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.
08Recognizing the 150th Anniversary of H.G. Greene General Store
09Recognizing Winn's Pizza & Steakhouse and Winn & Sara's Kitchen
10Tribute to Rich Brierre
11Tribute to Hank Thornton
12Recognizing Titan Batteries
13Tribute to Nars Desautel
14Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
15Senate Resolution 818: Recognizing the Importance of Trademarks in the Economy and the Role of Trademarks in Protecting Consumer Safety by Designating the Month of July as "National Anti...
Seventeen bills and two resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 5156-5172, S.J. Res. 203, and S. Res. 818.
Page S4336
Measures Passed
Ghislaine Maxwell: Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 608, expressing the sense of the Senate that Ghislaine Maxwell should not be granted a Presidential pardon or any form of clemency for her crimes with Jeffrey Epstein relating to the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors, and the resolution was then agreed to.
Page S4311
National Anti-Counterfeiting and Consumer Education and Awareness Month
Senate agreed to S. Res. 818, recognizing the importance of trademarks in the economy and the role of trademarks in protecting consumer safety by designating the month of July as ``National Anti- Counterfeiting and Consumer Education and Awareness Month''.
Page S4351
Measures Considered
SEED Act: Senate began consideration of H.R. 5334, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction.
Pages S4309-9, S4309-11
Prior to the consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 84 yeas to 12 nays (Vote No. 213), Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.
Page S4323
En Bloc Nominations: Agreement
Senate resumed consideration of S. Res. 817, authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
Page S4323
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 50 yeas to 45 nays (Vote No. 214), Senate agreed to the motion to close further debate on the resolution.
Page S4323
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for further consideration of the resolution, with no amendments or motions on or in relation to the Executive Resolution in order, at approximately 10 a.m., on Thursday, July 30, 2026; provided further, that at 1:45 p.m., Senate vote on adoption of the resolution.
Page S4351
Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund Resolution and Hostilities Within or Against Iran Authorization Resolution: Agreement
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, Senator Murray or her designee, be authorized to return the Senate to legislative session for the purpose of making a motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 199, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to ``Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)'', and the Senate vote on the motion to proceed at 11:30 a.m., on Thursday, July 30, 2026; and if Senator Gillibrand or her designee, makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 181, 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, while the Senate is in legislative session, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge immediately following disposition of S.J. Res. 199.
Page S4351
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S4338-39
Record Votes
Two record votes were taken today. (Total--214)
Page S4323
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10:30 a.m. and adjourned at 9:05 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 30, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4351.)
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: 53 of 151 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5334, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security, and to remind everybody--because everybody knows or better know--that the Social Security primary trust fund will be depleted in just 6 years. As a result, come late 2032, the program will only have enough income from the payroll taxes to pay 78 percent of benefits due.
That surplus was built up since a Republican, President Reagan, and a Democrat, then-Speaker Tip O'Neill, sat down and said: We can't let anything bad happen to Social Security. So they put a plan together that passed almost unanimously in this U.S. Senate.
I presume those two gentlemen--bipartisan they were--they thought it may only extend the program for 20 years or something. But as we see now, they had a plan that built up the surplus for the next 50 years, and that runs out in 2032. In other words, to emphasize, unless Congress acts quickly, retirees will see a 22-percent cut in their benefits, about the same as what Reagan and O'Neill saw happening in 1983.
So this statistic alone should motivate the Congress to act expeditiously to ensure no disruption of benefits occur. Unfortunately, Congress has a tendency to put off action until too late and at the last moment. This is never the best approach.
But with respect to addressing the Social Security funding shortfall, it poses a serious risk not only to the tens of millions of retirees but also a risk to the national economy.
As a recent Mercatus Center paper documents, waiting until the last minute to act on Social Security puts this vital program on a collision course with the Nation's growing fiscal crisis. The longer Congress waits to act, the more likely it is that any solution to Social Security will lean heavily on debt financing to bridge the funding gap. And that is how it is tied to the entire national economy.
So come 2032, the Nation will already have outstanding debt larger than at
In other words, Congress needs to act in the same way that Reagan and Tip O'Neill acted in a bipartisan fashion, in 1983, to preserve Social Security. A bigger problem faces us today, and we should have a bipartisan agreement in this town, including a President who wants to get Social Security on a financially sound basis.
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, yesterday, we said goodbye to our friend and colleague Lindsey Graham. But though we said farewell, Lindsey's work continues.
Last night, we began consideration of the bill to which he devoted so much of his time and energy over the last year. He had worked on it with world leaders and Members of both parties here in Congress, and he was working on it on the day he died.
That bill is now known as the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act. It will give the President important tools to hopefully end the war between Russia and Ukraine and bring peace where there has been war for too long.
Russia invaded Ukraine 4\1/2\ years ago. Back then, many believed Ukraine would fall in less than a week. But Ukraine has denied the Russians the quick victory that they had expected. This war continues because Vladimir Putin wants it to continue.
Over the course of the war, Russia has suffered 1.4 million casualties. By one estimate, Russian casualties are now 30,000 per month.
Ukraine has slowed Russia's advance. They have gone on the offensive within Russia's borders. And with the war reportedly taking up a significant share of Russia's budget, Putin is seeking to quash the opposition to it in his own country.
But the war continues, as I said, because Putin wants it to continue and because he is able to keep it going.
Russia funds its war effort in no small part through oil and gas sales facilitated by its so-called shadow fleet of ships flying under false flags. What the Graham Russia sanctions bill does is go after that source of funding. It gives the President authority to levy tariffs of up to 100 percent against the largest purchasers of Russian energy, of which China is the largest.
You might recall that before the Russian invasion in 2022, the leaders of China and Russia declared a ``no limits'' partnership between their two countries. Today, that partnership is most evident in China's financing of the war by purchasing Russian oil and gas.
This bill doesn't stop with the purchasers of Russian energy, however; it also sanctions the government officials, private individuals, and banks and other enterprises that facilitate the sale of Russian gas and oil.
In short, it takes direct aim at a key source of funding for Russia's war effort because this war will not end until Putin is forced to come to the negotiating table in a real way. This bill is about denying Putin the ability to continue to prolong this war.
President Trump has made his commitment to ending this war and bringing peace to Ukraine very clear. This bill will help him do that.
They say you can know a man by the enemies he has made. Lindsey Graham didn't have many fans in the Kremlin, nor was he liked in Tehran or Beijing, for that matter. I don't think this bill has many supporters in those places either. This is a bill that aims to shut off a key source of strength for Russia's war effort. It targets China's source of cheap energy. It ensures the President can continue putting maximum economic pressure on Iran as well by extending for another 5 years the legislation that underpins many of the sanctions that are in place against the Iranian regime.
We may have said farewell to Lindsey yesterday, but his work goes on. He believed in America, and he saw its promise in the hopes of men and women around the world who want their own democracies and freedom in their homelands. There was no greater friend to freedom-loving people than Lindsey Graham, and this bill is a part of that legacy--a legacy that will echo for many years to come.
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, yesterday the Senate honored the life of our dear friend Lindsey Graham. It was a remarkable gathering of people from around the world, people who came to honor a man who really has done so very much for this body, for his home State of South Carolina, and for the Nation.
I believe that today it is time to honor his tremendous legacy as well right here with a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think the way to do that is to pass the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act. It truly is a ``peace through strength'' bill. No tribute I think would be more fitting to our friend Lindsey or be more forceful.
This bill strengthens America's national security while pressuring our adversaries to pursue peace; and that is what Lindsey was doing-- pursuing peace.
This sanctions bill is a historic piece of legislation. They target Russia's largest oil importers, target Russia's leadership, target Russia's so-called shadow fleet. Russia uses that shadow fleet to evade sanctions on its illegal oil.
Most importantly, it targets other nations that buy Russian oil, that buy Russian natural gas, that buy Russian uranium. This is the way Russia is financing its brutal killing war in Ukraine.
The penalties are swift; the penalties are severe.
We know that energy is a cash cow of Putin's war machine. It is also Russia's Achilles' heel. You cut it off, and Russia cannot continue to fight.
Russia's biggest customer, we know, is communist China. Next is India, and they are going to be hit hard by this. This is the way to cripple Russia's war machine.
Allies of Ukraine can qualify for exemptions. Those exemptions come from taking serious steps to end their own dependency on Russian energy products.
For many years--and you and I have talked about this--Europe has spent more money on Russian energy than it has sent in aid to Ukraine. Mr. President, you are a warrior. You know this. You are from an energy State. You know these things are critically important, and they are true. This needs to change.
Of course, Russia isn't fighting Ukraine alone. In Putin's war of aggression, it is Iran partnering with Russia. Iran has supplied Russia with drones, with missiles, with munitions. Russia has used these weapons to kill Ukrainian civilians and to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure.
In return, Russia has shared with Iran--we know what they have shared with their regime: technology, intelligence, military support, all of those things. Iran has used this support to attack American troops.
And you have worn the uniform; you have borne the battle. And we have seen the attacks on the American troops that hold the area in terms of how Iran holds the Strait of Hormuz hostage. It is continuing today. There were attacks yesterday.
Russia and Iran both employ a shadow fleet of illegal oil tankers. They share sanctions-evading networks. They sell oil to many of the same buyers. They are all working together
That is why Iran has rightfully been added to this sanctions bill. Lindsey started it about Russia, and now we have added Iran with President Trump's guidance.
Together, Russia and Iran have built an ``axis of aggression,'' and we know where the aggression is headed. Sanctioning those who buy oil from Russia and Iran disrupts this entire axis all at once.
Passing this bill will make our country safer, and it makes our adversaries weaker.
Senator Graham visited Ukraine shortly before he died. Lindsey was a friend of freedom in Ukraine. He never stopped working to build support for their cause.
Lindsey succeeded. This is a bill that has united a broad coalition of U.S. Senators. The motion yesterday to proceed to the bill, over 80 Senators voted positively, voted for this motion. And I am one of the many cosponsors.
Now it is time to pass this bill. Now it is time to push for peace. Today, Russia is at the point of maximum weakness, and so is Iran. Critical pieces of Russia's energy infrastructure are today in shambles. A significant portion of its oil refinery capacity is no longer operable.
Energy shortages are being felt all across Russia today. At the same time, Iran's military has been severely degraded.
Both Russia and Iran still refuse to accept plans for lasting peace. Russia and Iran respond only to strength, not to statements.
It is time for the Senate to act and act decisively and to work toward lasting peace. Today is the day to pass the Lindsey Graham sanctions bill.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I would like to echo and reinforce the words of my good friend Senator Barrasso, the majority whip, Senator from Wyoming, who was doing a great job yesterday and the beautiful service that we had here in the Capitol and at the National Cathedral in honor of my very good friend and Senate colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. And, you know, the eulogies were great. It was a beautiful service.
He was, as I mentioned, a dear friend, colleague, a patriot, a veteran, a staunch advocate for his State South Carolina, staunch advocate for the Senate, and a staunch advocate for a strong America. As Senator Barrasso just said, peace through strength in the sense of American freedom, not just at home but abroad.
He was one of a kind--witty, brilliant. Certainly, Mr. President, as you know, one of our Nation's most important and influential Senators. He had a great sense of humor. He loved to laugh.
And a lot of us here on the Senate floor are talking about his legacy and what we should be doing to honor that legacy.
Well, I think one of the things we should be doing--and we are doing it right now, and it is great--is this sanctions bill against Russia, against Iran. And Senator Graham had been leading the efforts on this sanctions bill for a couple years now, and we are passing it here in the Senate in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion. Over 80 Senators voted to get on the bill last night. I know Lindsey is looking down from Heaven very proud he made this happen.
I was honored to be an original cosponsor of this bill from the very, very beginning working with him on these issues.
And we have got more to do. I have a very analogous sanctions bill with regard to China and Taiwan that Senator Graham was a lead cosponsor of my bill. That is coming next.
But it is about honoring him, and this is a bipartisan win.
Mr. President, I think there is another way we need to honor Senator Graham, and it is not happening. It is kind of a new thing. We have got the minority whip coming to the floor, and I hope he can maybe respond to this. But it is a new thing that I have seen--I have never seen, actually, in my career, and we need to change it. And what that is, is getting on the National Defense Authorization Act to start debating it and working on a defense supplemental because we need it. Now, we are talking about honoring Lindsey Graham. I knew Lindsey Graham really, really well. I guarantee you Lindsey Graham would be on the Senate floor right now saying: Wait. We are moving our sanctions bill forward? Great. Bipartisan? Great. What about the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--that funds our military, pay raises for our troops. It came out of the Armed Services Committee in a big bipartisan vote and then came to the Senate floor--screeching halt because the minority leader blocked it.
By the way, I have been in the Senate almost 12 years. I have never seen that happen in my entire career. The bill that funds our military, that lays out the strategy and top-line number for our military during a dangerous time, is blocked by the Senate Democrats. Lindsey Graham would be on the floor raising hell about that.
I have never seen it happen, and I have never had anyone on the other side of the aisle explain to me: Why are you blocking the bill that came out of committee in a strong bipartisan way during these dangerous times? You are blocking the bill to fund our military to take care of our troops? Unprecedented.
So if we want to honor Lindsey Graham, which we all do, let's not just vote for the sanctions bill, but let's get on the NDAA and start debating it. I haven't heard one Democrat Senator give a reason why they are blocking it. I have never seen this happen. This is new territory.
Let me give you another one that I know Lindsey Graham would be on the floor right now advocating with me on. We need a defense supplemental, OK?
When President Biden was President and Senator Schumer was majority leader, the Biden White House sent over a defense supplemental on Ukraine. Now, Senators like myself, Senator Graham, others, we said: All right. We will look at that. We will work on that. We will improve it. We will make it better. We think it is important for the national defense of our Nation--which it was.
We put a lot in there for the defense industrial base, which we did. We beefed up stuff relating to China and Taiwan, which made it a better bill. We beefed up elements of that bill to make it stronger with regard to Israel and Iran--made it a better bill and then worked on it together.
We made it a stronger bill and then Senators like myself and Senator Graham whipped other Republicans to get it passed, and we got it passed. It was a bipartisan defense supplemental, primarily for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and our defense industrial base.
Now we need a defense industrial base supplemental for us--for America, for our troops, for our munitions.
A couple years ago when the Biden administration with Senator Schumer in the majority, that happened, and a number of us--myself and Senator Graham--were like: All right. We will roll up our sleeves and work with you guys.
What is happening on the defense supplemental now? No cooperation. No one on the other side of the aisle wants to help our troops, wants to help our munitions.
This is new territory. I have been here two terms and on defense issues with Senator Graham--and, by the way, many other great Senators on the other side of the aisle. We have always locked arms and said: We are going to move forward on the NDAA; we are going to move forward on the defense supplemental, if our troops need it. And what is happening right now is new; it is different; and I think it is really bad for the country.
And do you know who would be down on the Senate floor right now with me making the same arguments that I am? Senator Graham would be. So let's keep talking about honoring Senator Graham. I love that guy. I am going to miss him every day. Such a great leader. So important to the Senate. Mind
But let's not say we are going to honor Senator Graham--and then we are going to block the NDAA? Lindsey Graham wouldn't be doing that.
We are going to not engage at all with the Trump administration on a defense supplemental that our Department of Defense needs? We didn't do that when you guys were in the majority and President Biden was President. We rolled up our sleeves and got to work to benefit the national security of our Nation, which is what Lindsey Graham was always about.
So let's honor Lindsey Graham. Let's have a strong vote on the sanctions bill that is named after him. But to my Democratic colleagues: You want to honor Lindsey Graham? Then let's start debating the NDAA. Quit blocking it. I have never seen that before in my entire time here. That doesn't help anything. All it does is undermine our national security and our troops. You are doing it. Lindsey wouldn't be for that.
And let's start engaging on a defense supplemental. We need it. We did it when you were in the majority. We did it when Biden was in the White House.
A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that what they are doing is wrong, and I still haven't heard a good explanation. I know the far left is driving the energy of the party on the Democratic side right now and they don't like the military and they don't like supporting our troops. I know that. But the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I know them. Let's get going on the NDAA. Let's get going on the defense supplemental bill. That is exactly what Senator Graham would be arguing today.
Mr. President, we start with this little document called the U.S. Constitution. Every one of us has sworn to uphold and defend this document. And we go to article I, the first article in the Constitution, section 8, and it spells out with clarity who declares war under this Constitution: The Congress of the United States.
We are now engaged in a war in Iran. Did the Congress declare war on Iran? No.
Did the President even ask Congress to declare war on Iran? No.
Well, were there public hearings in Congress about this decision to invade Iran, to attack Iran? No.
Did this President of the United States go to the allies of the United States, like the NATO allies, to discuss the invasion of Iran? No.
This President decided that we would go to war on his own--strictly on his own--without regard for what the Constitution requires.
Now, I am glad to concede that there have been many Presidents that have gone to war under similar circumstances, but almost without exception they at least took the case to the American people directly or through Congress. This President did not.
So where are we today? Mr. President, $88 billion--that is how much has been spent so far in Iran. We are in the fifth month of the first year of a never-ending war that this President promised over and over again at his rallies would never, ever, ever happen under his watch.
Now we have the Senator from Alaska coming to the floor raising questions about why we aren't moving on certain items. It is because there has been no involvement in the decision process that led up to this.
Do you know what the increase is in defense spending for next year: 40 percent of the Department of Defense budget--40 percent. Why? We have an $88 billion war going on in Iran. There are those of us who have serious doubts that that is the right thing to do.
We look at the Strait of Hormuz. Before we invaded Iran, they were open for the transport of energy, oil, and fertilizers. Now, they are virtually closed because of President Trump's decision to invade Iran.
Does it have any impact on you personally? Filled your gas tank lately? Do you know what is going on there? The cost of gasoline is going through the roof because of the invasion of Iran and the decision to move forward.
So you can tell from my comments here that I have serious doubts that we are doing the right thing in Iran. I am not going to be a defender of Iran. I have called for sanctions on that country over and over again for their misconduct. But to sit here and argue that we are somehow shirking our constitutional and congressional responsibility by not funding this war is to ignore the obvious.
This was the President's decision to go forward with this war. My advice to him over many years that I have served in Congress: It is easier to start a war than it is to end it. And we are learning that right now.
The Strait of Hormuz are still at risk, and other parts of the world are at risk because of that decision. It is not the right decision.
Mr. President, let me also say a word about Lindsey Graham. Lindsey was my friend. On some issues, my ally. He did things for me which I thought were politically risky but to help, for example, to pass the Dream Act. It was Lindsey Graham who was the sole Republican who would cosponsor my bipartisan Dream Act each year.
I respect him so much for doing it. It was a political risk for him to do it. But either for me personally--God bless him--or for the thousands of young people who were facing deportation, he stuck his neck out for me. That is why I went to the service yesterday in respect for this man. I do respect him.
We didn't agree on everything. Particularly when it came to issues of war, there were serious differences. But there are many things that united us.
The gentleman from Alaska raises the question of: What would Lindsey do? I'm sure we can come up with our own interpretation.
Now, here is the bottom line moving forward: We have got to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to fund this government after September 30 when this particular budget ends and a new budget starts. I want to do that. Senator Murray wants to do it. I think Senator Collins would like to do it. But now we have to do it together on a bipartisan basis. We come to an agreement on the top line about how to reach a budget and then we start setting out on appropriations bills.
I have been fortunate enough to serve in the Appropriations Committee in the House and the Senate. I have seen some extraordinary bipartisan good work. We can have it again, but we have got to sit down and, in good faith, start working toward a conclusion.
A conclusion that gives 40 percent increase to the Department of Defense and zero increase to the rest of the government is a mistake. It is a serious mistake. We have important things that need to be done to help families that are struggling with the cost of living.
And so to the Senator from Alaska: I just disagree with you on the premise. We can and should work on a bipartisan basis, and it needs to start with next year's budget.
Mr. President, last month the Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to end a program called temporary protected status designation without any judicial review.
The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has supercharged President Trump's mass deportation campaign, with devastating consequences for temporary protected status holders and the American communities who rely on them.
Temporary protected status under American law was intended to prevent the deportation of immigrants to countries where it is not safe to return. By law, a TPS designation can only be made or extended in increments of 6, 12, or 18 months. It is truly temporary in nature.
Ahead of every TPS expiration, the Secretary of State must reassess the conditions in the countries and decide whether to renew the designation or let it end.
To take one example, there is no question that Haiti is unsafe. Our Department of State has issued a Level 4 travel advisory telling Americans it is unsafe to travel to Haiti due to the risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, and civil unrest. That is the official statement of the Department of State of the Trump administration.
