prefunded health savings account--remember, in the MVP plan--they will have money in their pocket. They have an extra incentive.
I use the example of the woman whose child has an earache. She says: Hey, Siri, which urgent care center near me has the best afterhours price for an appointment for an earache?
Well, here, it is $50; there, it is $250. She is going to go where it is $50, but the one that charges $250 is going to lower their price.
Now, the advantage of this: If you combine the money in the pocket, where they have the prefunded health savings account, with the price transparency, you begin to lower the price of being insured. The patient has the money in their pocket, but now, with the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, they can spend that money wisely. Instead of that money put into their health savings account being something that people just rebuff, instead, it is something that they can spend wisely.
By the way, they can also begin to purchase a more affordable insurance policy. The Presiding Officer probably, in his businesses, gives a ``You can choose option A or B or C for your insurance.'' If you choose the option with the higher deductible, then the premium is lower. If we have put $2,000 into your health savings account, you can choose that higher deductible because the first $2,000 is covered, and that higher deductible means that you have a lower premium.
The business owner saves money. He can use it to increase wages. But the employee saves money because their share of the premium is likewise less.
So I try to put it this way: If you have the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act and we are able to put money in the pocket and the patients choose the more affordable plan, they pay less. And if you look at the amount of money going to someone's salary--can I see that one. This is the total compensation package that someone gets when they are employed. Now, some of it goes to payroll taxes. That is a fixed portion. That is going out of your income. There is nothing you can do about that.
Your benefits--principally, what you pay for your health insurance-- is the next biggest slice. The more healthcare costs, the more bread you spend on benefits. The less your healthcare costs, the more bread goes into your salary.
Now, for those people who grew up in the sixties, ``bread'' was the word they used for ``money.'' So think about this as being something literal: You have more money in your pocket not just because we have put money into your health savings account but because, as you pay less for insurance, you have less money to pay out of your pocket for the insurance, and the more money you get to keep to live the rest of your life.
We have been talking about people's wages not growing. Boom. That is how wages start to grow again. They begin to shrink the amount going for benefits, which increases the amount somebody has for the rest of their life.
Now, let me just go back to the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act. This is the most expansive, aggressive, comprehensive, patient-focused, business owner-focused piece of legislation for price transparency that has ever passed in Congress. If we pursue further healthcare bills--for example, reconciliation--we can move the ``money in your pocket'' portion, but this would stand on its own--a bipartisan piece of legislation that passed almost unanimously out of committee today and which would benefit almost every American who has got employer- sponsored insurance.
It is a huge first step. We will reconcile with the House, which has passed their own version of price transparency. This administration has been very aggressive promoting transparency. I am pleased to say that a significant portion of the MVP agenda passed out of committee; it is going to be headed to the President's desk soon; and, most importantly, individuals will have more money in their pocket and better coverage for their health.
Mr. President, on Monday, we saw yet another example of what has become disturbingly common, and that is an act of far-left terrorism. Outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, a man poured gasoline on the entrance, set it ablaze, and tossed fireworks into the raging flames.
Thankfully, law enforcement responded swiftly to apprehend the suspect, who was armed with two axes, a hammer, a machete, and three knives, but not before he injured four innocent people.
Authorities believe the attack was motivated by the suspect's hatred of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Federal building he targeted is home to New York's ICE field office and other Department of Homeland Security offices. Before the attack, he allegedly pushed a cart with a sign reading ``ICE Off Our Streets'' and made anti-ICE statements.
This attack did not come out of nowhere. It follows a monthslong campaign by Democrats to demonize ICE and our brave Federal law enforcement officers who are simply doing their job. They have likened them to ``secret police,'' the Nazi Gestapo, the Soviet
These are not statements from fringe figures. This is what is so astounding. These are statements from prominent Governors, Senators, and lawmakers calling our Federal law enforcement and ICE these names. The vilification of Federal law enforcement is now central to the Democrats' identity and their messaging.
Look at the proposals by the Democrat Socialists of America. They would do away with ICE. They believe that by attacking our officers, they can get at President Trump. And in reality, what they are doing is putting a target on the officers' backs.
I have to admit that I was surprised when New York's far-left socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani called Monday's attack ``deeply disturbing.'' In many ways, he has led the attack on ICE. He has called ICE a ``cruel agency that does nothing to further the interests of public safety'' and ``too rotten to reform.'' He claimed that they are ``terrorizing people'' and should be abolished. He even signed an order to block ICE officers from arresting criminal--criminal--illegal aliens in schools, shelters, and hospitals.
While Democrats bow to their radical base, Republicans are continuing to stand for the rule of law. Under President Trump's leadership, we have focused on ensuring that our Federal law enforcement Agencies have all the resources they need to do their jobs.
It is why we passed the Secure America Act. That is a landmark law that will fund ICE and Border Patrol through the end of President Trump's term. That way, Federal law enforcement officers can continue to track down the violent criminal illegal aliens that Joe Biden brought into this country through that porous southern border.
It is important to remember that every single Democrat voted against the law. Every single one voted against funding ICE and Border Patrol.
Whenever they have the chance, they put illegal aliens in front of American citizens. They keep working overtime to try to make illegal legal.
They want to return to Biden's open border. But as long as Republicans are in charge, that will never happen.