So why has the Trump administration terminated TPS for Haiti and many other countries where it is not safe to return? Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed that TPS for countries like Haiti must end simply because it is the nature of the program--that it is temporary.
Here is the thing: Since 1990, 36 years ago, when TPS was established, there have been 30--30--TPS designations. Even before the Trump administration, at least 10 of them--countries like Angola, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone had their designations made and then officially terminated. They were temporary.
In some cases, like Haiti, conditions have never been safe enough to justify a termination.
Haitian TPS holders have bought homes in the United States, started American families, and become part of our communities.
Members on both sides of the aisle oppose deporting these Haitian immigrants. In fact, our former Senate colleague and my friend Republican 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.''
Let me say parenthetically: Mike DeWine is my friend. We are opposite political parties. We served together in the Senate. It was Mike who encouraged me to join him and his wife when they visited Haiti, and I saw it for the first time. It opened my eyes to the poverty and danger of that island country.
The Trump-Mullin administration has ignored the comments of Governor DeWine and others. Instead, ICE is preparing to target Haitian immigrants for arrest and deportation as early as this week. Immigrants who have been lawfully present in the United States for years now risk being deported.
This is all so that Trump and his trusted adviser Stephen Miller can meet their 2,000-arrests-a-day quota. They are not looking for the worst of the worst with these Haitians. They are not looking for terrorists, murderers, sexual predators, human traffickers. It is just whether they are Haitian or not Haitian.
It is time for Congress to give these long-term residents the security that they deserve. That is why I am calling for the passage of the SECURE Act, legislation that will provide certainty for these individuals and their communities by giving them the ability to apply for legal permanent residency.
Later today, my friend and colleague Senator Van Hollen of Maryland will ask for unanimous consent to pass this bill. I join him and appeal to my colleagues: In the name of humanity, for God's sake, don't send these people back to an island which we have already declared is too dangerous for any American to visit. Let them stay safe with their children and families here in the United States until things have improved in Haiti. If they are a threat in any way to any person in America, they need to leave; but if they are leading good lives, doing the best they can for them and their families, give them a chance. It is not too much to ask, and to deport them into this dangerous situation is not consistent with the basic values of America.
Mr. President, on a separate subject, yesterday the Senate voted to confirm Jay Clayton to be the next Director of National Intelligence.
He replaces Acting DNI Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist who purged career intelligence employees and who launched investigations into the President's political enemies as Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Similarly, anyone hoping Clayton will show loyalty to the Constitution over the President who appointed him is sorely mistaken.
Much like his predecessor, Jay Clayton has peddled the Big Lie and worked to do the President's bidding, using the levers of government to target Trump's perceived enemies.
Don't believe me? I will show you.
Earlier this month, in a clear threat to freedom of the press, the Trump administration issued subpoenas targeting several journalists for the New York Times who reported on security concerns related to the President's brand-new, Qatari-donated Air Force One. Who issued the subpoenas? None other than Jay Clayton in his capacity as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. After sharp questioning by a Federal judge, prosecutors withdrew the demands.
And 2 weeks ago, while appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his nomination, Clayton refused--time and time again--to say who won the 2020 Presidential election.
We have seen this play out in the Judiciary Committee as the President's nominees for the Federal bench bend over backwards to avoid stating a simple fact: that Joe Biden won in 2020. And Donald Trump lost.
Why? Because these people are loyal to the President above all. And that has been his guiding light when picking nominees for appointments.
Most importantly, Clayton lacks the basic qualifications necessary for the job of overseeing and coordinating our Nation's 18 intelligence agencies. By law, the Director of National Intelligence is required to have ``extensive national security expertise.'' Not only does he lack extensive national security expertise, he lacks any.
The Trump administration has already spent the past 18 months politicizing and denigrating our intelligence community. In fact, both of Clayton's predecessors, Pulte and former DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who took the unprecedented step of meddling in a domestic law enforcement action on election interference, laid bare just how important it is to separate politics from the work of the IC.
I voted no on Jay Clayton's nomination to be DNI. Despite this, I hope Mr. Clayton will show fidelity to the rule of law and be an independent voice to safeguard our IC.
His track record does not inspire confidence, but time will tell.
Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a key vote on Todd Blanche's nomination to be Attorney General.
The Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice--our Nation's premier law enforcement agency--as well as the FBI, DEA, and many other essential Agencies. The position demands that the Attorney General be someone committed to the rule of law and the Constitution more than any one person or political party. This principle is exactly why Todd Blanche is the wrong person for this role.
In his 16 months at DOJ, Blanche has shown that he is more concerned with serving Donald Trump than the American people. Pardoning January 6 rioters and cop-beaters wasn't enough for President Trump, so 2 months ago, Blanche colluded with President Trump's private lawyers to create a nearly $2 billion slush fund to benefit the January 6 mob that attacked the Capitol. When I met with Blanche earlier this month, he told me he recognized this decision for what it was: a ``mistake.''
But when I asked him under oath, Blanche insisted that he never made this statement, displaying either a short memory or a dangerous willingness to lie for President Trump. When pressed during his hearing, Blanche even refused to directly condemn those who assaulted law enforcement officers on January 6 and would not commit to permanently ending this slush fund.
Blanche has done more than just support the President's allies; he has also used his position to directly enrich the President himself. Earlier this year, Blanche personally signed a document to provide President Trump, his family, and his businesses with immunity for any past Federal tax law violations.
And last year, he dismantled DOJ's crypto enforcement team and shut down ongoing investigations of the crypto industry, an industry that has made President Trump more than $1 billion since returning to the White House. Blanche himself held crypto assets worth more than $150,000 at the time--and when he finally did divest himself of these assets, he did so by transferring them to his adult children and grandchild.
It is hard to believe how Blanche could possibly be an honest broker as Attorney General, especially when he refuses to even admit that the Department of Justice should decide who to prosecute without political interference from the President.
During his nomination hearing, one of my Republican colleagues asked Blanche if he and President Trump are friends. Blanche responded, ``I'm his
Todd Blanche's DOJ has become one where the President and his allies are protected while ordinary Americans suffer and his perceived enemies are baselessly prosecuted. The position of Attorney General is too important to be held by someone unwilling to say no to the President, which is exactly why I will be voting no on his nomination.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass the SECURE Act to ensure that we don't force individuals who have been legally residing in the United States under temporary protected status--some for as many as 27 years--to return to countries where they will face danger and, instead, to provide them with a secure path toward lawful permanent residency.
The need for Congress to do this, to take this step, has never been more urgent because, just over a month ago, the Trump-packed Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, allowed the administration to move forward with terminating temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of individuals who originally came to the United States from Haiti and Syria and to force them back--force them back--to countries where their lives would be at risk. That decision puts them and other TPS holders at risk of deportation to countries where violence, instability, and humanitarian crises continue to threaten their lives.
There are already reports that ICE is planning to target Haitian TPS holders for deportation as soon as this week, which would force hundreds of thousands of people to return to a country that our State Department warns is unsafe for travel. In other words, the Trump administration would force people back to a country where the State Department says: Don't go there because it is unsafe.
The Trump administration has also moved to lift lower court orders preventing the termination of TPS for other countries as well, putting thousands more lives at risk. In other words, these lower courts have said they have paused the ability for the administration to deport people on TPS, but the administration is moving to deport them anyway.
In 1990--in 1990--Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, came together to create the TPS program because we all agreed that keeping our neighbors safe should not be a partisan issue. When conditions in another country make it unsafe for people to return, America should not force those people back into harm's way. And for over three decades that bipartisan principle has guided the TPS program.
I think we all recall the Trump administration--at least the President--promised that they were going to target the ``worst of the worst.'' But that is not what they have been doing. Instead, it has targeted people, in the case of TPS recipients, with lawful status, targeting people who are here legally.
TPS recipients are people who have already been determined that it would be dangerous to force them to return to their countries of origin. They are here legally, and the TPS eligibility requirements are very strict. Recipients undergo repeated vetting and background checks. They work, they pay taxes, raise families, start businesses, and contribute every day to communities across this country. Many have lived here for years; others, for decades. They have become part of the fabric of our communities.
And yet the Trump administration's actions and recent reckless Supreme Court decisions place all of that at risk. The administration terminated work permits for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders on Monday. So people who had been legally here, had work permits, they have been terminated.
And for those who also apply for asylum, the administration's new policy announced just this week would funnel their pending asylum claims directly into deportation proceedings without ever receiving a hearing. So even people who could show individual cause of certain harm or danger could be deported under these new procedures. It is all part of the same effort to strip legal protections from people who have followed the rules.
Due to our country's broken immigration system, the TPS program is the only legal pathway for many to remain in the United States and keep out of harm's way, and the Court's decision is tearing up that pathway for many TPS holders, even as the facts on the ground are clear.
As I said, if you go to the State Department website, it says: ``Do Not Travel to Haiti.'' There are warning signs on that website of violent crime, gang activity, kidnappings, and widespread instability.
In the case of Syria, Syria continues to face armed conflict, terrorism, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The State Department warns--this is from our State Department--``Do not travel to Syria for any reason.'' That is what the State Department says, and yet the President and the Trump administration want to force people to go to Syria.
In other words, the same conditions that led the United States to grant these individuals TPS in the first place remain true, and yet the Trump administration wants to send them to these countries. So the State Department warns against travel but wants us to believe that it is safe for TPS recipients to be forced to return.
What has changed is this administration's determination to dismantle basic humanitarian protections that have been part of our bipartisan tradition in order to enact their mass deportation agenda, and now this Supreme Court has rubberstamped this administration's ongoing reckless efforts to gut the TPS program so they can terminate countries' designations across the board to advance that mass deportation agenda.
The Trump ``rubberstamp'' Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 decision, made the decision that rather than follow the letter of the law as Congress enacted it, the Department of Homeland Security can do whatever it wants--and free from judicial scrutiny.
As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent--she was one of three Justices dissenting from that Supreme Court decision--she said:
In other words, Justice Kagan pointed out that the statute does make clear there should be a determination about whether or not an action taken to terminate TPS would, in fact, lead to harm.
And Congress should not just sit back and allow this to happen. Decisions affecting hundreds of thousands of lives should be based on careful consideration of conditions on the ground, not political ideology or predetermined outcomes.
This decision makes one thing unmistakably clear, that we, the Congress, should act to reaffirm what was clearly our intent when we passed the TPS statutes to begin with. And, for years, TPS recipients have lived in constant uncertainty, and every extension brings another deadline. Every new administration brings another question about whether the lives they have built here will disappear with the stroke of a pen. This is no way to treat people who have been here legally and have contributed much to our country.
That is why we should pass the SECURE Act, legislation that provides qualified TPS and deferred enforced departure recipients with a pathway to legal permanent residence after years
It protects applicants while their cases are pending and shields eligible individuals from deportation during the application process. It provides work authorization and travel authorization. It also protects applicants' information from being used for immigration enforcement, except in limited circumstances. It increases transparency--which I would hope we would all support--by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to explain and justify future decisions to terminate TPS designations--something they have failed to do. Most importantly, it provides the certainty these families deserve after years--in many cases, decades--of living here legally in the United States.
We have long used TPS to provide refuge to people who would otherwise face extraordinary danger if forced to return to their countries of origin. They sought safety and stability here. They have built new lives in our country and made lasting contributions to our communities, and the SECURE Act recognizes that reality.
As I said, we should not be forcing these individuals back to countries where our own State Department has determined it would be dangerous to go.
The Supreme Court decision does not have to be the end of the story. We can write the end of the story, and it is our responsibility as a Congress to preserve that bipartisan congressional intent from back in 1990. We must provide that certainty that these individuals deserve.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2106. I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to this mass amnesty bill. Last week, Democrats asked the Senate to extend Haitian temporary protected status. Today, they have dropped the quotation marks. Instead of extending temporary status, this legislation would convert temporary status into permanent status--green cards, permanent settlement. At least the bill last week continued the same old Washington lie.
Today, Democrats finally admit what this scheme was always designed to be. Temporary was always meant to be permanent. It is the final stage of the scam. But that is how Democrats do mass amnesty. First, they declare an emergency. Then, they import hundreds of thousands of people. They then extend the program over and over and over. Then, they unleash activist lawyers against anyone who tries to enforce the deadline.
When the American people finally elect a President to end this chaos, to end this abuse, Democrats demand mass amnesty. And when the American people finally elect a President who enforces the law, Democrats change the law and hand out green cards.
That is what this bill does. It turns a program created for temporary emergencies into a pipeline for green cards and citizenship not only for people who have temporary status--not only for people who once had TPS; this bill reaches beyond our borders and allows people who were already removed from this country to apply for permanent residency from abroad.
Think about how crazy that is. The law was enforced. The alien was removed. The case was closed. Yet Democrats want to erase the removal, reopen the border, and bring that person back with a green card. Under the radical, new Democratic immigration platform, deportation isn't deportation; it is merely an inconvenience before a green card arrives.
This bill does not merely reward those who broke our laws and remained in our country; it reaches around the entire globe to reverse deportations and to restart mass migration.
But even that is not enough. This bill also creates an ICE blackout. Information provided in these applications can't be used for immigration enforcement. The bill even threatens penalties against law enforcement who properly use the information. So Democrats want the information we have about foreigners to be placed behind a legal shield so it cannot be used to enforce immigration law.
Republicans want to handcuff illegal criminals; Democrats want to handcuff law enforcement officers so they can't do their jobs. They are not hiding the choice anymore. They will punish the officer before they punish the illegal alien. Why are illegal aliens more important to them now than protecting American citizens?
Oh, but it doesn't stop there. This bill ensures that any President-- any future President--can't end TPS.
So what is missing from the bill? Americans; American citizens and the impact mass migration is having on our people. This bill has no consideration for American wages; no consideration for American housing; no consideration of schools, hospitals, or communities; no consideration of whether mass migration serves the national interest of the American people. Every question is about what the foreign country needs; no question about what America needs or what American families need. That tells you everything that you need to know.
To today's Democrat Party, immigration policy is written for foreign governments, immigration lawyers, activist groups, and leftwing organizations waiting to file the next lawsuit. The American people are treated as a logistical obstacle. Their votes--our votes--are an inconvenience. Their communities--our communities--are an afterthought. Their country is treated as common property for the rest of the world.
Democrats are becoming more and more radical by the day on this issue. Yesterday, they insisted that temporary programs must never end. Today, they demand permanent residency for all--permanent residency for people who already left, legal shields against law enforcement, and more ammunition for activist lawsuits. And they will turn around and call us cruel. You will hear it shortly. It will be said about me blocking this bill.
Let me speak clearly to my Democrat colleagues: There is nothing compassionate about betraying your own citizens--the very citizens who put you in office. There is nothing compassionate about flooding the labor market with more foreign workers while Americans struggle for a decent wage. There is nothing compassionate about flooding the housing market and putting young families behind the eight ball. There is nothing compassionate about diluting American citizenship.
America is a nation, not a global waiting room, not a refugee camp, not a lifetime stay at a taxpayer-funded hotel. Our immigration laws exist to serve the American people. Foreign nationals do not have a right to permanent settlement here.
Today, I speak on behalf of the American people who have been ripped off by this scam for far too long. No more. We had an election on this issue. The Democrats have not gotten the message. They want the United States of America to be a global refugee camp cloaked behind their compassion. There is no compassion for the American people--the guy that swings the hammer, who is working 7 days a week so he can pay for the benefits of an illegal alien who they don't ever want to leave this country.
The American people are a sovereign people who have the right to decide who enters this country, who remains, and who has to leave. This bill reverses that principle. This Democrat bill tells the American people that their elections cannot end a temporary program, that the President cannot enforce the law, that their officers cannot use information in front of them, that their country belongs to everyone but them. Only the migrant's claim matters. Only the foreign country matters. Only the ambulance-chasing immigration lawyer matters.
I reject all of that completely, in public, for the world to see, because I stand by my brothers and sisters of this country.
Last week, I objected to the Democrats' attempt to give 350,000 Haitians extended TPS. Today, I am objecting to this Democrat attempt to give millions of illegal aliens mass amnesty, green cards, and work authorizations.
I will always object to this mass amnesty. I will always object to this mass migration. I will always object to putting American workers last. I will always object to tying the hands of our law enforcement. So therefore I object.
Mr. President, just to make a couple things very clear, the President has a mass-deportation agenda even though what the President says is that he is focused on going after the worst of the worst.
We had a vote on a resolution here in the Senate not that long ago about going after the worst of the worst, and it passed unanimously. It was a voice vote. There is no argument there.
The issue with these TPS holders is that they are here legally, with work permits. In fact, they are among the most vetted people in the country. Every year, they go through security and background checks in order to renew their work permits.
The reason we provide them with the opportunity to stay here is because there has been a determination that their countries of origin are such dangerous places that their lives would be put at risk--places like Haiti, places like Syria, where our own government has determined it is too dangerous to go, and they warn people about going to those countries. Yet what this Trump administration action would do is force people back into danger in those countries. That is what the Trump administration wants to do, and that is what this Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 vote, allows them to do. It allows them not even to have to make that determination in any serious way about what the circumstances are in the country these people would be forced back into.
So there is a whole lot of misinformation that was put out there about this piece of legislation.
I will just say that in my State of Maryland, many of these folks on TPS have become very important and valuable members of our community. As I have said, many have been here for years and years and in some cases, for decades.
By the way, they are paying taxes. They are paying Federal and State taxes. They are paying into the Social Security trust fund. In many cases, they have started small businesses that actually create more economic opportunities for everybody in the community and the State. Go look it up. A lot of these TPS holders are small business men and women. They are hiring people in our communities and our State. Yet these are the people--some of the most vetted individuals in the country, people who pay State and local and Federal taxes--that the Trump administration wants to send back to countries where we say it is dangerous to go.
So that is why we are here on the floor right now, because the first wave of this is about to happen, and the Trump administration is about to deport folks who came here from Haiti who have been here under TPS, this protected status, and now they want to force them back into harm's way. We want to uphold what had been a bipartisan position, which is that we as a country should not do that. We should not send people who have this legal status now back to countries where they will face certain danger.
So it is disappointing to hear that our Republican colleagues don't want to move forward on this piece of legislation, but this debate is not over--not here in the Senate, not in the House, and not in communities across the United States.
And with that, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from California, who has been such an important, strong voice on these issues on the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in support of Senator Van Hollen's SECURE Act.
Across the country right now, hundreds of thousands of Haitian men, women, and children are terrified. They are terrified for their futures, for their children's futures. They are terrified about being forced back to a country that is gripped by a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
Nearly 1.5 million Haitians have been displaced by gang violence. Food insecurity is widespread. Basic services have collapsed. It is a country that the State Department--the State Department--warns Americans not to travel to because of the risk of kidnapping, violent crime, and civil unrest.
Think about that for a second.
The Trump administration itself is warning Americans not to travel to Haiti because of how unsafe it is. Yet the same administration wants to force over 300,000 Haitian nationals--who, until very recently, held temporary protected status--to go there.
Now, the President has made it very clear for years what he thinks about immigrants from Haiti. And we received reports in the past few days that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for a mass roundup and swift deportation of these families in the coming days.
So now, thanks to the President's hostility toward immigrants, TPS holders from countries in turmoil--many of whom have lived in the United States for years, if not decades--are now in danger and at the mercy of this cruel administration.
But the fact of the matter is, the American people do not support the President's goal of kicking these men, women, and children out and forcing them back to a nation steeped in danger and turmoil, because the American people recognize the fundamental fact that TPS holders-- who are legally granted protection in the United States, who registered with the Federal Government, who passed background checks and received authorization to live and to work here--are human beings--human beings that deserve respect and dignity, and we have a moral obligation to help when we can.
More than that, most Americans recognize how much TPS holders and immigrants, more broadly, contribute to our country--the economic, social, and cultural benefits they have provided us, as they have worked and lived among us for years, developing strong roots in our communities.
Yes, over time, TPS holders become our neighbors, our coworkers, and our friends. The more than 94 percent of TPS holders who participate in the labor force, as of 2017, are nurses and construction workers--vital jobs for the people of the United States and for our economy. They are home health aides, hotel workers, and entrepreneurs. Collectively, they contribute around $29 billion to the U.S. economy every year and pay more than $7.8 billion in Federal, payroll, State, and local taxes annually as well.
That is right. They pay nearly $8 billion in taxes every year.
If more than 300,000 Haitian workers suddenly drop out of the workforce, the impacts are going to be very real and very sudden.