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 nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
Mr. President, Americans are worried that the money in their pockets will not cover the increasing costs of gas and groceries and housing or healthcare. Meanwhile, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is worried that the money in Americans' pockets doesn't currently have his face or his signature on it.
You know, in 2020, Congress passed a law to produce new coins to celebrate America's 250th anniversary. In that law, we wrote that the coins should be emblematic of our 250th anniversary--the U.S. semiquincentennial celebration of 250 years of the vision of a democratic Republic--of a government by and for the people; of our values as a free people, with the rights of free speech and free assembly and free expression. Well, certainly, this we know--that the symbol of putting a sitting President or leader on a coin is not a symbol of a democratic Republic; it is a symbol of an authoritarian strongman.
If we turn the clock back to the year 44 BC, Julius Caesar was Emperor and he decided to have a coin with his face on it. He was the first to do so. It was a radical departure from Roman tradition, and it alarmed the Senate. It was viewed widely as a blatant display of personal power--of personal authoritarian power. And if you missed the point, on the backside of this coin, it had the words ``dictator perpetuo''--``dictator in perpetuity'' or ``dictator forever.'' That is what it represents to put your face on a coin.
Then, at the time our Nation was founded--and, again, we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of that vision--King George III put his face on a coin, on the silver sixpence, and it was viewed, as it was with Julius Caesar and the Emperors who followed him, as an expression of authoritarian personal power.
Does our Constitution provide for an authoritarian structure of government, where power flows down from the King to the people? I think not. It flows up from the people through elections.
That is why putting your face on a coin just is absolutely wrong and why it violates the very premise of the law that created the permission to have this 250th anniversary coin. The design that Trump has come up with--that of a fake gold coin with his face on it--violates the law that we passed. It is widely out of sync with the values of our Nation. It is widely out of sync with our history and our best traditions. So these coins should never be made, and, if made, they should never be distributed.
It is part of a long list of this authoritarian, would-be strongman, dictator President, who is trying to stamp his name onto every public place available.
I say to my colleagues, whether they sit to the left of the aisle or to the right of the aisle, didn't we take the same oath to the same Constitution? Didn't we pledge ourselves to sustaining a democratic Republic, not a strongman state?
So I urge you: Join together--Ds and Rs together--to defend our Constitution; to defend the vision of a government by and for the people.
If we want to turn to the opinion of George Washington 250 years ago, what was his opinion? He was strongly opposed to having his portrait put on coins. Why? Because he considered it a King-like act, completely out of sync with the vision of the Nation we were founding.
Washington's example has endured. It has endured for 250 years until now. Well, my colleagues may say that there was one exception--one exception in 1926--when there was a coin of George Washington, and behind him, there was the outline of a face of President Calvin Coolidge, but it wasn't Calvin Coolidge on the coin. It wasn't his portrait; he wasn't alone; and you would have to be really knowledgeable to know that that outline hanging in the background happened to be of Calvin Coolidge.
Well, this is quite different. This is a full-on, Caesar-style, King George III-style, self-ego amplification that just doesn't fit with the United States of America. So Congress should immediately pass the Change Corruption Act, which I have introduced with Senator Cortez Masto, so as to ban all coins from featuring the image or signature of the sitting U.S. President or living former Presidents--aimed at the principle involved, not aimed simply at President Trump.
You know, families need foundations to thrive, foundations like healthcare, housing, education, and good-paying jobs. What they don't need is to have President Trump's face on fake gold Trump bucks. Instead of putting his face on our money, like a King, let's ask our President to focus on putting money back in the pockets of working Americans. Let's honor 250 years of government by and for the people. Let's prohibit this Caesar-esque-, King George III-, Louis XIV-style of displaying authoritarianism. Let's pass the Change Corruption Act.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the Change Corruption Act, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I have been very proud to work with my colleagues and very much want to continue to work with my colleagues to make our currency work better for all Americans.
That is why, a year ago this month, Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act. It did exactly what my friend from Oregon just asked us for, which is to concentrate on how we can make our currency in our country work better for the American people. That is why we passed no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security benefits--so we can help the very working families who are struggling in this economy. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of the benefits provided them in the Working Families Tax Cut, but not a single Democrat voted for the bill--not one. So, instead of focusing on what is on our Nation's currency, I would urge my Democratic colleagues to join Republicans and focus on pocketbook issues that impact all Americans.
I might add, interestingly, that I, too, was thinking: Wow. Why would we build an arch in Washington, DC, or near Washington, DC? That sounds a little French to me, like the Champs-Elysees. I found out that it has been planned for years. It wasn't planned by President Trump to self- aggrandize. It has been planned for years, but nobody built it. Then President Trump talks to his friends who are willing to open their pocketbooks to do things that haven't been done previously but that have been planned for our Nation's Capital.
When we recognize the risk that we now put our Presidents in when we have large events like the National Press Club or, you know, a press dinner at the Hilton hotel here in town, where an attacker with guns was just about to enter a roomful of elected officials and Cabinet Secretaries and the President and the Vice President and their spouses and shoot the place up, the President recognizes we have to have a secure ballroom that we can use to entertain foreign dignitaries; in which to have special events; that has special bulletproof glass that is very expensive on the windows; and that has a foundation structure that will support all that because it is very heavy.
The design is so complementary to the White House. The design is very much in keeping with the historic facade of the White House.
It is going to be safer for elected officials and visiting dignitaries. It is going to be elegant, and it is going to be befitting of the White House campus that it sits on, in celebration of our 250th anniversary.
Come on. Let's quit attacking the person who holds the Office of President, every day with every bill, and maybe think about what he is doing for the American people, with nontaxpayer money, to make Washington, DC, something we can be totally proud of--safe, clean, and beautiful.
And why don't we, as a Congress, focus on ways to make Americans' lives better so they can keep more of their own money, so they can self-determine how they spend it, so they can maybe buy a house or help their kids buy a car or help their kids buy an education. You do that by keeping more of their dollars in their own pockets.
That is what we did last summer with the Working Families Tax Cut provision, and we can do it again this year.
So I would encourage my Democrat colleagues and friends to join us in helping the American people instead of obsessing about who is in the White House right now.
Mr. President, I so enjoy working with my colleague from Wyoming. But I did notice that her speech had nothing to do with my point that sitting Presidents don't belong on coins because it is an authoritarian symbol.
And I also noticed that her description of the bill passed last year involved changing the name of it. Trump called it the Big Beautiful Bill. And it became widely ridiculed because it cut nutrition, and it cut healthcare to fund tax breaks for the very richest Americans.
It had nothing to do with working Americans. In fact, when you take the impact of the healthcare cuts and the nutrition cuts, the little, smallest crumbs on the table that were sprinkled to the less affluent Americans don't make up for the cuts to healthcare and nutrition. So they come out the losers. It was a ``families lose and megamillionaires win'' bill, and I am happy to debate that all day long.
I realize they renamed it because it was such a horrific attack on ordinary people and, quite frankly, an embarrassment.
So I do support my colleague's vision of fighting for families. But to fight for families, we don't need legislation that is ``families lose and billionaires win.'' We need legislation that is ``families thrive and the affluent, they pay their fair share.'' Their marginal tax as a percent of their income is a tiny fraction of what the working American pays.
You know, in any sane system, the richest Americans would pay a higher
But these are disagreements that I am sure we will continue to debate. And I know my colleague is not planning to run for reelection and won't be here next year. I am going to miss that a great deal. But we still have time and several other things that we are working on together, and maybe that is a topic we will switch to in our next conversation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the revised memberships on the 12 subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations for the 119th Congress be printed in the Record. The new assignments reflect the service on the committee of Senator Darline Graham, who was selected to fill the vacancy created by the passing of former Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as other revisions related to the change in committee membership.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and
On page S4224, July 22, 2026, second column, the following appears: Financial services and general government Senators Hagerty (chair), Boozman, Fischer, Husten, Graham, Reed (ranking member), Durbin, Coons, and Van Hollen. (5-4
The online Record has been corrected to read: Financial services and general government Senators Hagerty (chair), Boozman, Fischer, Husted, Graham, Reed (ranking member), Durbin, Coons, and Van Hollen. (5-4
Departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and
On page S4224, July 22, 2026, second column, the following appears: Departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies Senators Capito (chair), Moran, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith, Boozman, Britt, Rounds, Husten, Graham, Baldwin (ranking member), Murray, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Merkley, Schatz, and Murphy. (9-8)
The online Record has been corrected to read: Departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies Senators Capito (chair), Moran, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith, Boozman, Britt, Rounds, Husted, Graham, Baldwin (ranking member), Murray, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Merkley, Schatz, and Murphy. (9-8)
Transportation, housing and urban development, and related agencies
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:
Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section
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, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 4979, the PROMISE Act of 2026.
I support my colleagues' efforts to address one of the most pressing issues for Americans: the future of Social Security. However, this bill creates a fast-track process to change Social Security in just 5 months, limiting the public's ability to participate and provide input on the future of their earned benefits.
This bill would direct the Social Security Advisory Board to produce a legislative proposal that extends Social Security's financing at least 50 years in less than 2 months. The Social Security Advisory Board is a seven-member advisory body appointed by Congress and the President to provide advice and recommendations of matters related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs and policies.
Producing a solvency proposal in such a short timeframe would be a herculean task for an Agency with hundreds of employees. However, Trump, Russ Vought, and DOGE's crusade against career civil servants has slashed the Board's staff down to three full-time employees.
Following the Board's work, Congress would have to deliberate and pass a bill during a lameduck session with limited opportunities to amend the proposal. In contrast, the 1983 Social Security solvency reform package--the last comprehensive solvency bill passed by Congress--was the culmination of 2 years of debate, dozens of days of hearings and markups, hundreds of amendments in committee and on the floor, and a full conference committee to further amend the bill. Limiting debate in the open pushes debate behind closed doors.
Finally, the Finance Committee has not had an opportunity to hold a hearing on the legislation or the underlying policy issue. It is premature for the full Senate to debate this legislation.
The solution to addressing Social Security's solvency challenges is to address Social Security's solvency challenges. Democrats have put forward several proposals that would strengthen Social Security's finances and extend the program's funding into the next century. Republicans have yet to put forward a single proposal.
For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.
Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and service of Frank Tedeschi, who passed away on July 9, 2026.