And we can't forget that many are raising American children, not only as caregivers for other people's children but as parents to nearly 400,000 U.S. citizen children.
And that impact is only magnified when you pull back and consider the more than 1 million people who had TPS as of early 2025 and have been targeted by this administration and its cruel mass detention and mass deportation agenda.
So, colleagues, I am going to say something that I don't say very often: I agree with Governor Mike DeWine, the Republican Governor of Ohio, who has called ending TPS a ``mistake'' that is going to bring a steep economic toll with it.
Temporary protected status exists exactly for moments like this, when countries like Haiti--along with Venezuela, South Sudan, Afghanistan, and others--are experiencing exactly the kind of crisis that Congress had in mind when it created this program on a bipartisan basis.
But this administration is choosing to turn its back on the people that this program was meant to help and protect, while hurting our country in the process. So we need to do more to protect people who have built their lives here and who have contributed so much to our country.
So I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for trying to pass the SECURE Act. He has my support. I urge all of you to support the SECURE Act as well.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Well, Mr. President, the Trump Presidency is just a disaster, and more and more people know it. Just about everyone is getting to know it now.
This morning's CNN poll--right over my shoulder--is further confirmation that Trump has completely lost the trust of the American people.
Americans can see it, smell it, feel it: Trump's priorities are completely out of whack. He is concerned not with average citizens and making their lives better, just his own ego.
Just look at some of these numbers:
More than three in every four Americans say that Trump's disastrous war on Iran hasn't been worth the cost. The same numbers say they have experienced hardship because of gas prices: 79 percent.
And when asked: Does Trump have the right priorities? Seventy-three percent say no. A record 73 percent of Americans think Trump hasn't focused enough on the most pressing issues they face.
Pick any poll. Pick any issue. You will come to the same conclusion: Trump is totally out of touch. He is hurting America and not listening to America.
No one likes what you are doing. Are you listening, Donald? No one likes what you are doing.
Look at those numbers. They should make Donald Trump hang his head in shame: 72 percent disapprove of how he is conducting the war in Iran; 79 percent disapprove of him on gas prices; 73 percent say you have the wrong priorities for them.
When the overwhelming majority of Americans say you are taking the country in the wrong direction, you better change course.
Trump and his party can either take the hint or take a hike when it comes in November.
Democrats have been clear on appropriations. Democrats have been clear from the start: We want to fund the government, avoid a shutdown, pass strong appropriations bills that improve people's lives. Bipartisan negotiations are ongoing, and Senate Democrats are working in good faith to reach an agreement to keep the appropriations process moving forward.
We are fighting for a bipartisan funding package--not partisan bills that bankroll Donald Trump's war agenda while leaving working families behind. Any CR must be bipartisan. We must keep the government open without abandoning the needs of working families or giving Donald Trump a blank check for his destructive agenda.
There is a responsible path forward. Senate Democrats are ready to take it. Republicans must meet us to get that done.
Mr. President, Trump's crusade against Americans' healthcare costs continues every single day. Listen to this: Yesterday, Trump doubled prescription drug costs for millions of seniors by making cuts to Medicare drug plans. Just 2 days before Medicare's 61st anniversary, no less, he is cutting the dollars we need and doubling prescription drug costs for millions of seniors.
Can Trump get any more heartless? We are talking about seniors splitting pills in half to ration life-saving drugs or skipping meals to afford their medication at the pharmacy counter. That is despicable.
This is just the latest salvo in Trump's war on Americans' healthcare.
A year ago, Trump ransacked over a trillion dollars from the healthcare system to bankroll tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
And since then, millions of people have lost their coverage altogether while tens of millions get slammed while premiums double, triple, even quadruple.
But I guess that wasn't enough for Donald. Now he is coming after seniors--millions of them--by raising their prescription drug costs.
In Trump's America, families are fighting for their lives while the rich get richer.
Mr. President, Trump is more concerned about protecting himself from the repercussions of his failed war in Iran than protecting our troops who are in the line of fire.
As Trump twiddles his thumbs without any plan for how to end his reckless misadventure, our servicemembers are facing down barrage after barrage of Iranian missiles and drones.
Donald, posting another lie on Truth Social won't stop the missiles from flying. Thumping your chest won't bring down the crushing gas prices you have sent skyrocketing. And brushing casualties under the rug doesn't get our men and women in uniform out of harm's way.
And those whose names were eliminated, before they put them back, do not come back to life when you just simply take their name off the roll.
There is only one way to do that--to do all of that--bring our troops home. End the war. Democrats will soon force another vote on our War Powers Resolution to end this aimless war and bring our troops back home to their families.
Every second Trump prolongs this war, our servicemembers' lives are at risk.
Senate Republicans, stand up for troops, not the President who sent them to war without a plan, without a mission, without an exit strategy. Senate Republicans, stand up with the American people and come join us in ending this war.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the CLARITY Act, and about the years of work that brought us to this moment.
Now, I only have a few minutes to get started, but I am just getting wound up. I am going to talk for a little while. Then I am going to be back tomorrow, and I am going to talk about this some more because I have got a lot of pent-up things to say.
First of all, this is a very good bill--good for the country, good for consumers, and good for the people we all represent on both sides of this aisle. So, after 11 months of giving nearly everything that was asked of us, I am genuinely struggling to understand what else my colleagues across the aisle think it needs before we act.
When I was elected to the Senate in 2020, I knew I wanted to work on digital asset legislation because Wyoming's legislature was already years ahead of Washington. It was building a legal framework for digital asset companies before most of the country was even paying attention. I wanted to do everything I could to keep those companies in Wyoming and, more importantly, to keep them in America.
The person I have been most proud to work with is Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. People have raised an eyebrow for years that a Wyoming Republican and a New York Democrat have worked hand in hand on this bill, but we have become genuine friends, and I trust her.
In June 2022, we introduced the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act together--the first real attempt at a comprehensive regulatory
We reintroduced Lummis-Gillibrand in 2023. That was a 274-page bill. It contained provisions that cracked down on mixers and tumblers and crypto ATMs. It required plain-language customer agreements and regulated crypto advertising. It was a very strong bill for consumers. From a consumer protection standpoint, it had improved dramatically.
That partnership is now the foundation this bill stands on, and it is why I reject any suggestion that this bill is partisan. This bill is bipartisan. It has always been about keeping an industry we want here-- here to stay--but regulated in the right way.
In Wyoming, we used to call it ``growth on our terms.'' This bill is growth on our terms. It is growth on American terms--protecting consumers and protecting us from illicit finance.
Today, we have a 616-page bill because I have listened to my Republican and Democrat friends, incorporated their priorities, and tried to create the best bill possible. That is how we got to a 15-to-9 bipartisan vote out of the Banking Committee in May.
Now, plenty of people have told me to try to move this through on Republican votes alone and skip the headache. I have rejected that every time because the only way to get a bill through Congress that actually lasts is to build it together. We have earned support not only from every corner of the digital asset industry, but we have earned the support of major cornerstones in our financial industry, like Goldman Sachs and Fidelity.
Just this past Friday, the National Fraternal Order of Police endorsed this bill--an organization that spent months telling us this legislation would tie the hands of law enforcement investigating crypto crime. We listened and worked to secure dozens of illicit finance and anti-money laundering provisions that give law enforcement the tools they need, and they can hold bad actors accountable now. When they saw that, they came around. That is what good-faith negotiations produce.
Before any one of my Democratic colleagues tells me this bill doesn't do enough, I want to show each of you what 11 months of negotiations produce--provision after provision. I want the record to show precisely what was asked for and what we delivered.
Title I alone reflects 33 separate Democrat-driven edits, including tightening the bill's core definitions so companies can't structure their way around Federal securities laws; building a mandatory SEC ``front door'' certification process; adding anti-evasion authority so the SEC can look at the totality of facts and circumstances, rather than being boxed in by a technical loophole; cutting the annual fundraising cap from $75 million to $50 million, with a hard $200 million lifetime limit; barring felons convicted of fraud or money laundering from using this framework at all; and tightening the related persons resale restrictions from a 5-percent ownership threshold down to a 3-percent so insiders can't quietly dump tokens on the public.
We also built three entirely new titles at the Democrats' request. We added 23 additional sections combating illicit finance, including determining when a decentralized finance platform is really decentralized or whether it is just decentralized in name only, and when they are subject to the securities laws and Bank Secrecy Act requirements; sanctions compliance for DeFi platforms; new sanctions authority that can be used to target crypto platforms that facilitate money laundering to Russia, Iran, and North Korea; $150 million in new FinCEN funding and mandatory Treasury and GAO studies on mixers, foreign adversary activity, and financial stability risk; Federal protections for digital asset ATMs, consumer disclosures, Federal Trade Commission authority, and a joint SEC-CFTC financial literacy mandate.
Democrats also got more than 30 wins in the agriculture division of this bill, the CFTC portion, including a private right of action for consumer protection violations; capturing meme coins in the CFTC's jurisdiction; a stronger ``conflict of interest'' rulemaking than the House-passed bill; exchange-based consumer protection disclosures; best execution rulemaking; anti-manipulation and credit rulemakings; $150 million in CFTC appropriations; a new office of the retail digital commodity advocate; and requirements for digital commodity exchanges to recruit culturally diverse boards of directors.
This isn't a courtesy list. Every single one of those items was something my colleagues across the aisle insisted on and something Republicans agreed to because a partisan bill doesn't survive the next election, the next administration, or the next market turndown. We put what is best for American innovation ahead of politics. I am simply asking my Democratic colleagues to do the same.
Nowhere are our concessions more apparent than on ethics. When my Democratic colleagues brought their concerns to me, I didn't ignore them. In fact, I took them straight to the President, and as a sign of good faith and commitment to American innovation, President Trump voluntarily delivered the strongest set of ethics provisions in U.S. history. I put my own relationship with President Trump on the line--so did Bernie Moreno--to get a deal on ethics, and he agreed to it. No court, regulator, or statute compelled him to accept or offer any of this. He agreed to it because he believes so strongly that America, more than any other country, should be the one leading the way on digital asset innovation.
We are talking about a first-of-its-kind ban on any covered individual--the President, Vice President, every Member of Congress, every Federal judge, and their spouses issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for consideration.
He is willing to put his existing digital assets in a blind trust or to divest himself of them entirely under established ethics procedures. No sitting President has ever been asked to do such a thing, but President Trump will do it.
The Attorney General is directed to bring civil enforcement actions against any covered individual who knowingly and willfully violates the ban. Digital asset exchanges face civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation per day.
Violating officials must disgorge every dollar of profit and pay a penalty of up to 10 percent of what they receive or $500,000, whichever is greater.
That is what my Democrat friends asked for, and that is what the President gave you. President Trump said yes to a standard no one else on Earth could have forced on him, and I still hear that it is not enough. If you give a mouse a cookie--children's literature informs us--he will ask for a glass of milk, too, but we have now given our Democrat friends the entire cookie, factory, and a tanker-load of milk.
I want to be very direct with this Chamber because I am done being careful about this. I have spent my entire term working on this, and for the last 11 months, I have been stuck in windowless rooms with my friends on the other side of the aisle who have told me, over and over, that ethics would be the sticking point; that if the President put his holdings in a blind trust and if he were to accept enforcement and penalties and disclosures, that would be the signal my colleagues needed.
We got it.
Senator Moreno and I were elated. We were amazed that the President would accept this.
But it is not yet enough.
I didn't come here today to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith. I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are acting in good faith. I came here to simply ask: What specifically is left to give that is reasonable? Tell me the section number, because you have over 100 significant wins in the base text and an ethics agreement that has more teeth than George Washington had, with no precedent in American history.
My friends, at some point, continuing to say ``not yet'' isn't cautious; it is a deliberate decision to run out the clock and kill a bill, rather than risk a ``no'' vote on the record, with constituents and industry to answer to.
I have more to say. I am going to say it. I am going to say it before we get a vote on this bill--just not today.
Expressing the Sense of the Senate That Ghislaine Maxwell Should Not Be Granted a Presidential Pardon or Any Form of Clemency for Her Crimes With Jeffrey Epstein Relating to the Sexual Exploitation...
Mr. President, tomorrow, the Judiciary Committee will vote on Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General.
There are a number of reasons the members of the committee should oppose Todd Blanche's nomination--from his willingness to enable Donald Trump's worst instinct to his role in helping to create Trump's corrupt slush fund to pay out to January 6 rioters who assaulted police officers here in this Chamber and others. Yet there is one reason that stands out far ahead of the others--that of his complete and total mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case.
Former Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi told the House behind closed doors that Todd Blanche, as her Deputy, was responsible for how the Department handled the Epstein files. Under his supervision, the Department of Justice promised the release of Epstein's client list, claiming there was a list they compiled for Pam Bondi and sent to Pam Bondi, only to backtrack and refuse to release the document for months.
It took Congress passing an overwhelmingly bipartisan, veto-proof Federal law to force the release of these materials. Even then--even then--the Trump administration and specifically the Department of Justice, under Todd Blanche's management, delayed their compliance with this law.
When files were finally released, the identity of many perpetrators-- not victims--were redacted, raising serious questions and concerns about who the administration was trying to protect. They redacted perpetrators, not victims.
As the White House and Justice Department tried to manage the fallout from mishandling this case, Todd Blanche was purportedly in the Situation Room with senior Trump administration officials working on a public relations strategy--well, on behalf of the President.
According to the New York Times, one of the options was to have a Justice Department lawyer interview Ghislaine Maxwell in order to get her to clear Donald Trump. Well, Todd Blanche apparently offered himself up to interview Ghislaine Maxwell and strangely raised the possibility that Maxwell's lawyer ``might expect something in return for her candor,'' according to the Times. A convicted sex trafficker wishes something in return from the President of the United States.
White House Counsel then laid out the possibility that Ghislaine Maxwell might be pardoned or have her sentence reduced. You heard that right. There literally was a serious discussion at the White House to pardon or reduce the sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell just in order to get her to say nice things about Donald Trump. And mind you, this is the same woman--the same woman--who facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's horrific abuse of underage girls over many years, year after year, hundreds of young women.
Our justice system worked as it was supposed to. Maxwell was found guilty by a jury of her peers. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her crimes. That is why it was odd when Todd Blanche, in a highly unusual step, personally interviewed Maxwell. And days later, she was-- whoop--magically, magically transferred to a minimum security prison. Imagine that.
That is not the only thing that is odd. Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, who Todd Blanche calls a friend, said that Maxwell wanted a pardon from Trump in exchange for her public testimony that would help Donald Trump. At the same time, Trump has refused to rule out--refused to rule out--pardoning her.
Trump has said:
He has even gone as far as saying:
This is our President. The President said he would speak to the DOJ, which would now be led by his former lawyer Todd Blanche.
It is frankly horrifying that Trump would entertain the idea of clemency for even a second--even a second--for a convicted sex trafficker. That alone should be enough for the Senate to speak up with one voice and affirm that there should be absolutely no pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell--not now, not ever. That is why, earlier this year, I introduced a resolution doing just that. But given that Senate Republicans are poised to soon confirm Todd Blanche to lead the Department of Justice, the time to bring this resolution is now.
Earlier this month, the Senate passed a similar resolution saying there should be no Presidential pardon for Sam Bankman-Fried, so we have already set that precedent here in this Chamber. So let us now send a message to the White House and the Department of Justice right now that there should be no pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. There should never be a pardon for someone who helped a monster--a monster--abuse underage girls for years. That is why I am requesting that we pass my commonsense resolution today saying just that.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 608.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 608) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of February 12, 2026, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I am so pleased that we could find unanimous agreement on a resolution against a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. If Republicans advance Todd Blanche's nomination tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee, this is the least they can do to make their opposition to a Maxwell pardon clear.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative senior proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to an outstanding U.S. Senator and a dear friend, Senator Lindsey Graham.
When my husband first woke me with the news that Lindsey had died the night before, I couldn't believe it. I said to him: That can't possibly be true. I thought it was some tasteless internet hoax or a false report. Not Lindsey. Not our Lindsey. But sadly, it was true, although I still find it so hard to accept. I can only imagine how difficult this unexpected loss must be for his beloved sister Darline and the other members of his family.
Often when we think of a Senator, we ask: Did he or she make a difference? Did he or she have an impact on events here at home or abroad? Was the person a consequential Senator?
With Lindsey, the answer clearly was the resounding yes. Lindsey was a leader not only in national policy but also in shaping international events. How telling it is that the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Ukraine both made the long voyage to attend his memorial service yesterday at the National Cathedral.
Whether he was leading a congressional trip to Israel in the wake of the
And for me, Lindsey was also a close friend. Along with Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, I traveled four times with Lindsey to Afghanistan and Iraq. Believe me, on those long military trips, you get to know your colleagues very well. Lindsey's unsurpassed sense of humor, his self-deprecating wit, and his storytelling ability made serving with him delightful, and I always learned so much when I traveled with him as well.
I keep thinking that John McCain and Joe Lieberman--both treasured friends and colleagues of mine--were there waiting to greet what they called the third amigo when Lindsey Graham entered the heavenly gates, and I tried to take some comfort in knowing that the three of them are now reunited.
Yesterday, we celebrated the life of this extraordinary Senator. Lindsey's life on Earth ended far too soon, but his legacy will endure forever.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Madam President, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans failed to advance the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. That failure in the House was the latest example of broad bipartisan opposition to the Republican proposal to cut more than $50 billion--that is $50 billion--in benefits for disabled veterans over the next 10 years.
This controversial proposal continues to divide Congress, and it also is dividing the veteran community. And it is something we could have easily averted if my Republican friends had engaged in a serious and substantive conversation about the process, a conversation not only with Democrats but with the veterans service organizations.
They pursued a take-it-or-leave-it approach. I would like to think that it is mainly the House of Representatives that is responsible for this take-it-or-leave-it approach because Democrats and veterans advocates have been very clear from the very beginning, we oppose the cuts in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act for more than 1 million veterans who are currently eligible to receive benefits because they suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus.
These disabilities are not hypothetical or abstract; they are real. And they do disable people, and often they are the result directly from combat or training that inflicts the same kind of harms. For example, standing near artillery being fired for many hours a day, the result is impairments of hearing, tinnitus. And the toxic chemicals in training as well as in combat can result in sleep apnea.
So I am here to say again I oppose efforts to water down the Major Richard Star Act, a DOD-administered and funded policy, with cuts to veterans' benefits. I oppose watering it down by taking care and benefits away from veterans.
The Take Care of America's Veterans Act, to its credit, includes dozens of bipartisan priorities that Democrats have authored and championed. They are bipartisan, many of them. I support them. I want these priorities signed into law. Veterans, survivors, and caregivers deserve them. But we cannot accept the false narrative that accepting the Republican-proposed cuts is the only way to do it--our way or the highway--especially since it is a budgetary rule that has been selectively enforced in the past that somehow there needs to be an offset.
In fact, there should not be an offset to care for veterans by taking away from other veterans for a program that is an obligation of the Department of Defense. Call it the Department of War; it is still their obligation to provide full retirement pay without subtraction for disability benefits, as is now required. Unjustly, unconscionably, Republicans insist on offsetting new investments in veterans with those offsets, which is absurd, and I hope still my Republican colleagues will look to the compromise that I have offered.
I don't think there should be a need for an offset. There hasn't been for some benefits in the past. But if Republicans are going to continue to block the Major Richard Star Act with insistence on an offset or a pay-for, I have one. It is, in fact, contained in an alternative bill that I am offering today to address the two major concerns with the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. First, it would replace the watered-down version of the Major Richard Star Act with my bill to fully eliminate the wounded veterans tax, and it would strike the unprecedented cuts for disabled veterans who suffer from service- connected tinnitus and sleep apnea. In doing so, it would utilize unspent Department of Defense funds from H.R. 1, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, to cover the entire cost of the bill. It is the only offset proposal for the Take Care of America's Veterans Act that has garnered bipartisan support, and it is the one that doesn't pit some veterans against other veterans.
More than $75 billion of the Department of Defense funds in H.R. 1, a bill signed into law more than 1 year ago, still remain unspent and unobligated, and CBO has confirmed--absolutely confirmed--enactment of my proposal prior to the Department's obligation of those funds would provide the savings we need. The CBO has said, if we pass this bill, the savings from unobligated funds can be counted as an offset.
Let me just say bluntly: There is a lot of rhetorical rigmarole that we can apply to pay-go and offsets and pay-fors. We make the laws here. We can pay for this program out of unobligated funds that the Secretary of Defense--call him the Secretary of War--has said is unobligated.