Frank served as a dedicated soldier, extraordinary public servant, and a true patriot. His contributions to our Nation's national defense were tremendously significant. While the American public may never know of his accomplishments, our country is safer and stronger because of his commitment, integrity, and tireless work.
Frank's journey of service began in uniform. He enlisted in the U.S. Army and served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as an enlisted soldier and an officer. He was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and his outstanding leadership and dedication resulted in his selection for battalion command, an honor reserved for a minority of Army officers who have demonstrated exceptional ability, character, and leadership.
Unfortunately, Frank's Army career was cut short due to medical reasons. But for Frank, leaving military service did not mean leaving the fight. He brought the same dedication, discipline, and commitment to public service when he joined my Senate staff.
Frank began his time on my team as a fellow. He quickly distinguished himself and went on to serve as my defense policy adviser and later as my legislative director. In every role, Frank demonstrated an uncommon commitment to getting things right. We called him bulldog. He cared deeply about national security, the Department of Defense, and most importantly, the people of South Dakota.
Frank was one of a kind. He was a proud New Yorker, and he carried that personality with him every day. He was direct, blunt, and never one to waste words. He would tell you exactly what he thought--and usually, he was right. But behind that sometimes gruff exterior was a man with a tremendous heart, a great sense of humor, and a deep concern for others.
As legislative director, Frank held himself and those around him to the highest standards. He believed public service was a profound responsibility, not merely a job. He rolled up his sleeves, did the hard work, and expected the same commitment from everyone around him. At every opportunity, Frank chose the right path, even when it was the harder path. His integrity was unwavering.
Frank's dedication to our Nation's security was remarkable. After leaving my office, he continued his service as the congressional and interagency adviser to the 12th and 13th Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he continued advocating for our military and helping to make sure Congress had the information needed to make sound decisions. He was the major driving force behind a generational change in the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which sets military requirements for the future force. Another example of Frank's myriad impacts as a member of my
Frank Tedeschi embodied the very best qualities of a soldier and a public servant. He was loyal, courageous, hard working, and committed to something greater than himself. His loss is deeply felt by his family, his friends, his colleagues, and all those fortunate enough to have served alongside him.
To Frank's family, I extend my deepest condolences and my gratitude for sharing him with our Nation. Frank gave so much of himself in service to others. The United States is better because of his life. My team and I are all better because we had the privilege of knowing him.
May God bless Frank Tedeschi, his family, and the United States of America.
Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations 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.
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.
*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 rise to introduce the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2026. This comprehensive piece of legislation would eliminate racial and ethnic health inequities and increase access to healthcare for vulnerable communities across the entire spectrum of care by taking a comprehensive approach to health equity.
This bill is a comprehensive approach to address these systemic disparities impacting communities across the country. The bill would expand access to culturally and linguistically appropriate care; strengthen and diversify the healthcare workforce; remove cost, citizenship, and administrative barriers to coverage and care; increase Federal support for Medicare, Medicaid, and public health systems; establish innovative models for maternal, child, mental, and behavioral health; fund prevention programs for high-impact diseases that disproportionately affect marginalized populations; modernize data collection efforts and expand telehealth access; address the social determinants of health through investments in nutrition, environmental justice, and community-based supports so that health outcomes improve and disparities are systematically reduced.
The bill also lays out additional investments and policy changes to improve the health and well-being of underserved communities, address systemic health inequities, and ensure access to high-quality and affordable healtcare for all.
At a time when access to healthcare is under increasing threat for our most vulnerable communities, including through recent Federal policy changes and the implementation of H.R. 1, which has already resulted in significant coverage losses for millions of low-income families and communities of color, the Health Equity and Accountability Act is more important than ever.
Rather than allowing existing inequities to widen, this legislation reaffirms a commitment to ensuring that all people have a fair opportunity to access the care and services they need. By prioritizing equity and accountability across the healthcare system, HEAA would help build a more resilient, inclusive, and effective system that better serves communities that have historically faced barriers to care.
I would like to thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressman Raul Ruiz for leading this legislation in the House of Representatives, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Health Equity and Accountability Act as soon as possible.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2026. This comprehensive piece of legislation would eliminate racial and ethnic health inequities and increase access to healthcare for vulnerable communities across the entire spectrum of care by taking a comprehensive approach to health equity.
This bill is a comprehensive approach to address these systemic disparities impacting communities across the country. The bill would expand access to culturally and linguistically appropriate care; strengthen and diversify the healthcare workforce; remove cost, citizenship, and administrative barriers to coverage and care; increase Federal support for Medicare, Medicaid, and public health systems; establish innovative models for maternal, child, mental, and behavioral health; fund prevention programs for high-impact diseases that disproportionately affect marginalized populations; modernize data collection efforts and expand telehealth access; address the social determinants of health through investments in nutrition, environmental justice, and community-based supports so that health outcomes improve and disparities are systematically reduced.
The bill also lays out additional investments and policy changes to improve the health and well-being of underserved communities, address systemic health inequities, and ensure access to high-quality and affordable healtcare for all.
At a time when access to healthcare is under increasing threat for our most vulnerable communities, including through recent Federal policy changes and the implementation of H.R. 1, which has already resulted in significant coverage losses for millions of low-income families and communities of color, the Health Equity and Accountability Act is more important than ever.