Now, he has said a lot of it will be obligated, but it is for things like the Golden Dome, where most military experts say that money will not be feasibly spent by the end of the year. We should use it if we need to have an offset.
I believe that veterans, survivors, and caregivers have paid for their benefits through service and sacrifice. The cost of caring for veterans is part of the cost of war, and for those combat-injured veterans who are receiving disability benefits for their injuries, they should not have to sacrifice their retirement pay that is an obligation of the Department of Defense. It should not be taken out of the VA. It may seem like an abstract principle, but to veterans who would lose sleep apnea and tinnitus benefits, it is a big deal. In fact, it can be a life-changing deal.
Costs that are dramatically increasing each day because of the President's blundering war of choice in Iran have resulted in 18 service members dying and more than 600 injured, and they will be among the ones who are penalized if they retire with fewer than 20 years. We are creating a new generation of combat-injured veterans. It is unconscionable to claim that we can only care for them by forcing other veterans to sacrifice. We need to do the right thing. Veterans deserve meaningful results from a grateful nation, and they should never be handed an invoice when the costs of war come due.
My Republican colleagues cannot claim that the Major Richard Star Act is unaffordable. If you want a chart to give you some idea of the comparatively minuscule cost of the Major Richard Star Act, here is $13 billion. It is over 10 years. Here is our fiscal year 2027 defense request for 1 year. It dwarfs. In fact, $13 billion is hardly a rounding error on $1.5 trillion. The NDAA benefits expansion in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 was $13 billion--no pay-for. The estimated cost of the Iran war: $38 billion. That figure is a lowball. It is in excess, really, of $100 billion; we all know it.
Compared to all we spend on our defense capability, doing right by these veterans is basically a rounding error that the country can well afford.
Now, my colleague's bill also siphons off $500 million from disabled veterans for an IT slush fund that the VA does not need or request. The money that they are taking from veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus covers, in their view, the Major Richard Star
Taking money from veterans with service-connected disabilities and giving it to President Trump's cronies or whoever else is going to lay claim to that compensation cut but not used is absolutely shameful--a staggering dereliction of our obligation to veterans. Cutting $56 billion worth of benefits when only 15 percent, 17 percent will go toward covering new VA benefits is cruel and unconscionable. Better to adopt my compromise proposal. Taking unobligated funds--$13 billion-- out of the more than $75 billion that are unspent and unobligated, that the CBO says can be used for these savings, is the better way to go. It is the only one that has garnered bipartisan support. It is the only one that isn't opposed by the stakeholders. It is the only one that can pass. It is the only one that should pass.
So notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 433, S. 4744. I ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Madam President, reserving the right to object, it saddens me that we are here because I wish we were here with a vote on the Senate floor to pass the Major Richard Star Act and other pieces of legislation that are so important to veterans, their families, and their caregivers across the country.
The Senator from Connecticut outlined all the things that he says his amendment to this legislation would do and be supported by, but the reality is, the Senator from Connecticut has tried time and time again to pass legislation similar to that, never to succeed.
Earlier this year, I was on the Senate floor at my seat here, standing here telling folks that maybe for once we will quit sponsoring pieces of legislation that benefit veterans but never get to the point in which they are actually passed. And I committed myself to finding a way in which passage of the legislation could occur, not just remarks on the Senate floor or in committee or in gatherings of veterans or speaking to our constituents at home of our support. In most instances, this would be the Major Richard Star Act, which has nearly every Member of the Senate as a cosponsor and many Members of the House of Representatives as cosponsors. But that has been the case for 6 years. I was looking for a path that would result in a result.
At the heart of the debate today are those tens of millions of servicemembers, veterans and caregivers, survivors and family members, and VA employees who would benefit by the legislation that I have introduced--the legislation that the Senator from Connecticut is offering to accept with some amendments.
These men and women have been waiting years--years--for the lifesaving benefits this bill would provide. What we will decide today will determine whether they can access the mental health treatments they desperately need, whether they can put food on the table and pay their bills on time, whether they are able to remarry after the loss of their servicemember or veteran spouse without sacrificing benefits they need to support their families, and much more.
The point of that sentence or few sentences is that this is a comprehensive piece of legislation that begins with the Richard Star Act--the one that I said was sponsored by most Members of Congress but never sees the outcome those veterans and military retirees deserve.
The stakes in this debate are high. I think the legislation we are talking about--perhaps debating about--is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation that will affect veterans, their family members, caregivers, and others certainly in my time as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and perhaps my time in the U.S. Senate.
I have been a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 14 years in the House and now 15 years in the Senate. I have devoted effort, time, and attention to making sure we do right by those who serve our country.
I appreciate my colleague Senator Blumenthal--in fact, our shared determination, our dedication to the Richard Star Act. He has tried, as I understand by his words, eight times offering a unanimous consent, and each time, that effort has been unsuccessful.
Occasionally, I get complimented for effort. I appreciate compliments at any stage of what we are doing here, but what we really ought to be interested in is getting results--not results for a compliment but results because it makes such a difference in so many veterans' lives.
Today, the Senator from Connecticut--it is another example of his attempt to pass legislation--usually without an offset but today using an alternative offset. I respect his goal, but once again, as of July 22, the Congressional Budget Office has again confirmed to the committee that a rescission of unobligated funds to the Department of Defense in H.R. 1 does not offset mandatory spending and therefore does not qualify under the requirements of law to the Senate--excuse me--the requirements of law as the Senate does its work but as the House and Congress are obligated to abide by.
This plan does not meet the needs of the moment, and it will result in the failure by Congress once again to deliver to America's heroes.
There is a simple choice before us: We can either keep repeating failed efforts that result in no progress delivering for veterans and military families or we can step up and provide leadership needed to finally get them the help they need and deserve--action and results. We want action that has results. This is why shortly after this conversation, this discussion between the Senator from Connecticut and I, I will be asking for a unanimous consent agreement myself to pass the legislation with an offset that the Congressional Budget Office has determined to be a viable offset.
The Take Care of America's Veterans Act would expand benefits and healthcare to millions of veterans and their families, caregivers, and survivors across our Nation.
It combines 60--I think our committee, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, deservedly has the reputation of working in a bipartisan way to get results. We combined, in our efforts to get the Richard Star Act, other pieces of legislation that are hugely important to the veteran community--60 pieces of bipartisan legislation chosen in this process of putting this package together for their sponsorship and support by Democrats and Republicans.
This is not a partisan effort; this is a desire, an effort to accomplish something that would benefit all of us who have made efforts to support our veterans and to make certain that we do it in a way that gets 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.
That includes the Major Richard Star Act, of which the Senator from Connecticut has been a longtime advocate. That is to address a longstanding injustice--something that is totally wrong--by allowing medically retired, combat-disabled veterans--they are not allowed to receive both benefits. This would allow medically retired, combat- disabled veterans to receive both disability compensation from the VA and their earned retirement pay from the DOD.
The Senator from Connecticut talks about our committee and the committee that he serves on as well, the Armed Services Committee. The Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction, but there are so many veterans that have consequences from the current law that we decided--I decided it was time for us to step forward and find a path forward.
This legislation, in addition to the underlying Richard Star Act, includes the Love Lives on Act. That allows surviving spouses of fallen servicemembers and veterans to remarry without losing the benefits they need to support their families.
It includes the Veterans' ACCESS Act to make it easier for veterans to get lifesaving treatment--and particularly mental health capabilities--and expands access to high-quality care in VA medical facilities and in the community as well.
Those of us from rural places understand the value of that community care, and in today's time of challenges with our veterans' mental health and suicide prevention efforts, that community care becomes even more important. Quick access is critical.
It also includes the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act to increase compensation benefits for veterans with severe service-connected disabilities and their families.
There are dozens of other bills--bipartisan bills sponsored and led by Republicans and led by Democratic Members of the Senate--that are included in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act to make certain the VA is equipped with the right resources, staff, facilities, and authorities to provide the support servicemembers, veterans, and their families need.
The question we generally are arguing about is the pay-for. Again, the law requires that. To pay for these improvements, this bill would codify elements of a rule that the VA proposed 4 years ago in the Biden administration, in 2022. The VA indicated then and now that it plans to change how the Department evaluates claims for service-connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus. VA officials testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in January that the Department is moving forward, and VA officials confirmed that again just several weeks ago.
The reason this is important is that that means there are going to be changes that the VA is authorized to make in these two arenas in providing benefits to veterans.
The VA in the Biden administration--and apparently agreed to in the Trump administration--found there were ways to improve--they are required by law to evaluate the benefits they provide veterans, and if changes are appropriate because of medicine or science or changes in treatment, the VA can modify those benefits to reflect current science and medicine. The VA is going to do that. The offset is the fact that when the VA does that, it saves money. When the VA does that, however, it will be considered paying down the debt.
I don't know how it can be a radical idea or an unfair idea that if we are going to take the money out of the VA for those two circumstances--the VA is going to do that--why don't we capture a significant portion of that and actually use that money to provide benefits to veterans? It is not like we are taking something away. The VA is going to alter the formula in their normal course of business, and we are capturing the savings in part--we are capturing part of the savings to actually use it to help other veterans, their families, and their caregivers.
Once the Department finalizes the rule, the savings associated from that change in the rule will be lost. It will no longer serve as an offset for anything; it will just go into the General Treasury. It will be a lost opportunity for us to reinvest those funds in the long overdue improvements included in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
My colleague has stated that ``the costs of war include caring for our veterans.'' I share that sentiment. Military service is a family service. The cost of war also includes caring for spouses and children and caregivers and survivors. The Take Care of America's Veterans Act would do that and more.
So we had the opportunity to use something that is going to happen. We had the opportunity--we have the opportunity to make sure it is used to benefit veterans. The idea that we are taking a benefit away from someone is also false. This is prospective. After the rule changes, that is when we have the opportunity to make certain that we are still caring for our veterans. We are not taking anything away from any veteran that receives benefits today. In fact, there is a grace period in which veterans can continue to apply for these benefits after this legislation becomes law.
We are not taking anything away; we are using money that the VA says is no longer going to be spent and spending that money in a different way for veterans, often including the same veterans that receive those disability payments.
This legislation is strongly supported by many military and veterans organizations, including the Wounded Warrior Project, the Military Officers Association of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, the Tragedy Assistance Program--or TAPS--for Survivors, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, the Veterans Justice Alliance, the National Defense Committee, the Military Coalition, and Mission Roll Call.
It is also supported by the American Legion--the largest veteran service organization in the country--and by Medal of Honor recipients Britt Slabinski and Earl Plumlee, the president and vice president of the Medal of Honor Society.
It is also supported by Richard Star's brother, who has been an advocate for the Richard Star legislation since the beginning of this issue's arrival and certainly since the passing of his brother and his interest in making sure that his brother is honored.
These organizations know the challenges facing the military and veteran community. They know firsthand the high cost of continued inaction by Congress, the cycle of delaying veterans, caregivers, and survivors from receiving earned benefits.
It is not a perfect analogy, but I remember my own mother lobbying me because she was a ``Notch Baby'' in the Social Security system. If you were born in a certain set of years, your benefits were less than the people before you and the people after you.
My mom accused me of--Congress--maybe she wasn't accusing me personally--but accused Congress of just waiting until she died before making the change.
I want to make sure that we do not lose another veteran, another servicemember. I want to make sure we get a result and we get a result fast.
When I introduced this legislation, my assumption was that we could accomplish this--even in the Senate and the House in this difficult world we work in--that this legislation could be passed by Congress and signed by the President, this legislation that is supported by the White House. We could get this legislation done in the miracle of a month.
I didn't anticipate the opposition that has arisen. I have indicated to the Senator--the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs--an interest in working together to resolve differences, and we will work to do that.
But doing what we have done--what has been done time and time again-- of a UC request that has no result is unsatisfactory to me and unsatisfactory to the veterans and the veterans organizations I just listed. I am tired of waiting. Don't wait until our veterans are no longer living before you do something to protect their benefits and resolve an injustice that has gone on far too long.
The cycle of delaying veterans, caregivers, and survivors from receiving their earned benefits must end and must end now.
Mr. President, I am, frankly, astonished and appalled by the argument just made by my friend and colleague from Kansas, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. His argument essentially is: The VA is going to take away these benefits through rulemaking and, therefore, we should take advantage of the savings that the VA is going to make by action that is wrong, unconscionable, and deeply hurtful to veterans.
Now, let's be very blunt here. The Biden administration was considering a similar proposal. I fought it. We fought it successfully. The Biden administration backed down because they knew it was wrong.
I predict that there will be this similar kind of outrage in the veterans community to taking away these disability benefits from well- deserving veterans and that the present Secretary of the VA will be forced to back down as well.
Why are we doing his handiwork when he has not even yet proposed the rule? We are assuming he will do something that is wrong, shameful, and unconscionable--and we should take advantage of it? Count me out.
I fought the Biden administration on this one. I will fight any rule that will inflict this harm on veterans. And even
I am hopeful that we can reconsider this idea of depriving disabled veterans of benefits in order to help other veterans.
Now I want to be very clear. This is my eighth or ninth time here, asking for unanimous consent, but it is an entirely new proposal that I am offering. In fact, it is the same proposal that the Senator from Kansas is offering, except it doesn't take away benefits from veterans; it pays for the measure in another way.
The Senator from Kansas says it would be against the law for us to do it. Who makes laws here? The Senate and the Congress make the laws. If we made a law about how to pay for something, we can make an exception to that law. We are not bound inextricably and inevitably by other Congresses if we face an injustice under laws that other Congresses have passed. I am unwilling to accept the idea that we have to deprive benefits--gouge them, in effect--of benefits they have earned.
And let me just conclude by saying: All of the good things in this bill, count me in; but taking away benefits from veterans to pay for them, count me out.
Mr. President, I object. I indicated my objection.
Mr. President, I have described the Take Care of America's Veterans Act in my remarks following the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Connecticut.
But, again, I would highlight that these are changes that are going to be made under normal statutory law by rules at the Department of Veterans Affairs. And the end result is that the money, when saved, will be--the reductions and the savings that occur will accrue to the General Treasury, as compared to the benefits that we want to provide to the veterans in this country.
Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 433, S. 4744. I ask unanimous consent that the Moran substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, for all the reasons that I have stated, this bill has all the right measures that I can support except taking away benefits in the expectation that the VA Secretary is going to promulgate a rule that has been beaten back in a prior administration, that we should be united in opposing.
Let me ask my colleague, the chairman of the VA Committee: Will you support the VA Secretary in proposing this rule that would, in effect, cut benefits for disabled veterans?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is reminded to direct his questions to the Chair.
Mr. President, I look forward to continuing to work to make sure the veterans receive the benefits they are entitled to and to make certain that the VA does its job in a medical- and science-based manner and would await for the VA to accomplish that, which they indicated as recently as 2 weeks ago they were going to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I am going to be really charitable because I know my colleague's heart is in the right place, and I know we share an objective here, which is to care for our veterans.
And I am going to interpret that answer as his being willing to join--if it comes to pass that we have this proposed rule, that he would oppose it.
I think the VSOs would oppose it. I think the veterans community would oppose it. I think the people of America would oppose it, which is why it was withdrawn under the Biden administration--because it is such a shameful, bad idea. And we should not incorporate it in a veterans bill, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act as a means to pay for benefits to other veterans when there is no need for a pay-for.
All of the good things in the Take Care of America's Veterans Act--I support. We have a path. We have a path. Use the money from H.R. 1: unspent, unobligated, unfeasible to spend before the end of the fiscal year. It will go back into the Treasury.
I think the path is clear. I hope we can come together and support it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the underlying request?
Mr. President, the rulemaking process that was initiated in the Biden administration in 2022 has continued on the VA's list of work and has never been withdrawn and continues to be considered. And as I indicated now for the third time--indicated by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs--the Department--that it will be implemented.
I just know that repeating the same political talking points without a realistic alternative has prevented these bills--and particularly the Richard Star Act--from passing for years. It has been too easy for us to put our name on the legislation and never see it accomplished.
We can tell our veterans we are supporting them, we are working for them--I want a path forward that actually demonstrates that we are able to accomplish the elimination of this injustice and the support for veterans who desperately need our attention.
Our veterans should not have to--they know the cost of war. They should not have to wait for us any longer.
And, again, the offer that the Senator from Connecticut indicated, it is the same kind of UC request with something as was--that doesn't result in a result because it is not an offset that satisfies the law.
Mr. President, Americans are aware that many of the products we buy and sell in this country are manufactured in China, but fewer may know that most of the Chinese goods come across the ocean and into our ports on Chinese ships--whether they are flying the Chinese flag, whether they are owned or operated by Chinese companies, or are even built in Chinese shipyards.
But what may come as a shock is that those same ships could also carry deadly weapons. That is right. Hidden among the shipping containers carrying appliances, clothing, and household goods, might well be missile launchers and drone launching systems. Arriving undetected, they could target our cities, destroy our infrastructure, and kill our citizens.
This is a possibility American leaders must prepare for now. Naval analysts confirm that China is retrofitting cargo ships with deadly weapons: long-range strike and surface-to-air missiles, drone launching systems, and radar and tracking systems.
A large percentage of these vessels coming in and out of our ports are owned and operated by firms with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party. What if one of these ships arrived in one of America's largest ports? Now, the best case scenario is our intelligence community would detect the weapons, enabling the Coast Guard to intercept and seize the Chinese ship. That is the best case scenario.
But there is a far more alarming possibility: An armed Chinese cargo carrier slips in, undetected, and it launches devastating attacks on the port, destroying vital infrastructure and killing hundreds, and possibly many, many more.
The Port of Houston is, for example, one of the largest by tonnage in our country. It is home to the world's largest petrochemical complex and a quarter of America's oil refining capacity.
A similar disaster could play out at any of our other major ports-- Los Angeles, for example, our hub for transpacific trade; or Hampton Roads, VA, the east coast's deepest harbor and home to the world's largest naval base.
Now, neither of these situations is inevitable if we cut our reliance on Chinese vessels and we decide to make American ships again.
You see, the United States was once home to the world's largest commercial fleet, numbering 4,000 ships. Today, we manufacture only a handful of commercial vessels each year. China can build over a thousand. In total, the United States has fewer than 100 ocean-going commercial vessels; while China, they have nearly 6,000, the largest fleet in the world.
Letting our maritime industrial base continue to rust is a great risk. It doesn't just give China control over global supply chains and levers to constrain America's policy options; it presents the Chinese Communist Party opportunities every day to sneak weapons into our cities.
We have a choice. We can do nothing and invite a potential economic and national security disaster, or we can rebuild our fleet. We can end our dependence on Chinese ships, and we can open up a new era of American ship building.
I choose the latter. I choose restoring American maritime dominance.
The SHIPS for America Act is the best way to accomplish this. The bill will encourage the construction of new ships and shipyards through tax incentives. It will deliver deregulation and permitting reform to reduce costs and speed the delivery of new vessels. It also will modernize training programs at our maritime academies and recruit a new generation of mariners.
And the SHIPS Act will establish a maritime security trust fund to finance these programs, plus an expansion of the U.S.-flagged international fleet to 250 ships by the mid-2030s.
Now, we have a strong champion in President Trump, whose Maritime Action Plan is consistent with this bill.
China is retrofitting its commercial ships into covert warships. The evidence is clear. So too is the risk of allowing these vessels to dominate global trade and fill our ports because we have no ships of our own.
But we have a plan to protect our ports and people, to build and launch a new fleet manned by American mariners, flying the Stars and Stripes. And Congress should pass the SHIPS Act without delay.
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, integrity--integrity inspires confidence. We have a problem here in the Senate and in the House: 80 percent of Americans believe we do a poor job of keeping our financial interests separate from the insider information that we have. People don't have the confidence in us, and that leads to an approval rating of 15 percent for Congress.
But we can help restore integrity, and therefore confidence-- confidence in the Senate, confidence in the House, confidence in our institutions. We can do that with a bill that I have introduced called the Stop Insider Trading Act.
Now, it is well known that Members of this body and the House have bought individual stocks. In fact, we have seen that people will post on social media the stock trades of the former Speaker of the House and trade off of her trades. In fact, as crazy as it sounds, that has become a legitimate investment strategy because it makes money. And that undermines the confidence people have in our institutions.
We have disclosure laws, which is how people can see those trades and make them. But it is not enough for the integrity of the institution. We need to make the rules stronger. We need to stop people from being able to buy individual stocks in the Senate and in the House.