Rather than allowing existing inequities to widen, this legislation reaffirms a commitment to ensuring that all people have a fair opportunity to access the care and services they need. By prioritizing equity and accountability across the healthcare system, HEAA would help build a more resilient, inclusive, and effective system that better serves communities that have historically faced barriers to care.
I would like to thank the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressman Raul Ruiz for leading this legislation in the House of Representatives, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Health Equity and Accountability Act as soon as possible.
Mr. President, I have 11 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 in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 2 p.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 9 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 10 a.m.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, at 4 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 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 23, 2026: Anna Shaffer and David Rockett.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that the postcloture time with respect to the Traynor nomination be expired, and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination immediately following disposition of the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180, or at 12 noon if no motion is made; further, that it be in order for Senator Van Hollen or his designee to make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180 from the Foreign Relations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 23; 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, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that if Senator Van Hollen or his designee makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180 from the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge at 11:30 a.m.; further, that at 1:45 p.m., the Senate execute the order of Tuesday, July 21, with respect to the Pozos nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during tomorrow's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of my Democratic colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I won't speak long. David Rosner has died. You have probably never heard of him, but I knew him. His research, along with his colleague Gerry Markowitz, helped expose the role of the lead paint industry in poisoning millions of children.
He was a great public health researcher. Here is his book with Gerry Markowitz, which I just took down from my Senate bookshelf, where I keep it: ``Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution.''
David had smarts, and he had discipline, and he had guts. The smarts made him and Gerry path-breaking researchers. The discipline made their research incontrovertible, and the guts helped him weather the response, all too common, from American industry when faced with inconvenient truths: to lie, to bully, to disparage.
Well, that behavior did not defeat David. His work stands.
As I said, I won't speak long. I will instead ask unanimous consent that three obituaries be printed in the Congressional Record appended to these remarks. One is his obituary in The Lancet, the distinguished medical publication. The second is a reminiscence by his professional peer Bruce Lanphear. And the last is a Substack reminiscence by his daughter Molly.
David was a special man. He did special work. I was proud to have worked with him.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
How Rosner and Markowitz Revealed the Hidden Architecture of Disease
Mr. President, I rise today to, once again, try to end President Trump's war of choice in Iran.
We are nearly 5 months into this war, with no end in sight. President Trump and Pete Hegseth have spent at least $37.5 billion on a war that Americans overwhelmingly oppose. Americans are footing the bill with their tax dollars and at the pump, as higher prices continue.
We have lost 18 American servicemembers, with hundreds more wounded. My heart is with the military families who are grieving the loss of a loved one.
Now, after months of chaos, Secretary Hegseth wants Congress to sign off on nearly $70 billion for this illegal war--nearly $70 billion more of our money to fund a war that Americans did not choose. That is $70 billion that we could be using to bring down the cost of housing and help folks get their foot in the door to buy their very first home. That is $70 billion that we could be using to help families afford childcare and allow parents to get back to work. And that is $70 billion that we could be using to lower Americans' health insurance premiums, fund our rural hospitals, or put some of the damage from Republicans' cuts to Medicaid to rest--in other words, restore that money.
Instead, this President wants nearly $70 billion for a war that is spiraling further out of control. That is his priority, not Americans' housing costs or insurance premiums, but rather a war across the globe that nobody asked for.
Even worse, we are 5 months into this war, and this administration refuses to give us straight answers about when this conflict will end.
It does not have to be this way. It is clear the only way to stop this war and find a political solution through diplomacy and tough negotiations is for Congress to force President Trump's hand. He started this war, and he is clearly incapable of ending it on his own.
So on behalf of all of our constituents who are paying the price, I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in bringing an end to this war before another American life is lost.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island--Oregon. I am sorry. Please forgive me.
Thank you. The Senator appreciates your pronunciation of my home State, which people across America have a hard time often figuring out.
Mr. President, I am here tonight joining my colleague from Wisconsin on a very serious topic: that our Nation is at war; that our servicemembers are dying; that for every one who dies, so many are injured--a war that is absolutely hurting us in every possible way.
Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure.''
On February 28, President Trump and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu launched this unconstitutional war against Iran.
President Trump was asked how long would this last. He said: 4 or 5 weeks. He talked about how our overwhelming military power would produce Iranian leaders who would plead--who would plead--for an unconditional surrender.
Mr. President, 16 weeks later, the war was still going on, but then there was agreement to a 14-point outline of a cease-fire agreement. But because it was just an outline, because the countries hadn't worked out their different understandings of the points, just as President Trump completely blotched the war, he completely blotched the negotiation; so it was back to war.
President Trump announced new strikes on Iran, and we are now in the 21st week of that 4- to 5-week war. Time and time again, leaders think they can launch a war and make a series of assumptions that prove to be wrong, and here we are again.
We were wrong with the assumption you could occupy Afghanistan and build something resembling a modern democratic nation.
We were wrong in spending our resources to attack Iraq, which was a counterbalance to Iran and undid this balance in a way that created Iranian influence through an arc that extended clear across to Lebanon.
You know, our Constitution clearly assigns the question of war to Congress. So to my Republican colleagues: Why aren't you insisting that Congress make this decision rather than the President?
Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The Constitution] has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislative [branch].