We need my Stop Insider Trading Act because that is exactly what it does. It says that, if you get elected to the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, you can no longer buy stock. Trading on insider information will become impossible because you won't be able to make that purchase.
Now, we also want to make sure that if, say, you come from a successful business, we don't want to penalize you. We are not going to force you to sell your stock of your company. But we are going to say that you have to give notice, 7 days at least, to let people know if you are going to sell any positions you own. Remember, you can't buy any more. But if you have some already and you want to sell them, you have to give 7 days' notice.
And that will address the issue of, for example, when we had a member of the Intelligence Committee sell about a million and a half dollars' worth of stock right before the COVID pandemic selloff of the stock market.
Even the perception of impropriety undermines the integrity, and therefore the confidence the people have. So let's stop it altogether. Let's ban people's ability to use insider information to buy stocks and make sure, if they are going to sell any, that they have got to tell everybody well in advance so that Americans and the market can know.
My bill also has real teeth in it. It is a $2,000 fine or 10 percent of the proceeds. Let's say you sell a million dollars in stock, and you didn't tell the market ahead of time, like you were supposed to. You didn't follow that 7-day rule. It is a $100,000 penalty--a 10-percent penalty. So either $2,000 or 10 percent, whichever is bigger, plus you have to give up all your profits. That is a penalty with teeth that will get the attention of Members here on Capitol Hill.
It is time that we restore the integrity and the confidence in this body when it comes to inside information. We, because of our position, have access to this, but we should not benefit from it. This is supposed to be public service. No one should come here seeking a profit.
And yet, on Monday night, some of my colleagues tried to pass a unanimous consent, passing the Stop Insider Trader Act that the House of Representatives passed, and Democrats blocked it. Democrats blocked my Stop Insider Trading Act, which would have helped restore confidence in this body.
It is time that we got the Democrats on board, that we get this passed. It passed in the House with Democrat support. And 13 Democrats and 2 Democratic cosponsors are on the Stop Insider Trading Act in the House, which the House was able to pass. They have sent it here for the U.S. Senate--for us--to do our job.
I call on my Democratic colleagues--my colleagues across the aisle: Please, get on board. We need to restore faith in the institution. A 15-percent approval rating is terrible. We need to restore the integrity. We need to restore the confidence.
My Stop Insider Trading Act does just that. I encourage all of my colleagues to get on board this commonsense proposal to be able to restore integrity and confidence in the U.S. Senate and prevent insider trading from getting between us and the American people.
Mr. President, I want to talk about a subject people just love to talk about. I have come to the floor to talk about a big scam in our country. It is happening in broad daylight before our very eyes. Politicians here in Washington know what is going on, but they refuse to speak about it. They are too worried about getting reelected in most cases, and they think telling the truth about the scam will hurt their chances of staying in power.
Well, here is the sad truth: For decades now, the American people have paid into Social Security each month without having any idea if they will ever see a cent of the money they put in.
Since being signed into law in 1935 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our great President, Americans' money has been going in the front door of the Federal Government and then going right out the back door. Your dollar doesn't grow, and it doesn't come back to you or your children. It is a big, gigantic, blown-up Ponzi scheme, and the last time I looked, people who do Ponzi schemes usually go to jail.
Every American is forced to participate in it. You have no choice. You don't have a say in the matter. Whether you are 17 or 67, more than 6 percent of your paycheck is taken out by the Federal Government to pay for Social Security--your so-called retirement. That might not seem like a lot, but to millions of Americans struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, that 6 percent is a huge sacrifice.
Americans have been paying into this program for years, only to see a fraction of what they have been promised. It really makes you wonder how this government-approved Ponzi scheme is legal.
The truth is that this ``retirement savings'' program is 100 percent broke. It is absolutely broke, just like our Federal Government--$40 trillion in debt. The Social Security trust fund is projected to run out of its reserve money in 2032--just a few years from now. You know, when these funds are depleted, senior citizens could see a cut in their monthly check up to 22 to 25 percent of their benefits. On average, that is $500 a month.
You know, if the Federal Government were to try to save the program, it would most likely mean that your taxes would skyrocket.
Mr. President, 38 percent of mandatory spending within the Federal budget annually goes toward the failing Social Security Program. Yes, the money you send up here, 38 percent a year goes to Social Security-- not the money that you already sent because, guess what, it has been sent and it has been spent and scammed out of our system. It is not there. In other words, almost $1.6 trillion every year of your taxpayer dollars is being spent on a program that is currently scheduled to go bankrupt in 6 years. So basically, the money you send up here has been spent and now is nowhere to be found.
The Social Security Program is the single largest program we are wasting our tax dollars on--the biggest. It is a mind-boggling program to say the least, but don't worry, it gets worse.
After decades of having Social Security taken out, millions of Americans have to pay taxes when they go to collect their Social Security. Yep, you heard exactly right. After you pay taxes and you put it in there for savings for many years and you get it back, guess what--you have to pay taxes on it now because our former President and former Senator, Mr. Joe Biden, when he was a Senator in 1983, got the great idea of, let's tax Social Security. What a scam. Depending on which tax bracket you are in, between 50 percent to 85 percent of your benefits can be taxed by the Federal Government.
Last year, I introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act to stop the unjust double tax on Social Security benefits. Thankfully, the One Big Beautiful Bill included senior deductions that significantly reduce Federal taxes for the majority of retirees. Thank goodness.
In a day and age where the cost of living is skyrocketing, our seniors should not experience a second tax on their Social Security when they have already paid tax on that money. If we must keep this outdated program, the least we can do is to ensure that senior citizens don't get slapped with a double tax.
Despite what millions of Americans have been tricked into believing, it turns out that paying into Social Security does not entitle you to a fixed pot of money. Everybody thinks: We are going to pay in, and I am going to get a lot of money in the end. The sad reality is that many Americans won't see a cent of the money that they paid into Social Security.
Basically, Social Security is just, folks, another tax--a tax on both employees and employers since most companies have to match the 6 percent that their employees are forced to pay out of their paychecks. Yeah, they double the tax.
This is socialism. It is highway robbery. And for the last 60 years, we have known this program was going under, but no one up here has been willing to fix it. In fact, Social Security is known as the third rail of politics that no one up here is allowed to talk about.
Don't talk about Social Security because we don't have a solution, and we might lose our jobs.
In fact, Social Security is known as that third rail because nobody will touch it. It is taboo to talk about Social Security. But my question is: Why? Why is that? We work for the people. We work for the taxpayers. We have known this program was going bankrupt for years. It has been a disaster since day one.
When millions of Americans are going to reach retirement age soon, we had better look out. They are expecting to get their money. They are expecting to get the money that they paid into Social Security for years. They are going to get screwed over with nothing left, and this is going to be a serious problem.
The Social Security scam doesn't stop there. As you know, Joe Biden welcomed tens of millions of illegals into this country with open arms. They said that our borders are closed. Yep, after they let 20 million people in that shouldn't be here. These aren't nice people either, most of them. Many of them are rapists, murderers, drug lords, and gang members. Well, it turns out, the Biden administration and Alejandro Mayorkas, our great Homeland Security Director, they weren't just letting these illegals into our country without vetting them; they were handing them Social Security and Medicaid benefits as they were coming into the door.
Welcome to the United States of America. We are broke, but we are going to give you money. We are going to give you a Social Security number.
It is no wonder we are broke. While millions of Americans will never see the Social Security benefits that they worked hard to pay into throughout their career, illegals, they are getting money. They are getting rich off the money that Joe Biden said that they could have. It is disgusting, but it is not surprising. This is our Federal Government.
So why aren't we allowed to talk about it? It is almost like the system was set up to fail from the get-go. I caught a lot of flak when I brought this up in a hearing just a few years ago.
What is this guy talking about? We are going to get Social Security.
Yep. If you believe that, I got beach land I will sell you out in Arizona.
If every single American had invested the money that they are forced to pay in Social Security each month into a stock--if they had done that, they would have gotten 10 times the money that they put in, if it was just invested in the stock market.
But do you know where it was invested in? Most people don't know this. Your money, when it comes here, is put into Treasury bonds that have very low returns--very, very low--not even close to anything that you would ever invest in yourself. That is where your money goes.
Don't be naive. The reason Social Security is invested in bonds is because it is being used to basically prop up the Federal Government.
We are broke. We don't have any money. Please send more. Can we raise the Social Security tax and just tell them they are going to get more money at the end?
Folks, it is a scam. If this money had been invested in the stock market, again, you would have had 10 to 15 times more money. It is embarrassing, but apparently we are not supposed to bring that up.
To his credit, President George Bush tried to save Social Security in 2000. He tried to privatize a lot of this money. If we had just done that--if this body in here would have just said: OK, we know we screwed it up for 40 years. Let's go ahead and do it. Let's get out of this jam.
They didn't want any part of it because they wanted to steal the rest of the money, and that is exactly what is going on.
He suggested that younger workers divert their portion--young workers divert their portion--to a money market account that would pay for theirs in the future and ours today, those of us that are close to the Social Security. But, of course, the DC swamp up here,
But you have to remember, the government relies on your money for their slush fund. The Federal Government stopped working in your best interest a long, long time ago. The average taxpayer earning the median wage is paying approximately $3,500 to $4,500 annually into the Social Security Program. Over a 40-year work period, that is around $140,000 to $180,000. That could have gone toward a 401(k), and you would have had money to retire on. People would be seeing much greater returns.
We had better start figuring this out, folks. We had better start figuring it out. This group up here, a lot of them say: I am going to be gone. I won't have to worry about it.
Somebody is going to pay the price.
It won't be long until people will be coming right around this building going: Where is my money?
Do you remember January 6? Yep. January 6 was a pretty bad day. I was here. I sat right over there. It was my very first day here. I was thinking: What a disaster I have gotten into.
Well, if you start telling people, ``You are not getting your Social Security money,'' it is going to get ugly. And I don't blame them--not one bit. We are $40 trillion in debt. There is no sign of it slowing down. The bottom line is we need to get bureaucrats and politicians out of this mess, stop the Social Security scam, let people really know what is going on, and give the money back to the people.
We need to make sure Americans get what they were promised, or we need to come up with an alternative solution that would allow Americans to make their own retirement investments. Give them their money, or let's put it in a money market account. The stock market is booming.
It is far past time Washington, DC, starts working for the people that we are supposed to represent. What a thought. That is mind- boggling, isn't it? Why would we do that? We work for ourselves up here. We don't work for the people. It is ridiculous. It is a scam. Not for special interests. Not for career politicians entrenched in bureaucracy or for Washington elite pet projects.
Instead of spending money we don't have on things we don't need, why don't we put the money back into the American people's pockets and tell them the damn truth: We stole your money, but we are going to try to get your money back.
Not only is it in America's best interest to do this; it is the right thing to do.
Mr. President, all of us who hold the office of Senator know that we really only succeed in our service to the States which we represent because of the tireless dedication of the men and women who make up our teams, back home where we are from and here in Washington, DC.
While we may be the face or the voice on television--it is our name on the bills; it is our name on the door--it is really the folks who make up our teams that make it possible for us to make a difference every day for the people we represent.
I am blessed to represent a million Delawareans. And I know that I could not do that job at all, let alone well, without the gift and the blessing of the service of roughly 50 people.
But today I want to take some time out to thank and recognize the heart of my team in Delaware, someone whom I have long admired and whose service I greatly appreciate, Marie Cordivano.
What does it take to run a political campaign, to run a political party, to run a Senate office? It takes someone like Marie. I have known her so long I feel like she has been in my office for decades, but it has really only been 5 years that she has been a full-time part of my Senate office, but I have known her since I first ran.
She is the heartbeat of the Delaware Democratic Party and, in many ways, of my office in Wilmington, DE. She brings so much to her service to her job: kindness, hospitality, a charitable and upbeat spirit, a passion for serving others, a lifelong Democrat, someone who is because she believes in helping others.
When I have asked folks for what they associate with Marie, one word came up over and over: mushrooms. Now, that might surprise you if you are not from where I am from, but just on the northern border of Delaware is the center of mushroom horticulture in North America, and because of Marie's family connection to some of the leaders in the mushroom industry, every year she brings a pallet at Thanksgiving of boxes of mushrooms and won't let anyone go without accepting one.
Being as I am a little picky about the Ethics Committee on which I serve, I initially tried to reject these gifts of mushrooms, to donate them to the food bank, or give them to someone else. And yet, like so much of Marie's hospitality and kindness, they just kept coming.
They are a welcomed and appreciated gift but a reminder of the example of her kindness and her generosity to others.
That is the word that came up most often when I asked others who have served with her for now 5 years in my office: What do you think of when you think of Marie? Kind, someone who gives great, big, warm hugs, who, even if she is having a hard day, asks: ``How is your day,'' someone with contagious positivity, someone who every day has to answer call after call after call from constituents who more often than not are calling to complain.
And Marie doesn't just answer the phone, she listens. She doesn't just listen, she engages. She doesn't just engage, she educates. She handles it with incredible skill, making sure that the folks who call my office are heard and their concerns are conveyed, and, if possible, that they leave better understanding what it is they called in about because, let's be blunt, sometimes these calls are motivated by seeing something on cable TV that maybe isn't exactly true. And so in a gentle but positive way, she asks persistent questions and guides my constituents to better insight.
When I have asked others in the office, they have said this: I can't imagine a better person to represent you, Chris, to your constituents. Even over the phone, you get a sense of Marie's heart and warmth, and there is no one more dedicated, not just for the fight of democracy but for the values of Chris Coons and his office.
So, Marie, thank you. Thank you for sharing your kindness. Thank you for sharing your warmth. Thank you for sharing what you have done for Delaware for so long. You are loved across our DC and Delaware teams and will be dearly missed. I hope you get to spend more time now with your children Ben and Sarah, with your grandchildren Asher and Carter, with your dog Nico.
You are the best of Delaware, a proud Padua alumna with a passion for service, family, kindness, and democracy. I cannot wait to hear about the adventures ahead, and thank you for your service.
Mr. President, I want to take some time today to also speak about someone who has been the heart of my team here in Washington, Jose Estrada.
My wife and I have come to view Jose not just as a colleague, an employee, but a friend, a member of our extended family.
What makes for an incredible public servant? diligence, determination, insight, hard work, humor, trust, kindness. Jose has all of these and more.
When he initially got the job offer, he drove without stopping from San Diego to DC, just a first sign of the intensity of his commitment to this work. I have watched him grow from being a right-out-of-college 22-year-old to someone whose advice and counsel on a daily basis are key to me and how I do my job.
He is often the first person I see in the morning and the last person I see at night. And he is incredibly humble and would never take credit for all the contributions he has made to my team and my office, which is why I thought it was important to get it on the record so that in the future he could not deny that he was well-regarded, well-respected, and made a significant impact.
It is hard to capture everything Jose does for our team. He is someone who
He has now mentored more than 70 interns in my office, and I am very proud of our intern program because it is where I hire from. I began here as an intern for Senator Bill Roth and for Senator Joe Biden, and knowing that Jose has taken intense care of every intern, their interview and selection, their placement in making sure they have the chance to genuinely contribute, means a lot to Annie and me.
From one of our former interns, they said: In a role where Jose had to be everywhere and do everything, he still spent the time to get to know each of us and make sure our internship was special.
And he has been so good at it that they then come and work for us full time in our office.
From one of his colleagues in my office here in Washington: In any crisis, you know you can call Jose and he will just take care of it. Not only will he take care of it, but you know you have a friend through all of it.
Jose, you have served with selflessness, kindness, dedication, even joy. You are someone who is willing to put in the hard work, to work 14, 16, 18 hours a day. When we are here all night for vote-arama, he is the one who is with me at 3 a.m., 4 a.m., 5 a.m. He takes the time to get up early, get that extra cup of coffee, get in to talk to the interns early, get them doughnuts, be generous with his time and advice, and make our office a great place to be.
The most important accolade, of course, comes not from me but from my wife Annie, who literally said Jose is one of the most ``thoughtful and kind people'' we know. I know he will be an inspiration to his 11- month-old niece Valentina. I know his parents Jose and Marisela are so proud of him. They need to know that you raised a remarkable young man. I know they will be thrilled to have him back in California as he returns to attend Stanford Law School this fall.
I believe there is nothing this promising young man cannot do. He has demonstrated remarkable wisdom and talent, insight into politics, and I am confident his future is bright, and we will someday see him back here.
The next chapter of his life includes becoming a lawyer and using the skills and the talent of a lawyer to change lives, to help those whom the law does not protect, and to advocate for justice at a time when that is really at risk in our Nation.
Jose, the office will simply not be the same without you, but you leave us better. We all will carry a piece of your heart, your humor, your kindness, and your insight. And you won't be free of us either because you are a friend and a member of our family for life.
You are the best of what DC should be, someone here truly to do good and to make a difference, and I hope you know that you have.
Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today, I must say that with a heavy heart I am grieving today for town marshal Brad Fisher, a 25-year law enforcement veteran who was tragically killed today in the line of duty in Indiana.
Marshal Fisher was assisting other officers in stopping a fleeing suspect when the suspect hit Marshal Fisher and ultimately killed him.
I am praying for Marshal Fisher, for his family, everyone in the town of Lynn, IN, and Randolph County. What a devastating loss, a tragic loss. May he rest in peace.
And may we always remember the sacrifice that all of our men and women of law enforcement make when they keep us safe. I just want to take a minute and remember him.
Mr. President, President Trump recently confirmed what many of us already knew: that foreign adversaries like China are working daily to interfere in our elections and our democratic society.
China especially seeks America's decline in hopes that they can establish a world order that runs through the Chinese Communist Party, and we must do everything possible that we can to stop them from doing that.
Historically, when countries have held that kind of ambition, they have started big, catastrophic wars. It should come as no surprise that the People's Liberation Army is undertaking the largest peacetime military buildup in human history.
That is why it is incumbent upon this body to fully fund our military--including President Trump's $1.5 trillion defense budget request that he has made of this body--so that we can deter exactly that kind of conflict.
It is outrageous that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle-- the Democrats--are holding up this bipartisan NDAA and budget request to fund our military when our military desperately needs our support.
Yet, even if we successfully deter a hot conflict, we could still lose in other ways. That is because every day the CCP is waging economic and political warfare against us. The CCP is trying to nurture dependency, exploit our divisions, cause us to question the justness of our cause, and erode our democracy.
This political warfare campaign is not confined to the shadows. In many cases, it operates out in the open.
Just take a look at Neville Roy Singham. Singham is a 72-year-old American tech mogul who sold his company and immediately fled to China. From his Shanghai office--which he shares with a CCP propaganda outlet--whose avowed mission, by the way, is ``to tell China's story well''--Singham began funding a complex network of leftwing NGOs and nonprofits that advance the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.
Take a look at some of the radical organizations on this chart that he supports through the billions of dollars that he made selling his tech company to a Chinese Communist Party business.
This is all a matter of public record. Even the New York Times has marveled at the hundreds of millions of dollars that Singham-linked groups have funneled to radical nonprofits that ``mix progressive advocacy with Chinese Government talking points.''
Take one example that you and I know well--CODEPINK--you know, the radical organization that chases many of us around the hallways--around this building and our office buildings. You see, CODEPINK used to condemn CCP human rights abuses.
But after Singham started lavishly funding the group--and then, by the way, he married its cofounder--CODEPINK stopped criticizing the Chinese Government and started defending it. In fact, in recent years, CODEPINK has even provided cover for the CCP's shocking genocide in Xinjiang.
Meanwhile, a newer Singham nonprofit called No Cold War is entirely dedicated to advocacy designed to ensure America is defenseless against the CCP's economic, military, and political warfare.
But the Singham network is not limited to China-specific advocacy. Singham groups advance a wide variety of causes that are united only by their hatred of America, our allies, and the rule of law.
From anti-ICE boycotts, violence against law enforcement, rioting, obstruction, and support for Hamas' attempted genocide of Jews in Israel, Singham groups and their members advance division, chaos, and hatred.
All of this advances CCP interests and poisons our society. Thankfully, under President Trump's leadership, the Department of Justice is now investigating this and whether Singham has been fueling this lawlessness in violation of U.S. law. It has been a long time coming.
At the same time, the State Department under Secretary Rubio is leading from the front in identifying leftwing violence and building an international coalition to confront it.
It should come as no surprise that, as the CCP seeks to interfere in our society, it also seeks to interfere in our elections. As President Trump disclosed before the American people in a prime-time address earlier this month, China perpetrated the largest known compromise of United States voter information in history: stealing the personal data of over 220 million Americans in the 2020 election.
The President also exposed ongoing vulnerabilities when it comes to America's elections, and thank God he did that. As one newly declassified intelligence assessment found:
Our adversaries are actively coming for our elections, and if that is not enough to sound the alarm--what you just heard from President Trump in his prime-time press conference and what I just shared with you--I don't know what else is.
All Americans--especially my colleagues in this body--should be outraged by this vulnerability. We know that our adversaries like the CCP seek to do us harm and yet we stand by and often do nothing about it. Our inaction has no excuse.
We need to safeguard our democracy, and we need to do it right now.
If this Chamber does anything at all this year, it must ensure that American elections are for Americans only--now and always. That is precisely why we have got to pass the SAVE America Act, and we have to pass it now, ASAP.
In the face of the CCP's coordinated campaign, we need more election integrity--not less. We need to ensure that all votes in American elections come from Americans--not illegal aliens or foreign manipulation.
And by the way, it is not only because of our international adversaries that we need to pass the SAVE America Act. Just last week, a huge story hardly got any notice in the mainstream media. But the new Democrat Governor of New Jersey--a former colleague of mine in the House--she announced that 6,600 noncitizens were ``accidentally added to the New Jersey voter rolls.'' That is a hell of an accident.
But not only that, she also told us that nearly 400 of those voters, who were accidentally placed on their voter rolls, actually voted in the last two elections in New Jersey.
Some of my colleagues keep saying that stories like this are a figment of our imagination. It doesn't really happen. Illegals don't vote in American elections.
The Democratic Governor of New Jersey just told us it did happen. They keep saying that these stories are just, I suppose, ``accidents'' or ``software glitches'' is what the Governor called it. The fact of the matter is that these stories keep happening, and we need to do everything that we can to put an end to it. It destroys trust in our elections when Americans read about stories like that.
If we have to cancel the August recess to pass the SAVE America Act, so be it. Let's do it. Protecting our elections from fraud and international interference is a lot more important to me than vacation time.
Our adversaries--like the Chinese Communist Party--will stop at nothing to distract, divide, disrupt, and destroy America. Their campaign is not confined to election day. Election day is our last line of defense.
Americans must always be free to reject the CCP and its values, while choosing a path that embraces the timeless truths that have always been at America's core. The day that the CCP chooses the outcome of our elections will be the day that it won. And by then, it will be way too late to correct course and pass a commonsense bill like the SAVE America Act. We cannot wait for that day.
I urge all of my colleagues to wake up. It is time to pass the SAVE America Act to save our elections, protect our country, save America. It is fundamentally important.
Mr. President, I rise to speak to what Americans all over this country are deeply feeling at this moment.
America is not a nation that prefers wars, but we are being led by an administration that is foolishly choosing war to solve problems that could best be solved by other means or--more troublingly--it is choosing to wage war to distract public attention from larger problems of its own making.
This pattern of foolishly choosing war, whatever the legality and whatever the price, is sacrificing the lives of American troops, killing innocent civilians, stressing our Nation's budget, imposing devastating costs on American families and businesses, dividing us from our allies, and shredding our reputation as a stabilizing force in the world.
The chaos and damage from these wars are mounting, even as the President contemplates more military misadventures in Cuba, Mali, and who knows where else.
Our constituents know that Congress is the only institution with the constitutional power to stop unnecessary war, and they are begging us to do so.
President Trump has launched three wars that are currently underway. He has not sought the approval of Congress for any of them. The wars are all, therefore, illegal.
But in addition to the illegality that naturally flows from a President starting a war without a congressional authorization, each war is also burdened by numerous other legal, moral, and strategic weaknesses.
The first war is Operation Southern Spear, a campaign that began nearly a year ago to use the U.S. military to strike boats in international waters near South America. To date, more than 65 separate strikes have killed more than 250 people on boats chosen as targets by our military.
The operation has been repeatedly justified by the Pentagon as attacks on narcotraffickers. But the evidence suggests that many innocent civilians--unarmed noncombatants who are not transporting narcotics--are being murdered in these strikes, even while reporting confirms that this bloodshed is not accomplishing its stated purpose of decreasing the amount of drugs coming into the United States.
Now, the administration has worked exceptionally hard to maintain all aspects of Operation Southern Spear as secret, as classified. Because it is all classified, I am severely limited in what I can say about it.
The President created a secret list of what he calls ``designated terrorist organizations,'' last July, as subjects for military attack. There is no law giving the President such a power to create such an attack list. I have reviewed the list, but because it is classified, I am not able to describe it here. And as a result of the fact that the list has never been made public, those marked by the President for execution have never been notified that the United States has placed a target on them.
The Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice produced a legal memo, last September, to justify boat strikes against narcotraffickers in very specific circumstances. The memo also carefully described prohibited activity that could not be legally justified. I have read that legal memo, but it remains classified. So I cannot discuss its contents.
In October, the Pentagon issued an implementation order to carry out the President's directive in accordance with the OLC legal opinion and limitations. That EXORD contains the targeting criteria that are to be used in choosing which boats to attack. I have reviewed the EXORD, but it has remained classified. So I cannot describe its contents.
Each of the attacks is accompanied by a file describing the strike. I have reviewed the files of nearly 50 of the strikes and will soon complete review of the remaining. Those files remain classified. So I cannot describe their contents.
So why--why--is the administration maintaining the classification of all of this Southern Spear information--the justification, the legal rationale, the target list, the targeting criteria, the strike files describing each attack? Why the secrecy?
It is obvious why the administration wants all this cloaked in secrecy. The President and the Pentagon don't want the American public to see what is being done in our name and with our tax dollars. They are trying to hide from the public--and even from this body--the flimsiness of their legal case and the exorbitant cost and ineffectiveness of the operation.
For example, the Pentagon is glad to show edited videos of an exploding boat to pat itself on the back about its lethality toward narcotraffickers. They proudly did so on social media, and all over mainstream media, following the first fatal strike of a boat last September--September 2.
But months after the administration produced this PR video of a fatal strike, it was revealed that the full video--the unedited video--also showed struggling survivors clinging to the boat's wreckage and seeking to be rescued.
In violation of U.S. and international law, the United States returned to the site in open international waters and killed the survivors.
I have seen the video, many of my colleagues have, and it is horrifying. The administration refuses to release it.
Now, remember that, at the time of that strike--September 2, 2025-- the existence of Southern Spear hadn't even been announced. Those struggling for their lives, clinging to shipwrecked wreckage, had not even been informed that they might be targeted. The United States killed them anyway and then selectively edited the video so that the American public would only see the flashy initial boat explosion but not see the cowardly and cold-blooded murder of desperate shipwrecked people that took place later.
And, you know, that is not even the most shocking thing about Southern Spear. The most shocking thing is that the administration has been lying to the American public about whether the campaign is even against narcotrafficking.
While I am not allowed to discuss the contents of the legal opinion, and I am not allowed to discuss the EXORD's targeting criteria, I can say this: In reviewing the targeting criteria and trying to match it up with the legal opinion, I was immediately struck by what was missing. So I am not going to describe the contents of either, but I was immediately struck by what was missing from the targeting criteria.
It is hard to believe this, but the targeting criteria used by the U.S. military to strike boats and kill people on open waters contain no requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on board--no requirement that there be any evidence that there are narcotics on board--nor is there any requirement that the sailors on any of these boats be armed.
Now, these criteria could have been included by the Pentagon in the targeting criteria that they chose, but they intentionally chose not to include the presence of narcotics or the presence of arms.
Why not restrict U.S. military attacks on boats to those we know to be carrying narcotics? How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to strike boats and kill those aboard with no evidence that the boats contain narcotics or arms? How could this be deemed self- defense, which is the requirement for the President to use lethal force without a congressional authorization?
I ask these questions as a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask these questions as the proud father of a U.S. marine.
How could it be legally justifiable for the U.S. military to attack boats without evidence of narcotics and without evidence that those on board to be killed are armed?
Many of those killed in Operation Southern Spear--unarmed individuals not transporting narcotics--are not combat casualties. They are murder victims. Public reporting conclusively shows that some of those murdered have been humble fishermen, whose families saw them leave for an honest day's work and then never come home.
President Trump's second illegal war is Operation Absolute Resolve, the U.S. military invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime of dictator Nicolas Maduro.
I have long in this body, as the lead Democrat on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported all kinds of policies to sanction and punish and isolate the dictatorial Maduro regime. But using the U.S. military to invade a sovereign nation without congressional approval, and without any explanation or strategy for what might come next, is another matter entirely.
The world follows the example of this country, and if invading another nation's sovereign territory to kidnap its President and topple its government is acceptable for the United States, we lose our standing to criticize dictators around the world who might decide to do the same thing--in fact, who are currently doing the same thing.
The actual military invasion of Venezuela was at least brief, and I think all recognize that the U.S. military performed in a very exemplary fashion in carrying out the mission they were ordered to perform.
But its aftermath has been highly problematic. The United States is now using the American military to control the Venezuelan economy and government, and thus contributing to the oppression and subjugation of the Venezuelan people.
Even though Venezuelans chose overwhelmingly to reject the Maduro regime in a 2024 Presidential election, in favor of the political opposition headed by the recent Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado and the duly elected President Edmundo Gonzalez the United States has, following the invasion, thrown its support behind the Maduro regime by propping up his Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as the country's leader.
The United States just announced a potential process toward finding elections and democracy in Venezuela. And guess who is leading it. Vice President Rodriguez' brother, part of the Maduro regime that was and remains oppressive toward Venezuelan people.
Public reporting suggests that the administration has deliberately made it difficult for Maria Corina Machado, who just won the Nobel prize 7 months ago for her advocacy for Venezuelans, and for Edmundo Gonzalez, the duly elected President of the country. The United States has made it hard for them to return home to Venezuela, even in the aftermath of a horrible earthquake that has killed and injured thousands and thousands of their countrymen and women.
Why is this administration choosing to support the Maduro-Rodriguez dictatorship and impede authentic leaders who offer a new chapter for the Venezuelan people?
The Venezuelan people deserve a government by, of, and for Venezuelans. Maintaining Maduro's cronies in place and allowing them to continue the oppression of the Venezuelan people, primarily to benefit well-connected energy companies, is not a legitimate use of American military power.
Rodriguez and the remnants of the Maduro regime are moving aggressively to consolidate their hold on power that the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans want to dislodge. Like despots around the world, they have learned how to humor the administration in the short run and buy its affection, and then, hopefully, wait until we get distracted and move our attention elsewhere.
And it is Venezuelans who are suffering, especially in the aftermath of the earthquake, as they watch the government of the Maduro Vice President, Rodriguez, not be able to effectively provide services to those who are in need of disaster relief.
Finally, America has spilled much blood and treasure during President Trump's foolish war against Iran.
On February 27, we were not at war, and the Strait of Hormuz was open; and the price of gas and other key commodities were as normal as things can be in 2026. But President Trump--without a clear plan, a coherent rationale, the participation of allies, the approval of Congress, or the support of the American public--launched Operation Epic Fury.
The President ignored his own promise to avoid more war in the Middle East. He fulfilled a sad prophecy many of us made during his first term, when he tore up a diplomatic deal that was working to control Iran's nuclear program. Those who make diplomacy impossible make war inevitable.
Now, 5 months later, the folly of this illegal war has been made plain to all. Eighteen U.S. troops have been killed, and the President--it has recently been revealed--and the Pentagon are disrespectfully reclassifying some of those deaths as not being related to the war so that the President can downplay the true impact it has on service members. Hundreds of our troops have been injured, although the Pentagon is trying to downplay those numbers as well. Thousands of innocent Iranian civilians have died, including children-- schoolchildren--who were killed when the United States bombed a school in the opening days of the war.
The costs of the war to the American taxpayer has ballooned into tens of billions of dollars, and the Pentagon is
And, in recent days, a new challenge has emerged, one that the administration should easily have anticipated. The Houthis, who are together allied with Iran and are strategically positioned in Yemen, have started to cut off transit through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in addition to the closures in the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world's major commercial routes and threatens even more inflation that will punish American consumers.
The endless rounds of start-stop and the frequent Presidential proclamations of victory or cease-fire, then to be interrupted by new rounds of the back-and-forth of attacks in the region, have produced a profound uncertainty that is endangering economic prospects in all corners of the Earth.
Now these three foolish and illegal wars--Southern Spear, Absolute Resolve, Epic Fury--are largely rejected by the American public. Our voters want us to make their lives better, not waste their money in pointless military engagements far from home, especially with regard to Trump's war with Iran.
Haven't we learned something from 20-plus years of war in the Middle East? The Global War on Terror cost the United States more than 14,000 lives, led to more than 65,000 American casualties, and skyrocketed costs into the trillions of taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on education and infrastructure and healthcare investments at home.
Americans want a President, but more than that, Americans want a government that will spend our dollars here to make energy, healthcare, childcare, and other necessities like groceries more affordable. The President has already punished us enough with his chaotic tariff taxes and his doubling down on illegal wars just to make things so much harder for everyday people.
So what can we do? What can we do?
Knowing that the President is likely to plow forward on this failed and destructive policy, Congress has to finally stand up. The Iran war is triply illegal.
First, it is unconstitutional because the President launched it without having the congressional approval required by article I of the Constitution.
Second, the war violates the War Powers Act of 1973. This act allows a President to initiate military action in very specific circumstances: if there is a declaration of war by Congress, which there hasn't been; if there is an authorization for use of military force passed by Congress, which there hasn't been; or in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. None of those conditions were met prior to the President's launching of this war.
But even if one were to assume that one of those conditions had been met, the War Powers Act requires that any military activity started by the President without Congress has to hit a hard stop at 60 days unless Congress affirmatively votes to continue it. We are well past the 60- day point--we are now past the 5-month point--with no congressional authorization. Yet the President continues to send more troops to the region and threaten more attacks as the American public watches more flag-draped caskets come home.
Now both Houses of Congress, under Republican majorities, have passed legislation requiring the President to remove U.S. troops from hostilities against Iran unless Congress passes a war authorization. The President has not removed troops from hostilities. He is actually sending more into harm's way. The President has not sought a vote on a war authorization because he knows that such a vote would lose in both Houses in Congress in a dramatic fashion. Instead, he has taken the warmongering all on his own shoulders.
President Trump can ignore the law, and he can break the law, but he can't change the law. If the President won't abide by the Constitution, by the War Powers Act, or the express will of two Republican-majority Houses of Congress, we have one more power. Only Congress can appropriate funds for war or defense operations.
As the President and his Cabinet are here seeking even more funds to carry out his illegal wars and fighting against any guardrails against his warmongering, Congress has to stand up against him. We have to stand up against illegal wars. We have to stand up for our troops. We have to stand up for our military families. We have to stand up for citizens who want a government focused on making lives better, not waging warfare away across the world. And we have to stand up for America the peacemaker, not America the war wager.
It is telling that at the very moment we are in the middle of these three illegal and undeclared wars that are causing a huge cost to our troops and innocent civilians, the President and the Pentagon are choosing this moment to try to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War. Of course, they are. They want performative war in the worst possible way. They care more about the optics and the trolling Twitter with flashy videos than they do about doing the hard work necessary to keep Americans safe and defend this country.
You know, most nations actually had a Department of War during much of their history, and the United States did too. America had a Secretary of War and a War Cabinet for many, many years during the history of this Nation. But after World War II, when President Harry Truman, who had seen the bloodshed of war as a military officer in World War I and had to make consequential decisions as the Commander in Chief to end World War II, stood back and said: Do you know what? The United States is a great nation. We shouldn't prefer war; we should prefer defense. Let's defend our Nation, and let's tell the world we will do anything necessary to defend our Nation, but let's make it clear to the rest of the world that the mission of our military is not war; it is defense. We changed, in 1947, the Secretary of War to the Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon is the Defense Department, not the War Department. And guess what. It was a great thing the United States did.
When nations all around the world saw us do it, they did it too-- Britain and France, also World War II enemies like Germany and Japan, and current adversaries like Russia and China. All other nations followed the diplomatic lead of the United States and said: The mission of military should not be war. We don't prefer war. The mission should be vigorous defense. Brazil was actually the last nation to make the switch. They did it about three decades ago.
So now, in the world, the use of war to describe the mission or the Cabinet or the Secretary is virtually unheard of, except the United States wants to bring it back. President Trump and his self-titled ``Secretary of War'' want to switch us back so that we, instead, brag about the fact that we are focused and interested in war. It is a pending matter that is contained within the National Defense Authorization Act that will be debated on the floor here in the next few months. The Pentagon has even changed its email address to war.gov.
This is juvenile and embarrassing, and it would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
Is this who the United States of America has become now--war.gov?
Is that how we want to be known in our history?
Is that how we want to be known by allies and adversaries around the world--as a nation that prefers war to diplomacy? as a nation that sends its troops into harm's way for needless wars of choice rather than being focused on the vigorous defense of our homeland and our way of life?
I don't believe that is who this country is after 250 years, so I am going to keep challenging the President's illegal and foolish wars at every opportunity and with every tool granted me as a U.S. Senator, being mindful of Mother Teresa's wisdom: We are not called to be successful. We are called to be faithful.
If we focus on being faithful to our history, to our values, to our troops and their families and to our citizens, we are likely to be successful. In doing so, we can reclaim the role for Congress that our Founders envisioned as
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on S. Res. 817.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on Executive Calendar No. 6, S. Res. 817, an executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to speak about legislation that I have recently introduced as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, alongside my friend Vice Chairman Schatz. The bill that we have introduced is the Native Children Commission Implementation Act.
Before I get started explaining our legislation, I want to recognize the Tribal leaders, the elders, the youth, the children, and the families who flew in last week for a congressional staff briefing to share their perspectives on the bill and the importance of it but also to help educate members and staff about the importance of the bill.
As events turned out, it was unfortunate that I was not here on that day due to my having a family emergency back home, but I was able to tune in virtually. It was 5:45 in the morning Alaska time, and I was able to beam in. I have to say I can't tell you how proud I was to see the Senate Indian Affairs hearing room. It was packed literally
I was particularly grateful to the Tribal leaders, to Native youth, to advocates, and to commissioners who traveled from Alaska and across Indian Country all to be there. I really think that their presence, their stories, and their unwavering commitment have really brought this legislation to life.
I also want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues Senator Schatz and Senator Smith for joining the event and helping to mark this important milestone. Together, they made it clear that this was more than just the introduction of a bill; it was the continuation of a movement--a movement that has been built on years of partnership, of perseverance, and on hope.
I want to take a moment to specifically recognize Gloria O'Neill, who chaired the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children. Gloria and her fellow commissioners have devoted years to traveling throughout Indian Country. They have listened to Native families and have brought forward recommendations that are rooted in the voices of the communities themselves, and we owe them a great deal of gratitude for their work.
Earlier this year, I joined the Alaska Federation of Natives and Tribal leaders for a gathering to recognize their work behind this effort. We were upstairs in the Hart Building, up on the ninth floor--a big room filled with Native leaders really from across the country--and I was deeply, deeply honored to be gifted the Mandan name ``Ho Hsiihe,'' meaning ``strong voice.'' This was gifted to me by Bheri Rose Hallam, who is the granddaughter of Alyce Spotted Bear. I was very humbled--very humbled--to receive the name, and I carry it as a reminder of the responsibility that we all share to continue the work that Alyce Spotted Bear and so many Native leaders began on behalf of Native children and families. That responsibility really is at the heart of why this legislation matters so deeply to me.
Thousands of bills, we know, are introduced each Congress, and every bill matters to someone, but this one is particularly important to me.
As I look at the Presiding Officer in the chair, I am reminded of his comments at an Energy hearing this morning when he spoke with deep passion and love and care for those children whom he didn't know-- children who had cancer. All he wanted to do was to be able to help them with a playground--a place to be happy, a place to feel good about being a child. So I know--I know--that he can relate when we talk about the important work we do for our children.
The story of how the Native Children's Commission began didn't start here in Washington. It began in Tribal communities. It began with parents who wanted better opportunities for their children and with elders who were determined to preserve their languages and their cultures. It began with such a great story. It began with the young people who stood up in front of hundreds of grownups, hundreds of adults, in a convention in Fairbanks years ago, where they had the courage to tell the leaders what they were experiencing. They asked us--they asked us--to do something about it. That, to me, is really where it begins.
So more than anything, this bill is about children.