That is us. That is us. It is not the President. And the reasoning was that an Executive can too easily make assumptions that something will be quick and easy, but you are committing the lives of our citizens--you are committing the treasure of the Nation--and that should require careful consideration. One person alone, our Founders said, should not be able to take a Republic to war. That is what Kings do. That is what authoritarian strongmen do. But we are not--need I remind you--a strongman authoritarian state--at least we are not by our Constitution. We are a democratic Republic, so let's start acting like it and let's start honoring the structure of our Constitution.
That structure assigns the power of the purse to Congress. So every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President cancels a program that has been authorized and funded. Every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President creates a slush fund to do projects that are not authorized and not funded--that is our responsibility. Unfortunately, this Chamber has failed, for the most part, to defend its role and to defend the Constitution.
We did have a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act that directed the President to remove United States forces from hostilities with Iran, but the majority has acted like we didn't actually pass it, and the President has acted like it wasn't passed. And the majority has failed to protest to the President that he is not respecting the fact that it was passed.
If you can't stand behind the acts of this Chamber, if you can't stand behind the Constitution, then how far off track are we as a nation?
We just got through with a conversation about the fact that this Congress asked for a coin to be minted that reflected the values of our Nation upon our 250 years since our Declaration of Independence, but instead Trump did what dictators do, just as Caesar broke Roman tradition to put his face on a coin and to declare dictator forever, ``dictator in perpetuity,'' just as King George III put his face on a coin to reflect that power came from him down to the people rather than flowing up from the people--that is a mega difference between an authoritarian state and a democratic republic.
The consequences of Trump's war of choice and the consequences of the Republican leadership's failure to exert their constitutional responsibility to end President Trump's war of choice is that 18 servicemembers are dead and hundreds and hundreds of Americans are badly injured.
Thousands of Iranian civilians are dead--including a whole lot of children, many of whom died from a strike by America, by President Trump's team, on a girl's elementary school.
The war strengthened Iran's hardliners--that is what happens when you assassinate the religious leaders and the political leaders--people rally to their country.
It weakened Iran's reformers who wanted to see a different path for their nation.
It enriched Russia. In fact, President Trump proceeded to say that we would no longer enforce the restriction on the Russian sale of oil so they could sell at the world price. Billions and billions of dollars flowed into Russia because of this war--billions and billions of dollars that could be used in the war against Ukraine. That is a war started by a dictatorship against a democratic republic that we should be standing with.
We should be standing with the people of Ukraine, not enriching Russia to buy more weapons to attack them.
The taxpayers, they are certainly losers--$40 billion of national treasure was the estimate given to us yesterday from the Secretary of Defense. And by all estimates, that doesn't include repairing all of the facilities damaged throughout the Middle East that the United States is involved in.
Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now it is closed. That certainly doesn't benefit us or the world.
It has driven up the cost of gas; it has driven up the inflation rate. So Americans, in addition to $40 billion of their collective treasure, are paying out of their pocket so much more at the pump. The price in Oregon has been over $5 a gallon.
Farmers, they have lost too. They were already hit hard by the tariffs, but now they are hit by the high diesel prices to operate their machinery and by the high cost of fertilizer, all of which could be envisioned if there had been a debate here over whether we should go to war with Iran.
We would have heard from the experts who would say: You understand the Strait of Hormuz is a very narrow channel, and Iran has cruise missiles that can proceed to hit ships in the strait, so they have cards to play. We would have debated that if we had had that debate and carried out our constitutional responsibility.
We would have observed that that would have a horrific impact on American families. We would have observed that it would have a terrible impact on American farmers. But we didn't observe that because we didn't hold the debate.
But, say you: Did we not hold oversight hearings at least? Not a single one--another failure of our constitutional responsibility. This group of Senators, through the committees, not a single oversight hearing of the war.
President Trump promised to lower prices and end wars, but he has raised prices, and he has started a war.
Trump posted on Truth Social:
From the beginning, President Trump thought the power to bomb was his ace up his sleeve. Is President Trump a strategic analyst of wars? No. He just had this instinct--his gut--saying: We have more bombs than they do, so they will fold.
But he was wrong. And through this campaign, he just keeps repeating the same thing: If they don't do what we want, we will bomb them even more.
We will bomb them even more--the echo time and time and time again.
In the beginning, Trump said this war was one we entered because Binyamin Netanyahu was going to bomb Iran anyway, and there would be retaliation so we might as well join the war with him. That was the justification for the United States going to war?
Eventually, he got around to saying: This is about the nuclear materials and making sure that they don't make a nuclear bomb. Our Director of National Intelligence had been very clear that Iran had never made a decision to build a bomb.
And the basic measures to prevent them from having a bomb--getting rid of their highly enriched uranium and moving it out of their country under international supervision; having the IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--monitor everything they do; dismantle their plutonium nuclear reactor--all those measures were already done by an international agreement supported by five major powers--Britain and France and China and Russia and the United States--all together, insisting that these measures were necessary to make sure Iran never got a bomb.
So they did all those things. They dismantled their nuclear reactor-- their plutonium nuclear reactors called a rock reactor--and they proceeded to ship their highly enriched uranium out, and they let in all of the inspectors, and they followed all the rules of the centrifuges.