Across Indian Country, too many Native children experience challenges that no child should have to face. Some have watched their communities suffer from devastating storms or natural disasters. Some have lost loved ones to violence, to addiction, to suicide. Others have entered foster care. They have struggled to access healthcare or behavioral health services. Or perhaps they have carried the weight of the boarding schools era, which has caused historical trauma that continues to affect families today after subsequent generations.
Those experiences are very real, but they are also not the whole story. If there is one lesson that I learned from traveling across my State and meeting with Tribal communities across Indian Country, it is that resilience is every bit as real as hardship. Native communities possess extraordinary strengths, and their strengths include strong families, vibrant cultures, enduring languages, and generations of wisdom that is passed from elders to the children.
Time and time again, I have watched grandparents teach language to their grandchildren. I have seen parents work tirelessly to create opportunities for that next generation. I have seen elders reminding young people of exactly who they are and where they come from.
That sense of identity and culture is so, so powerful. It gives children confidence. It creates belonging. It fortifies our families. It reminds us that the future of Native children is built not only by overcoming hardship but by building--building--upon the remarkable strengths that have sustained Native communities for generations. That understanding has shaped every part of this legislation whose path began more than a decade ago.
I mentioned the Alaska Federation of Natives convention. This was back in 2013. During one of the sessions--again, this is the largest gathering of Native people in our State--a group of young leaders-- kids, kids--from the village of Tanana stood up before Tribal leaders, community members, and elected officials. They stood on stage, and they spoke with an honesty and a bravery about what they were seeing in their community. They spoke of violence. They spoke of substance abuse and suicide. But what struck me most was not the hardship that they described; it was the hope they carried with them. Their message was so simple. It was so clear. It was ``Listen to us.'' The children were saying ``Listen to us, and then do something,'' and I have not ever forgotten those words.
Last summer, I heard from Natasha Singh. She is a leader from the Tanana region, and she shared that the chiefs there continue to meet with young people every year.
They ask: What progress have we made? What challenges remain? What more needs to be done? What more do we need to do to listen to you?
And that kind of accountability is really remarkable because it reminds us that leadership is not measured by the promises that we make but whether or not we are willing to answer for them.
It also reminded me that if Tribal leaders are willing to answer to their children, then Congress should be willing to do the same. So those young people challenged us more than a decade ago, and this new legislation is part of our answer. That conversation that we had in 2013 ultimately led to bipartisan legislation with my friend and former Senator Heidi Heitkamp, and we established the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.
And the commission had a very straightforward but very important mission, and that was travel throughout Indian country, listen to Native children, listen to the families, to the Tribal leaders, to the service providers, the experts, and then come back and tell us here in Congress what is needed to improve outcomes for Native youth. That is exactly what they did.
Over several years, the commissioners visited communities across the country, and they heard some pretty tough stories. They heard some heartbreaking stories, but they also witnessed extraordinary examples of resilience, of innovation, and Tribal leadership. They saw communities creating culturally grounded solutions that were then strengthening families and improving health, supporting children, and really restoring hope.
And their work culminated in a report that they called ``The Way Forward.'' But that report was never meant to be the end of the conversation; it was only the end of the beginning.
And when the commissioners presented their recommendations to our Committee on Indian Affairs, they urged us; they said: Please, don't let this work become another report that just sits on the shelf and gathers dust. The families who shared their stories deserved more than that; they deserved action.
And so that is when we got to work. Over the last couple of years, we have worked closely with Tribal leaders, Native organizations, youth advocates, Federal Agencies, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We released draft legislation. We held hearings and roundtables. We invited the
This bill is stronger because it was built with Native communities, not for them. The Native Children's Commission Implementation Act reflects a simple idea, and that is: If we want to improve outcomes for Native children, we cannot look at just one issue at a time.
And we know when we are talking about kids, you can't talk about life in separate categories. A child does not experience life in neat, clean, separate categories. Health is connected to education. Education is connected to housing. Behavioral health is connected to family stability. Parents cannot succeed if they can't find childcare. Children can't reach their full potential if they are hungry, if they are dealing with untreated trauma or disconnected from language or culture or identity. So our policies should recognize that reality.
And we do that within this legislation. It strengthens access to healthcare and behavioral health services. It supports Native education and language revitalization. It improves juvenile justice, public safety, housing, nutrition, workforce development, and research. And, more importantly, it recognized that Tribal communities are best positioned to lead these efforts because they know their children and their families, and they know them better than anyone else.
During a hearing earlier this year on a draft legislation, Joan Johnson of the Fort Belknap Indian Community shared a story of a young woman who entered the Tribe's Tiwahe wellness program, and the Tiwahe Initiative is a pilot program at BIA that assists Tribes in providing holistic services that promote everything from child safety to family stability and Tribal self-determination.
And Fort Belknap testified that their wellness program has removed the stigma of intervention by meeting families in their homes and helping them access care.
To understand the need to make this initiative permanent, Joan shared the story of a young woman who had struggled with addiction and homelessness. And the young mother shared, she said:
And, today, that young woman is sober. She is raising her children. And she is helping build a brighter future for her family.
And that transformation doesn't happen because Washington has all the answers. It happened because a Tribal community invested in one of its own. And we have learned from that, and we are seeking to codify Tiwahe as one important section in our legislation.
Councilwoman Johnson also described children who came into the Tiwahe program knowing they were Native, but not knowing their language, not knowing their traditions, or even their own family stories. And elders helped connect those young people with their identity. They learned their Native names. They participated in ceremony.
And many of those same young people eventually became mentors for the children who followed them. So healing became leadership; one generation began lifting the next.
We heard similar stories from Alaska where the Association of Village Council Presidents redesigned the way that families receive services. So instead of forcing parents in crisis--maybe it is addiction, maybe it is homelessness. But it is hard when you have so many disconnected programs. And so through this initiative, they brought education, employment, childcare, family services all together in one place. And so when you have got a family that is just facing so many big, big, heavy burdens, that kind of coordination can make all of the difference.
And these stories, again, remind us that the best ideas rarely begin in Washington.
And while I am proud to get to this point, which is our bill introduction, it is also a reminder that our work is just beginning. This legislation represents more than a decade of listening, learning, and working alongside Tribal leaders, Native organizations, families, and young people. And it reflects the belief that lasting change happens when we listen first and legislate second.
While this is an important step, what matters is that we keep moving forward because every recommendation in the report which was translated into this bill began with a conversation in a Tribal community.
And I am going to keep coming back to those young people from Tanana, because they said--it was more than a decade ago. They asked us to listen. And I hope--I hope--today they can see that we are listening. We are acting. The Native Children's Commission Implementation Act is not about creating yet one more Federal program or one more report that is going to sit on a shelf somewhere. It is about strengthening what is already working in Native communities. It is about trusting Tribal governments, investing in Native families, and ensuring--ensuring--that every Native child--whether Alaska Native, American Indian, Native Hawaiian--has the opportunity to grow up healthy, to grow up safe, connected to their culture, and confident in who they are. And that is a goal that should unite all of us.
So, today, I invite my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike-- to join Senator Schatz and me as cosponsors of the Native Children's Commission Implementation Act. Let's show that when Tribal communities speak, Congress listens. Let's turn their recommendations of ``The Way Forward'' report into meaningful action, and let's work together to build a future where every Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian child has the opportunity to not only overcome challenges, but to become those leaders of the next generation.
So I look forward to working with you and the rest of our colleagues to do just that.
Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate today regarding a bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives known as H.R. 7008. H.R. 7008 performs two badly needed functions to restore faith and integrity in our system of government: Firstly, it bans Members of Congress from using their unique access and knowledge to profit through stock market speculation; secondly, it requires something very simple, a voter ID.
You have got to show an ID when you pick up something at will call if you are there to pick up tickets to the theater, if you are picking up a prescription at the pharmacy, if you are going to the bank, if you are boarding an airplane--you are doing all kinds of things that are part of Americans' day-to-day experience where it matters whether you are who you claim to be, you have got to show an ID.
We should require nothing less when it comes to the exercise of one of the most fundamental rights that Americans have; that is, their right to vote.
You see, when someone else votes in your place, they displace your vote. They offset your vote. If they are double voting, if they are voting when they are not allowed to vote because they are not a citizen or otherwise, if they do something foolish and they try to go and vote, they will be caught if they are asked to produce an ID at the balloting place.
So this bill accomplishes both of these things. And like I say, both of them would do a lot to restore faith, confidence, and integrity in our system of government.
Dealing specifically with the voter ID requirement in this legislation, this is a very straightforward requirement. When you show up to vote, you just have to show an ID, just like you do at the bank, just like you do at the pharmacy or the doctor's office or the bank or when boarding an airplane.
And if you vote by mail, then that is easy to accommodate. You just include a simple photocopy of your photo ID.
Now, we have gone to great lengths to make sure that everyone is taken care of here, to make sure that there is not a single U.S. citizen that would be disadvantaged or unable to vote if we were to pass this.
So for those who, let's say, for whatever reason, don't have access to a photocopier and they want to vote by mail, well, we have taken that into consideration. The bill requires States
Now, it is interesting. Right now the headquarters of the Democratic Party here in Washington, DC, displays a sign very prominently, and that sign makes clear that 100 percent of the visitors to the Democratic Party's headquarters have to show a photo ID when they enter.
Now, if they have to do that--and we know they have to do that when attending the Democratic National Convention to enter the convention hall, much less participate as a voting member of the Democratic National Convention. You have to prove who you are, and you have to show that you have the right to be there and the right to participate.
So far be it from us to second guess the Democratic Party in deciding people need to prove who they are to enter their convention hall or their party headquarters. We should have voters do the same thing.
And Democrats are smart in doing that because, after all, they don't want somebody showing up to their convention. I mean, good heavens, what if a Republican showed up to their Democratic National Convention and tried to skew the results of their convention by pretending to be a Democrat--a Democrat delegate no less. That wouldn't be fair.
So they are absolutely right to require photo ID and to require delegates to present their convention credentials so that they can show that they are who they claim to be and that they have the right to participate at their own convention.
Americans at every corner of our country and at every point along the political idealogical spectrum in this country agree that this makes sense to do, specifically in the context--not just of needing to produce ID where it matters whether you are who you claim to be, but specifically in the context of voter ID, of having to produce identification at the moment you vote, at the place where you vote. Mr. President, 83 percent of American voters, in total, support voter ID, and that includes a whopping 71 percent of Democrat voters.
So this is neither Republican nor Democratic. This is neither liberal nor conservative. This is simply an American issue because we don't want anyone's right to vote to be taken away. We don't want anyone disenfranchised, and that is exactly what happens when you allow someone who is not whom they claim to be, who is not entitled to vote, to show up and cast a vote, and that is wrong. So today we have got a really good opportunity to address these two issues that Americans are deeply concerned about, and I hope we can take advantage of this opportunity.
Now, the vote on the House of Representatives' side of this bill-- like I say, it was just passed recently by the House of Representatives--it was bipartisan. You had Republicans overwhelmingly support it, but you also had a number of House Democrats voting with every House Republican in favor of this bill with the clean voter ID requirement attached.
So we are going to be talking about this for a little while tonight, and I just want to encourage my Democratic colleagues on this side of the Capitol right here in the U.S. Senate to follow the lead of the wise Democrats who joined every Republican to vote for this in the House of Representatives.
We need to get this done. We should get it done. We have the opportunity to get it done tonight, and we will be talking more about that in a moment.
Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague Senator Lee and my colleagues Senator Ricketts, Senator Moreno. We are all on the floor to seek unanimous consent to a bill that actually just makes common sense.
Senator Lee talked about the different provisions of the bill, but I think one thing that is important to underscore is it just passed the House. These are issues that are on the minds of the American people, and it passed the House in a bipartisan manner--a strong bipartisan manner. So I am hopeful that we can move that House bill on both of these issues that Senator Lee just talked about in a way tonight and get this bill to the President's desk.
As I mentioned, Mr. President, common sense. Senator Lee talked about the insider trading provisions. I think every American would agree that Members of Congress should be prohibited, as well as their spouses and children, from purchasing individual stocks while serving in office, particularly given that we have access to different kinds of information.
You know, this has been something that I have done a number of years ago. I moved stocks into index funds to kind of get rid of this issue, from my perspective, personally.
Senator Ricketts has been the lead here in the U.S. Senate on this issue. I am actually a cosponsor of his bill that is very much focused on this commonsense approach to the issue of insider trading.
And then we need to go to the issue of integrity of our election system. As Senator Lee pointed out, it makes sense. It is very, very common sense--simple in many ways--that if you are going to vote, you have to have a valid ID to do that.
Now, this bill mandates that requirement, but it has a lot of provisional elements to this bill that accommodate States like mine that are very big, that have a dispersed population. So this bill includes those kind of accommodations. Eligible voters can access a provisional ballot. They can sign an affidavit attesting to their identity and citizenship if they don't have an ID.
There are many ways in which this bill accommodates the important element of making sure that American citizens vote in American elections. And I don't think that is some kind of radical idea. I think the vast, vast majority of Americans agree with this.
So I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, and I am hopeful that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will agree with us, and let's pass this bill and send it to the President's desk.
Mr. President, integrity; integrity inspires confidence, and the reverse is true. If there is a perception of lack of integrity, it undermines confidence.
We have a problem here in the Congress: 80 percent of Americans believe that we do not do a good job of separating our financial interests from the insider information that we receive as part of our jobs. And because of this perception of lack of integrity, they don't think we are doing a good job. Our approval rating is 15 percent. Clearly, Americans are not trusting this institution on this issue.
But we have an opportunity to course-correct, to help restore the integrity and, therefore, the confidence that Americans have in the U.S. Congress, and that is by passing H.R. 7008 that includes the Stop Insider Trading Act that was introduced in the House and passed, as my colleagues pointed out, with bipartisan support. I introduced the companion bill here in the Senate.
What this bill does is it says: You cannot buy stocks when you get here.
Well, why is this important? Because we have disclosure laws right now, but yet we have the problem that 80 percent of Americans think that we do a bad job of keeping our financial interests and our insider information separate.
And indeed we have seen people post on social media, for example, the stock trades of the former Speaker of the House, and it has become a legitimate trading strategy, as crazy as it sounds, because it is successful; it makes money.
We have had a situation in the past where one of the members of the Intelligence Committee sold about a million and a half dollars' worth of stock right before the stock market tanked because of COVID. Even the perception of using insider information to benefit yourself financially is undermining the confidence.
And the same could be said as well for the voter ID. Thirty-six States have voter ID. In my State of Nebraska, when I was Governor, we passed it and put it on the ballot. It passed overwhelmingly, 65 to 35, that Nebraskans wanted to have that voter ID as part of the process of elections to make sure they could trust in the integrity and have confidence.
Now, the insider trading act has real teeth to it. It says that you cannot buy stock, and if you own stock already when you come into the Congress, you can only sell it on 7 to 14 days' notice.
Why is this important? Well, to make sure that the market and anybody in the country can see that if you are going to sell your stock positions, they can all do it first. They get that information first so that if you have some sort of insider information, it is not insider anymore because the rest of the world knows.
And if you do violate the rules and you buy stock or you sell stock out of turn without giving the proper notification, significant penalties: a minimum $2,000 fine or 10 percent of the transaction costs.
So, for example, if you sold a million dollars' worth of stock, that is a $100,000 fine--plus giving up all the profits that go along with it. That has the enforcement and the teeth that require Members of this body and Members of the House to take notice.
This bill would go a long way toward restoring the integrity of this institution, restoring the confidence in this institution. And as was mentioned already, it passed bipartisan in the House. But the President has called on us to pass it and recently the Vice President when he was speaking to House Republicans.
Let's restore the faith in this institution. Let's make sure people know that we are not using our insider information to financially benefit ourselves.
Coming to Washington, DC, to serve our communities is a privilege. We do it for public service. It is not to be a profit center for people who are coming.
So let's make sure there is no perception possible by passing H.R. 7008.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7008, which was received from the House; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, it is a shame that Senate Republicans seem particularly focused on scoring political points instead of passing real policies that can actually make a difference because, yes, all Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--are rightly concerned about insider trading by government officials. But the bill before us cannot address these concerns because, just like as was the case on Monday--that is right, 48 hours ago--we were having the same discussion, the same debate. This measure contains two giant poison pills.
First, it exempts the President and the Vice President of the United States, for that matter. But it exempts the President from the ban on stock trading, and I can list at least 21,000 reasons why we should not exempt the President from the ban on insider trading.
Last year alone, Donald Trump made over 21,000 stock trades--an average of 85 trades per day--85. Does that sound like somebody that is singularly focused on bringing costs down for hard-working Americans? I don't think so.
As I also said on Monday, Donald Trump is clearly the ``Trader in Chief.'' So you cannot be serious about reining in public officials' stock trading if you present a bill that gives the biggest stock trader in Washington a free pass.
My colleague from Nebraska spoke to the virtues of disclosure and advanced notice. Well, on the surface, that seems very attractive, but let me tell you what is really going on. President Trump's social media company is publicly selling inside information about his market- changing statements before the public sees them to hedge funds and Wall Street for the low, low price of $100,000 a month.
It is all in the open--inside information from the President himself for $100,000 a month. The average American earns less than that in a year. But the President isn't worried about them. He is focusing on profiting from his office.
So it is clear that Republicans in Congress are not actually serious about banning stock trading where it is happening the worst. And they are not about helping working Americans address the higher costs of gas and groceries and housing and healthcare.
So what is it that they do care about? Let's talk about the other big poison pill in this bill because the title of it seems like it is about insider trading--Stop Insider Trading Act--but the way it is before us includes the SAVE Act, a bill that we have debated for months and months and months on this floor. Republicans don't have the votes to pass it--a bill that would make it harder for eligible Americans to participate in our democracy.
We have debated this bill for months, and it has gotten nowhere because the Republican caucus isn't even united on this measure because the bill--it is not about voter fraud. The massive voter fraud they claim simply doesn't exist. There is no evidence of massive voter fraud across the country.
What the SAVE Act proposal does do is it sows distrust in our system and seeks to cause chaos in an election cycle that is already underway--a midterm election, by the way, where Republicans are afraid of voters holding them accountable for failing to do anything about rising costs and increased corruption, let alone this unauthorized war with Iran.
How do we know that? Because the SAVE Act, as written, is far more restrictive than the voter ID laws that exist in the States that already have a voter ID law. The House Republican bill would go further and require a photocopy of your ID in your absentee or mail ballot. Now, that violates the fundamental premise of a secret ballot, which is a sacred right; and, therefore, it would undermine mail voting itself.
As I mentioned on Monday, the Republican Governor of Ohio vetoed a similar bill because he saw no benefit in it and that the measure would be a ``significant burden'' on voters. So that is truly the point of the bill: to make it harder for some people to vote.
Now, let's get back to the title of the bill: Stop Insider Trading. If we are genuine about doing that, then there is a bipartisan solution that is available to us today, a bipartisan solution on stock trading.
Everybody watching at home, there is a bill that has been pending before the Senate for nearly a year. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted it out on a bipartisan basis. Senator Hawley is the lead sponsor; Senator Moreno is a cosponsor, along with a number of Democrats--S. 1498, the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions, otherwise known as the HONEST Act. So let's pass that--or at least set up a vote on that measure.
And if Republicans aren't willing to do that, then let's sit down-- Republicans and Democrats together--to hammer out a real solution and stop with these political games.
So, therefore, Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify his request to instead proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1498; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
Mr. President, so I think it is important to clear up a couple of things in no particular order. First of all, I did not cosponsor the HONEST Act. I was the cosponsor of the PELOSI Act, which was a tribute--an honor--to the Member of the House of Representatives that made grift on this job an absolute master class.
Your Representative from Northern California came here almost five decades ago and has managed to build a $300 million net worth. Her Twitter account is one of the most followed accounts, as my colleague from Nebraska pointed out. So I was very proud to sponsor the PELOSI Act. In fact, it is extraordinarily similar to the exact same measure my colleague from Utah and my colleague from Nebraska have proposed, as has the Presiding Officer, my colleague from Ohio. So just to clear that up.
Then the next question was: Well, why would you not sponsor a bill called the HONEST Act? I mean--my God--how do you be anti-honest? Well, that bill basically bans the ownership of all
So, basically, that would be insane. There is no other way to look at that. The Democrats put that in place during a Homeland Security meeting which went something like this. We sat down to talk about the PELOSI Act, and they gave us 15 pages of amended documents and said: Hey, we are going to vote on this right now.
And, again--I should have predicted it, honestly, because it was a tribute to Nancy Pelosi, who said: Well, you have to vote for the bill before you know what is in it.