And who tore up that agreement and created a pathway for Iran to potentially covertly pursue a bomb? That man is President Trump.
So President Trump destroys the international agreement that prevents pursuit of a nuclear weapon and then proceeds to start a war to achieve the same result. And then he discovers the war doesn't work, so he has a 14-point plan.
Well, that plan kind of was jaw-dropping, particularly to my Republican colleagues. It called for America to organize an international Marshall Plan for Iran with some $300-plus million of help. It called for immediate access for Iran to some $24 billion of funds--after they had spent a decade complaining about Iran getting access to $1.5 billion, under the previous agreement, of its own money. What is $1.5 billion compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump was providing to Iran in the 14-point agreement?
Now we are hearing reports that homes have been hit, schools have been hit, hospitals have been hit. We are taking out bridges. The President is bragging about doing that. There was a report that two desalination plants have been hit in Iran. We don't have confirmation of it. I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday if indeed we had targeted or hit desalination plants. He said he didn't know but that he would get back to us. So I am looking forward to getting that information.
And why is that important? Because targeting a desalination plant is widely considered to be a war crime. So I hope those reports are wrong.
Why is it a war crime? Because destroying access to drinkable water-- and one of these plants was reported to serve some 10,000 people in 20 villages--is considered unacceptable under international law. That is why it is a war crime--because it is not a strategic military objective, unless forcing people to have no access to water is a war strategy, which it is not.
I hope that report is wrong. I hope it is not the case that we targeted desalination plants. Iran is reported to have targeted a desalination plant as well.
So the war is potentially devolving here as we are hitting more and more
So where are we? Trump now claims the main mission of this war is to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Iran's highly enriched uranium--that it only has because he tore up the agreement that prevented them from having that--is buried deep underground, so there is no easy way to extract it. If there is no easy way to extract it, how is this war supposed to solve that?
So the administration now believes negotiations are essential to be able to withdraw because there is no military answer. Maybe if we had had a debate here in Congress, we would have discussed the fact that there was no military strategy that would result in the extraction of that highly enriched uranium, that it would have to be done by agreement. So we are in the fifth month of Trump trying to bomb his way to an answer, the fifth month of that strategy failing.
Negotiators and facilitators of negotiators have proceeded to suggest a 10-day cease-fire to enable return to try to work out some of the details from that previous 14-point outline to solve this war. I support that effort because the path we are on is hurting America in every possible way and hurting a whole lot of civilians overseas.
So let's embrace and exercise our constitutional responsibility and pass Senator Van Hollen's War Powers Resolution to end this reckless war of choice. If the President ignores it after we have passed it, then let's collectively insist on defending the role of the Senate and the House under our Constitution to be the place where the decisions are made about going to war. It is time that we honor our responsibility.
I know there are a lot of Members who don't want to have to have that debate because they are afraid they will get it wrong--they will make a vote for war and it will be a disaster or they will vote against war and their constituents will disagree. But shirking the responsibility is unacceptable. So strap your big-boy pants on and do the work we were elected under our Constitution to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, 3 years. For 3 years, the people of Sudan have lived through an unimaginable nightmare and hell: 3 years of the worst raging war on our planet, 3 years of displacement, 3 years of starvation, 3 years of children growing up surrounded by violence instead of possibility.
Perhaps what is most shocking is not only the horror that is unfolding in Sudan, it is how little of the world seems to be paying attention. Twenty years ago, the horrors of Darfur captured the conscience of the international community. The world declared: Never again. Yet, today, another generation of Sudanese civilians is being terrorized while the world looks away.
Since April 2023, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces have waged an unimaginably brutal war for power. But it is not those fighting for power who have paid the ultimate price; it is ordinary people--mothers, fathers, children, families.
This war has become the world's worst humanitarian crisis, period. Entire communities have been cut off from food and medicine and lifesaving humanitarian assistance. Large parts of the country are experiencing severe food insecurity, with some areas facing outright famine and famine-like conditions. Women, children, families, journalists, aid workers--civilians of every kind have endured horrific violations of human rights and human dignity.
Consider what this war has done. More than 15 million people have been driven from their homes. More than 4 million have fled Sudan altogether. More than 30 million people now depend on humanitarian assistance simply to survive. Nearly 19 million children--roughly 90 percent of Sudan's school-age children--have lost access to formal education. Think about that. An entire generation is being robbed not only of their safety but of their future.
The United States has determined that the Rapid Support Forces have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The Sudanese Armed Forces have also committed horrific war crimes. The Trump administration has maintained that the genocide determination against the RSF is correct. Two administrations. Two declarations of an ongoing genocide.
None of this, though, is inevitable. None of this war is inevitable. The war is continuing because outside actors continue to arm it, continue to finance it, and continue to sustain it. Every weapon that enters Sudan prolongs this crisis and the suffering of the Sudanese people.
Yet, despite the staggering scale of this crisis, the Trump administration terminated bilateral humanitarian assistance to Sudan. And despite the need for sustained American leadership, the Trump administration has still not appointed a Special Envoy for Sudan.
The people of Sudan deserve more than divided attention. They deserve more than the American public looking the other way. They deserve focused American leadership in this time of crisis.
Today, the warning lights are flashing all over the city of El Obeid. We have seen the crisis already when it comes to El Fasher and the horrors that existed there. But now we see the pattern starting again in another major community. We know this pattern. First, roads are cut. Then humanitarian aid is blocked. Then electricity disappears. Then water disappears. Communications are shut down and disappear. Civilians are trapped. And then the killing begins.
Strategically located between Darfur and Khartoum, El Obeid has become the RSF's next major target. It is home to nearly 1 million people. They are at risk again. Most roads into and out of El Obeid have already been cut off. Only one major route remains, and it has already come under repeated drone attacks. Those attacks are growing more frequent and more destructive. Water systems, powerplants, telecommunications infrastructure, health facilities--the very infrastructure civilians depend on to survive is under assault.
We know this story, and we know how it ends. It is a call to the conscience of all of humanity and the conscience of this country. The only question now is, Will we act before history repeats itself in this city of 1 million people?
The head of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan warned:
The warning has been issued. The question is whether we will listen-- because we know what happened in El Fasher. Families were hunted down house by house. Civilians were massacred at an unimaginable rate. Women were subjected to horrific sexual abuse. Children were caught between the shelling and the starvation. Thousands and thousands were killed. People who stayed were killed. People who tried to flee were killed.
And the tragedy is this: None of it came without a warning. The warning signs were there. The intelligence was there. The risk was known, but the urgency was not.
We cannot allow history to repeat itself in El Obeid, nor can we allow the violence consuming Sudan to continue simply because it has fallen from the world's headlines--fallen or never been in the U.S. headlines.
I traveled to the Chad-Sudan border. As this crisis raged, I went there to witness with my own eyes. I met humanitarian workers forced to make impossible choices because they simply did not have enough food, medicine, or resources for the overwhelming need before them. I met mothers carrying children who were obviously malnourished. I met families who had watched their loved ones be murdered. I met survivors of horrific sexual violence. I met people surviving on grass because there was simply nothing left to eat.
I saw what seemed like an ocean of humanity in desperation. Those images
Even when the United States increased humanitarian assistance under the last administration during the first 2 years of the war, the need still exceeded the resources available. Yet, as the crisis deepened, the new Trump administration chose to terminate or allow bilateral humanitarian programs in Sudan to expire.
While the administration's contributions of $200 million to the U.N.- managed humanitarian fund is important--it is not nothing--but it is nowhere near enough to meet the scale of this catastrophe.
The reality on the ground demands far more from our Nation than expressions of concern; it demands action. That is why I call on the Trump administration to restore and increase lifesaving humanitarian assistance to the people of Sudan. That is why the United States and our partners must increase pressure on the outside actors who continue to fuel this conflict. That is why I introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on the United Nations Security Council to fully enforce the existing Darfur arms embargo and expand it to cover all of Sudan and hold accountable anyone who breaks that embargo.
I urge my colleagues in this body to join me in supporting this effort; to not turn away from this crisis; to stand, as America has stood in past generations, and call out the crisis and answer the call of humanity; to lead to end it. It is too long overdue.
This administration--I demand that Donald Trump appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan. It is required by the law of this body for him to do so, and the people of Sudan deserve an American diplomat whose full attention is dedicated to ending this war, not one whose focus is divided upon multiple crises. The biggest humanitarian crisis on the planet Earth demands that we have a Special Envoy. If not this, then what? If not now, then when?
If the staggering human suffering is not enough to compel action, then the growing threat to regional stability should be. But I hope we don't act because instability threatens our interest alone, even though it does; I hope we act because humanity demands it.
History has a way of asking really difficult questions: Where were you, what did you know, and what did you do?
No one will be able to say that we did not know about this crisis, that we did not know children are starving by the thousands upon thousands, that we did not know civilians are being massacred at rates and levels seen nowhere else on the planet Earth.
The genocide wasn't declared by the United Nations simply or some outside Agency, our own government has declared it a genocide. And now another city of a million people stands at the edge of a catastrophe. The call of humanity now is who will act. Indifference has never saved a single life but has condemned millions. Silence has never stopped a genocide, but it has allowed them to continue. Sympathy without action is impotency and failure.
The people of Sudan deserve more. They deserve our action. They deserve our focus. They deserve our urgency. They deserve a nation of people in solidarity to say: This should never exist amongst humanity. It should never exist in our world.
This is not just a call for the full weight of the international community, it is a call for who has led the international community since World War II. We have been the Nation that has answered the call on so many occasions. We have been the Nation united in our conviction that such horrors and atrocities should not exist. It has been American compassion that has led other nations to move. It has been American urgency that has led other nations to move. It has been American leadership that has helped to end crises across the world. It has risen to meet the AIDS crisis. It has risen to help people in natural disasters.
We are the United States of America. The test of our values is not how much we preach them but how much we live them.
The core of the faith of our Nation is to love thy neighbor, and who is your neighbor? The people of Sudan are our neighbors. They are part of our human family. There are children and families now calling to God, but it is not up to some deity to answer that call, it is up to His children to do so.
Another city is in peril. The horrors that might emerge in these coming days will rage again and thousands upon thousands could die or we could act. Let's not wait until another massacre to discover our conscience. Let our Nation rise to its truth. Let our Nation rise to this crisis.
In this dark time, let our Nation be a light to the world. Let us act now.