Of course, Republicans said: We are not going to vote for something we haven't read--because, again, that is insane. But it wasn't as insane as what is actually in that bill.
Now, let's go back to what we are really doing here tonight. We could pass this today. Tomorrow, the President of the United States could sign into law a ban on insider trading. This is a 100-percent zero issue. Sometimes we talk about 80-20 issues. There is not an American citizen--well, maybe Paul Pelosi--who would be against this.
But all Americans want us to get this done, and it is very commonsense. My colleague from Nebraska worked diligently on this. It is a great bill. It says if you own stocks when you get here, you can't buy more--so, therefore, you can't use the information--and you can't sell stocks without a 7-day notice period, which, in effect, eliminates any kind of advantage that you would have.
It is a very good bill. It applies to all Members of Congress. We should be able to get that done. We should be able to ban insider trading without Democrats blocking that vote.
My colleague, I believe, from Nebraska--if the Presiding Officer could ask him; I want to be clear--he has asked for a vote at 60; is that correct?
I am objecting. Sorry. Well, let me--just continuing. So let's talk about voter ID really quickly.
My colleague from California said that the Republicans are not united on voter ID, and that is absolutely, absolutely, positively false. This is really important because you can't make accusations here that are false.
My colleague from Ohio, the Presiding Officer, has put forward the exact, in essence, voter ID bill, and it was 53 out of 53 Republicans that voted for that--53 out of 53. That is 100 percent of Republicans. If I did that math correctly, I believe that 53 out of 53 is 100 percent.
Where he is correct is that Democrats are united in their opposition. There wasn't a single Democrat that voted for a stand-alone voter ID bill. Tonight, we have the opportunity to do that--ban insider trading and get voter ID on the floor.
Because my colleagues don't want to do what the American people want them to do, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
Mr. President, what we were just attempting to do was to pass it with unanimous consent. That means all 100 Senators agree that we can move forward on H.R. 7008, which includes the Stop Insider Trading Act and the voter ID. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is about integrity. Integrity inspires confidence.
Eighty percent of Americans don't believe we separate our inside information from our financial interests, and therefore we have a 15 percent approval rating. It is the lack of confidence in what we are doing, about how we are handling this, that is creating those low ratings.
So we have an opportunity to be able to address that with the Stop Insider Trading Act and the voter ID, to restore that integrity and, therefore, that confidence.
I certainly understand if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't wish to do that unanimously; that, for whatever reason, somebody objects going forward, as my colleague from California has. I offer an alternative that let's schedule a vote.
So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7008 and vote on the passage of the bill at a 60-vote affirmative threshold; further, that if the bill is passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, before I offer a good-faith counterproposal to my colleague from Nebraska, let me just clarify one item that my colleague from Ohio was seeming to correct--or attempting to correct, I should say, a measure that I was referencing.
So to folks watching at home, let me suggest: Don't take my word for it. Go to Congress.gov and look up S. 1498, and you will see that, indeed, Senator Moreno is a cosponsor. And if you read the measure itself, you will see that it does not ban mutual fund investments.
And with that true correction and clarification, Mr. President, let me ask that the Senator modify his request to, instead, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 294, S. 1498; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and the Senate vote on passage of the bill at a 60-vote affirmative threshold; further, that if the bill is passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the bill that my colleague from Nebraska, my colleague from Ohio, and my colleague from Utah is proposing is a bill that has already passed the House of Representatives. It has massive bipartisan support. Lots of Democrats voted for that in the House. If we pass it, it can become law. Putting that bill on the floor at 60 is a very low-threshold ask.
I think the American people deserve to know what each Member of this Chamber decides to do on banning insider trading and voter ID.
The proposal that my colleague from California is putting on the floor is a bill that has neither gotten through any committee where it has been actually read by committee members. It is a bill that has not been presented to the House of Representatives, so they would have to take it up over there. It would, of course, be modified and come back. In other words, it is what I say--it is the DC two-step--or if you want to have a headline that says ``I am for banning insider trading'' knowing nothing will actually happen.
Now, maybe you don't think that the bill that my colleague from Nebraska worked diligently on is perfect, but it is a massive step in the right direction. This would get us to 99.9 percent of the way there on banning insider trading. It could happen tomorrow. It could happen tomorrow. And the voter ID law, which virtually all Americans support, could happen tomorrow.
So what we are dealing with is one bill that can be signed into law that has been vetted, that has massive bipartisan support, versus a bill that, quite frankly, the person talking about it wasn't even on that committee, is not 100 percent sure what was in that bill, doesn't know the history of the bill. It wasn't a year ago; it was a few months ago. It is a smokescreen, and for that reason I object.
Mr. President, we see a lot of debates around here on a lot of different topics--too many topics, in my view, given the fact that the Federal Government is a government enterprise with narrow responsibilities.
In Federalist 45, James Madison described the powers of the Federal Government as few and defined while describing those reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite.
We are in charge of national defense, weights and measures, trademarks, copyrights and patents, regulating trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Tribes, bankruptcy laws, intellectual property laws, coastal roads, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal, serving as the sole sovereign lawmaking authority for what we now call the District of Columbia, the city where we stand today. That is about it. There are a few other powers, but the lion's share of it can be found somewhere in that list of relatively limited authorities that I just described.
We venture sometimes too far afield from those powers, and that is one of the reasons why a lot of things come up.
My point in reciting all this is that in all the debates we see, which probably range further than they should, we see some things that are weighty and some things that are more on the trivial side. Just to cite one random hypothetical, one minute, you could see something debated and maybe passed on this floor recognizing, I don't know, National Sofa Care Week or something like that that goes by sort of with a yawn, and then the next moment, we will be debating something more weighty, something more significant and more definitely relevant to the U.S. Government's powers.
Under article I, sections 4 and 5, this legislation that we have been discussing this evening, H.R. 7008, deals with a couple of core powers that Congress has, one of them involving the regulation of behavior and activities on the part of Members of Congress, Members of the House and the Senate. In the second instance, you have the regulation of the casting of ballots for Federal elections--for elections for Federal office, elections for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. We certainly have authority to act in both of those two areas.
There is not a lot of dispute--in other words, there is a lot of bipartisan consensus over the fact that it is time to restrict stock buying and selling on the part of Members of Congress. It is stunning, however, that the voter ID component of H.R. 7008 is at all controversial. This one should be a no-brainer. For the American people, it is a no-brainer. Democratic voters--71 percent favor voter ID requirements. When you add Republicans--so Democrat voters and Republican voters combined--you take it up to 83, 84 percent. If you poll Republican voters alone, we are talking in the mid- to high-90 percentile range for people who support voter ID requirements.
The reason for this is simple. This is obvious. It is intuitive. It is just as we have to prove who we are everywhere else we go where who you are matters and whether you are who you claim to be can make a big difference.
Americans intuitively understand that whatever mild inconvenience might accompany having to provide documentation for who you are, when most of the time, that can be done with a simple card like a driver's license, for example, a passport, something like that, something showing who you are that is issued by the government--we have come to accept as a society that that is just sort of the cost of living in our country. That is part of what it takes because if we didn't do that, the alternative would be bad.
You don't want to show up to your bank one day and discover that somebody else impersonating you, falsely claiming to be you, came in and withdrew all of your money. You don't want that.
We don't allow people to board aircraft without a photo ID, and the reason is there are all kinds of things that can happen in the sky that are dangerous, and you don't want to make it too easy for somebody claiming to be who they are not to board an aircraft and then carry out, you know, crimes of one sort or another--acts of terrorism, perhaps.
These are just a couple examples of the myriad instances in which we have to prove who we are. It is not an undue burden; it is a momentary detour from what we would otherwise be doing.
Most of the time, most people, when they show up to vote, already have their wallet with them, and in their wallet, they presumably have a driver's license or another form of government-issued photo ID, so why not require them to show that?
We saw tonight my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from California, contorting himself into a pretzel trying to explain why it is we can't pass this bill. To be clear, his objection, as far I can tell, didn't relate nearly as much to anything else in the bill other than the voter ID provision. That is the concern.
The question is, Why is it that when 70 percent of Democrat voters and 83, 84 percent of all voters, Democrat and Republican combined--why is it that my Democrat colleagues are so adamantly opposed to this? Why do they care? Why do they want the status quo?
I am always reluctant to speak on someone else's behalf because what they say--No. 1, I don't have the ability to read minds, but sometimes, what they say can give us an indication. We have had Democratic politician after Democratic politician part from their own Democratic voter base, which overwhelmingly supports voter ID, time and time and time again, showing up and saying: Oh, we don't want voter ID.
Why?
Now, they actually say this: We believe this would shut out a lot of our voters.
What? Is that an admission that a lot of their voters aren't who they claim to be? that a lot of their voters perhaps aren't U.S. citizens and aren't eligible to vote?
This ought to be concerning to everyone. It ought to be concerning especially to Democrat voters, especially in States that have elected a Democrat Senator who is now opposing any and every sort of voter ID requirement.
A few months ago when we had the SAVE America Act on the floor for, I don't know, 10 blessed days--should have been longer, but it was on the floor for about 10 days. During that time, I was on the floor a lot responding to arguments that they made, and I think I heard every single argument they made.
The overwhelming majority of them--and I mean probably 95-plus percent of the arguments they made against the SAVE America Act-- weren't even against the voter ID provisions of the SAVE America Act. Overwhelmingly, they were instead about the proof of citizenship issue. In fact, many of them, Democratic Senator after Democratic Senator, intimated one way or another that they are OK with voter ID requirements. So why are they opposing it? You have to ask yourself that question.
In Latin, there is a word for this: ``Cui bono?'' Who benefits? Who benefits from people being able to show up and claim to be someone they are not or from someone showing up who is not entitled to vote because they are not a U.S. citizen? Who benefits from that?
I can tell you it is not Republicans. Why? Well, you don't see a single Republican politician making the ridiculous, absurd arguments against voter ID and citizenship verification that these guys are making. Who benefits from illegal voting? Their words seem to suggest that they are benefiting.
This issue isn't going away. The SAVE America Act isn't going away. Voter ID requirement demands aren't going away. I will be back. I will be back day after day, week after week, until this passes because the American people deserve to go to bed every night knowing that their government is run by people they themselves elected, not foreign nationals. They don't want a government that has been chosen with significant foreign influence in our elections.
There was a time when the Democrats in this august Chamber--a time not so very long ago indeed--spoke of little else other than their fear of foreign election interference.
If we don't face the real challenge as to foreign election interference right now, as long as we are not passing the SAVE America Act or its key components, it would appear that those who are against this are just fine now with foreign election interference.
The American people shouldn't be because, again, it is not free. When somebody else votes who is not who they claim to be, when somebody else votes claiming to be a citizen and they are not a citizen, it robs hard-working
No. No. We can't look the other way, nor do we, in my view, have any business taking a 6-week recess until such time as we have done everything humanly possible to get these reforms put into law. The American people deserve better than this. Most of them don't have that luxury of doing that.
Now, I know it is a time-honored Senate tradition. I know it is a tradition that has its roots back to long before the advent of modern air-conditioning and to a time when Washington, DC--you know, it is typically not the most pleasant weather in Washington, and this Chamber, I am sure, became suffocatingly hot and muggy, so for a long time, we had that August recess. Well, we have air-conditioning now. We can handle it.
It is true we frequently do take a recess in August, but it is not written in stone anywhere, it is not written in law anywhere that we have to do that. I would be fine doing that if we had gotten our work done. I would be fine doing that if we knew how our government was going to be funded past September 30. Right now, we have no idea. So when the government remains unfunded and we have no idea how we are going to secure an election system that, quite frankly, is recklessly, criminally insecure--we have no business leaving this Chamber for 6 weeks when we have no idea how we are going to take care of any of that. These problems are not going to solve themselves while we are gone.
I remember 15 years ago when I was first sworn in. I was younger then. I had a full head of hair. I was only 39 years old. I was the youngest Member of the Senate when I got sworn in.
Right after I got sworn in, we were walking one evening around the Capitol. I was showing it to my family. My daughter Eliza was 10 years old at the time. She pointed to one of the little doors out in the hallway just outside the Senate Chamber.
It is a door that is maybe 18 inches tall at the most. I later learned that it was installed when they built this wing of the Capitol in the late 1850s. That was their source of water. They had a pipe in there. The custodial staff at the time used it to get water so that they could clean the floors. I didn't know that at the time.
As we were walking around, my 10-year-old daughter Eliza asked me: Dad, what is that door for?
Not knowing how to answer, I just said the first thing that came to mind. I said: Well, that is for the House elves. The House elves live in there.
Of course, there are no House elves here, but sometimes, we act as if we are relying on the House elves to not only clean the Capitol but also clean up the messes that we make and that we leave undealt with, unaddressed legislatively while we are gone. The cavalry is not coming. We are the cavalry. The House elves aren't going to show up and do our work for us if we retreat into the sunset for 6 weeks.
We have to do this. We had an opportunity tonight to make a meaningful dent in our election security problem. And it is tragic that the Democrats chose not to let this reasonable measure pass into law--a measure that 71 percent of their voters and 83 percent of all American voters support. They can't handle it--apparently because they benefit too much when people vote illegally. Shame on them for taking that position, but shame on us if we leave before the job is done.
Lastly, far too much gets said around here about, Oh, we can't do X, Y, or Z because we don't have 60 votes. I get that that is said. That cannot become our anthem. That is an absurd suggestion.
Now, I know it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, but, you know, long before there even was a cloture rule--there has only been a cloture rule for 109 years. Before that time, we still had the filibuster, just no cloture. Remember, a cloture vote is just one way of breaking the filibuster.
If a supermajority of Senators--under the current rule, three-fifths, 60 votes in the Senate--if 60 Senators want to force debate to come to a close even if some Senators want to continue debating, then the Senate can do so, but that is not the exclusive means by which you can break a filibuster. Other techniques are available--techniques that were available for nearly 150 years before the first cloture rule was even adopted in 1917.
If you can't break a filibuster and you don't have 60 votes to bring debate to a close using cloture, you can put legislation on the floor, and you can debate it, and you can require any Senator wishing to filibuster to continue to show up and continue to speak to prolong debate.
The filibuster is about speaking; it is about debating; it is not about perpetually forestalling the passing of legislation until you have 60 votes for it.
Passage in this Chamber, with rare exceptions not relevant here, is set at a simple majority, at 51 votes. And if the Vice President is with you, you can do it at 50 votes. The Vice President supplies the tie-breaking vote of 51, and then it is passed. We could do that.
We should be putting this measure on the Senate floor. We should be debating it for weeks on end, if necessary, cutting into weekends and long-scheduled recess time, if necessary, making clear we are going to keep debating it until it passes, and making clear that the minute those filibustering it fail to show up and continue to speak, we will call the question, and we will pass it with a simple majority.
We could do that. We should do that. It takes time, yes. But time is on our side. We have got weeks in which to do this. We should do that.
Now, if we don't want to do that, there are other mechanisms available to us. We could continue to attach it to other must-pass vehicles. We could also push something in the form of budget reconciliation.
Now, that is a little trickier. You could bypass the need for cloture with budget reconciliation, but it has to be budgetary, and it has to meet a whole bunch of requirements.
It has to be budgetary, which means it needs to manage changes in mandatory outlays or revenues; and it can't, among other things, have budgetary features that are merely incidental to policy changes.
But there are ways that we could capture some of the benefits of the SAVE America Act through reconciliation.
But my point is just to say there are multiple ways of skinning this cat. I don't care nearly as much which way to skin it. I would personally prefer to bring it up on the floor and debate it until it passes. I think that is the cleanest way of doing it. But I am not a purist on that. I don't insist it be my way or the highway. I am just saying we do have to do it. We can't pretend this isn't here. This will not disappear simply because we leave.
The cavalry is not coming. We are the cavalry. There are no house elves who will come and fix our election security problems. So let's get this done. And for the love of all that is sacred and holy, let's not go on a 6-week recess with all of this undone. The American people deserve better.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, today I recognize Peever, SD. The town of Peever will be celebrating its quasquicentennial on August 8, 2026. Peever will host anniversary events, including a parade, an antique tractor-pull, live music, and much more.
Peever is located in Roberts County and is nestled at the edge of the beautiful Coteau Hills in the northeastern corner of South Dakota. The town of Peever is named after settler Thomas Henry Peever, an entrepreneur who cultivated the community's growth through railroad development and early commerce. As part of the Lake Traverse Reservation, the area is deeply tied to the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate
I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Peever on their town's quasquicentennial and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.
Mr. President, today I recognize Ava Powell, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Ava is a graduate of Greens Farms Academy in Westport, CT. Currently, she is attending Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, where she is pursuing degrees in English and human and organizational development. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ava for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Casper Orthopedics. This remarkable milestone reflects five decades of excellence providing comprehensive, compassionate, and trusted healthcare to thousands of patients across the Cowboy State.
Casper Orthopedics was founded on September 1, 1976, by decorated Vietnam veteran and orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jerry Behrens. It is Wyoming's great fortune that Jerry moved his family to Casper to start his own orthopedic practice. Shortly after opening its doors, Jerry was joined by Dr. John Bailey and then Dr. Tom Landon. Thus began Casper Orthopedics' 50-year journey providing the highest standard of patient care.
Everyone at Casper Orthopedics, from the physicians, nurses, therapists, technicians, and support staff, strives every day to put their patients first. They dedicate their time, talent, and treasure to helping people regain mobility, restore independence, and improve overall quality of life. Over the past 50 years, the practice has earned a reputation for specializing in a wide range of orthopedic care, ranging from trauma, spine, upper extremity, foot and ankle, joint replacement, and sports medicine to physical medicine and rehabilitation.
Casper Orthopedics is where I spent my 24-year career as a board- certified orthopedic surgeon. I joined the practice in 1983. Dr. Craig Smith and Dr. Clay Turner also brought their incredible surgical gifts to the practice during those first 25 years.
It was my honor to learn from these dedicated healthcare leaders as we worked every day to keep the practice at the forefront of orthopedic medicine. We embraced advances in surgical techniques, rehabilitation, and patient-centered care. It was this commitment to innovation that enabled people from all walks of life to return to the activities they enjoy with confidence.
In 2001, Casper Orthopedics opened its state-of-the-art medical facility at 4140 Centennial Hills Blvd. This new location included an ambulatory surgical center, physical and occupational therapy, and an imaging department. The practice continued to grow, and in 2003, Dr. Steven Orcutt joined the team. Shortly after that, Casper Orthopedics expanded further and added Dr. Matt Mitchell, Dr. Matthew Gorman, Dr. Robert Allaire, Dr. Eric Linford, Dr. Daniel White, Dr. Trevor Gessel, Dr. Jay Arthur, Dr. Marko Tomov, Dr. Ari Amitai, Dr. Taylor Harris, and Dr. Paul Hannon.
This golden anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the vision and dedication of the founders, the leadership that has guided the practice through decades of growth, and the generations of healthcare professionals whose unparalleled skills have made this achievement possible. Their work not only serves the healthcare needs of the region, but Casper Orthopedics also strives to be an active part of the Casper community. The practice regularly supports local organizations and has partnered with the Wyoming Symphony, Jason's Friends Foundation, and the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center.
Congratulations to the entire Casper Orthopedics team, past and present, on 50 years of healthcare excellence. May the practice continue its proud tradition of excellence, innovation, compassionate care, and public service for decades to come. I wish them continued success and know they will continue to provide high-quality care that supports the well-being of patients across Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain West.
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 have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, at 3:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my second-session summer interns Leif Anderson, Bronwyn Brune, Lina Hischer, Victoria Bielefeld, Lydia Wies, Tessa Davis, Ole John Schuldt, Mary Cope, Preston Carter, and Soren Getti for the months of July and August of 2026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognizing the Importance of Trademarks in the Economy and the Role of Trademarks in Protecting Consumer Safety by Designating the Month of July as "National Anti-Counterfeiting and Consumer...
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 818) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 6, S. Res. 817, with no amendments or motions in relation to the executive resolution in order; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, Senator Murray or her designee be authorized to return the Senate to legislative session for the purpose of making a motion to proceed to Calendar No. 533, S.J. Res. 199, and the Senate vote on the motion to proceed at 11:30 a.m.; further, that if Senator Gillibrand or her designee makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 181, while the Senate is in legislative session, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge immediately following disposition of S.J. Res. 199, and the Senate resume executive session; further, that at 1:45 p.m., the Senate vote on adoption of the resolution; finally, if S. Res. 817 is adopted, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
