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.
27Senate Resolution 832: Establishing a Process to Assure the Long-Term Fiscal Stability of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
28Senate Resolution 833: Recognizing the 1960 University of Missouri Tigers Football Team for Its Undefeated Regular Season, Orange Bowl Victory, and Claim to the 1960 National Championship
30Senate Resolution 835: Celebrating the July 2026 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit in Ankara, Turkiye, and Reaffirming Priorities Pertaining to Transatlantic Security and the United States...
Eighty-six bills and thirteen resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 5273-5358, S.J. Res. 209-211, and S. Res. 832-841.
Pages S4513-17
Measures Reported
S. 2542, to direct the Director of the Federal Protective Service to establish guidance relating to emergency protocols for buildings, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4505, to require the United States Postal Service to designate ZIP Codes for certain communities, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. S. 4689, to strengthen literacy outcomes for all students, to amend the comprehensive literacy State development grant program, and to ensure Federal accountability and investment in research, teacher preparation, and evidence-based instruction aligned with the science of reading, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Measures Passed: USMMA Athletics Act: Senate passed S. 3266, to support the athletic programs of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S4492-93
Space Commerce Advisory Committee Act
Senate passed S. 434, to establish the Commercial Space Activity Advisory Committee, after withdrawing the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S4493-94
Moody (for Peters) Amendment No. 6748, in the nature of a substitute.
Page S4494
Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act
Senate passed S. 2398, to reauthorize the Kay Hagan Tick Act, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S4494-95
DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from further consideration of S. 1838, to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a program of research, training, and investigation related to Down syndrome, and the bill was then passed, after agreeing to the following amendment proposed thereto:
Pages S4495-98
Hickenlooper/Moran Amendment No. 6751, in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S4495-96
Recognizing the 1960 University of Missouri Tigers Football Team
Senate agreed to S. Res. 833, recognizing the 1960 University of Missouri Tigers Football Team for its undefeated regular season, Orange Bowl victory, and claim to the 1960 National Championship.
Pages S4498-S4504
National Airborne Day
Senate agreed to S. Res. 836, designating August 16, 2026, as ``National Airborne Day''.
Page S4530
National Park Week
Senate agreed to S. Res. 837, designating the week of August 22 through August 30, 2026, as ``National Park Week''.
Page S4530
Fort Stewart, Georgia Shooting
Senate agreed to S. Res. 838, commemorating the first anniversary of the mass shooting at Fort Stewart, Georgia, on August 6, 2026.
Page S4530
To Authorize Representation
Senate agreed to S. Res. 839, to authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in Federal Trade Commission v. Key Investment Group, LLC, et al.
Page S4530
To Authorize Testimony and Representation
Senate agreed to S. Res. 840, to authorize testimony and representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.
Page S4530
Seed Act (Vehicle for Sanctions Legislation): Agreement
A unanimous- consent-time agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m., on Friday, August 7, 2026, Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5334, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction; that the only amendments in order be the following to be offered by the sponsor, or their designee, and with two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote and up to five minutes under the control of Senator Graham prior to the vote on passage: Graham/Blumenthal Amendment No. 6711, Graham Amendment No. 6712 (title amendment), and Paul Amendment No. 6715; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, Senate vote on or in relation to Paul Amendment No. 6751, if offered, and upon disposition of the Paul amendment, Graham/Blumenthal Amendment No. 6711, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; and Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; that if passed, Graham Amendment No. 6712 be agreed to, the title as amended be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the tabled without intervening action or debate; that following disposition of the bill, Senate vote on confirmation of the en bloc nominations, provided under the provisions of S. Res. 817 (119th Congress); and that the motion to invoke cloture with respect to Thune (for Collins) Amendment No. 6732, to H.R. 6500, to extend duty-free treatment provided with respect to imports from certain countries in Africa under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, ripen following disposition of the en bloc nominations.
Page S4529
En Bloc Consideration of Certain Nominations: Agreement
Senate continued consideration of the en bloc nominations, provided under the provisions of S. Res. 817 (119th Congress).
Pages S4483-92, S4504
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that notwithstanding Rule XXII, at approximately 10 a.m., on Friday, August 7, 2026, Senate continue consideration of the en bloc nominations, provided under the provisions of S. Res. 817 (119th Congress), post- cloture; and that notwithstanding Rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m., Senate execute the order in relation to H.R. 5334, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction.
Page S4530
Nominations Confirmed
Senate confirmed the following nominations: 1 Space Force nomination in the rank of general. A routine list in the Marine Corps.
Pages S4504, S4530
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 9:43 p.m., until 10 a.m. on Friday, August 7, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Majority Leader in today's Record on page S4530.)
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: 33 of 158 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Executive Resolution (Executive Session)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the en bloc nominations pursuant to S. Res. 817, which are pending en bloc.
On page S4483, August 6, 2026, in the second column, the following appears: The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nominations pursuant to S. Res. 817, which are pending en bloc.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the en bloc nominations pursuant to S. Res. 817, which are pending en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today because yesterday I heard the minority leader on the floor speaking about the economy. He sounded upset, sounded upset to hear that Americans were keeping more of their hard-earned money. He actually called it ``disastrous.''
Ninety-seven percent of Americans benefited from the Working Families Tax Cuts law. This is a benefit. This is not a disaster.
What I see as disastrous is the Democrats' demand to raise taxes. They want to raise taxes on hard-working Americans all across the country. Democrats continue to think that they know how to spend your money better than you do. I think it has been a lifelong obsession with them. It is part of their DNA. It has been going on for years.
Tax rates fell significantly this past year, and it is because Republicans cut taxes. So who are the people that benefited the most? Well, they are people with families that made less than $200,000 a year. That is where the benefits really hit home. It happened all across the country, from Connecticut to California, even though those States are represented by Democrats. People all across the country benefited. Families kept more of what they earned, and then they could make their own decisions about what to save, what to spend, what to invest.
You know who knows it? People on Social Security know it. They got to keep more of their hard-earned money. People who work overtime know it because of no tax on overtime. People who work for tips know it because their tips weren't taxed.
People understood and felt the improvement. One resident of Nevada recently said: I received the largest tax return in my entire life this year. Why? No tax on tips.
Every single Democrat in this Chamber voted against these things. They wanted people who work on tips to pay more in taxes. Democrats wanted people on Social Security to pay more in taxes. Democrats wanted people who work overtime to pay more in taxes, and that is a defining difference.
American people clearly understand this, and the American people are tired and sick of seeing their money, their taxpayer money, wasted on fraud, abuse, and corruption, and we are seeing those things across the country. People want to keep more of what they earn, and they know they are the best to judge how to spend it.
That is what Republicans are fighting for. We are going to continue to fight for that. That is the direction our country is headed.
And in November of 2024, people made a clear choice: They chose to vote for Republicans because they wanted America to be safer, stronger, and more prosperous. And we are today. Over the past 18 months, Republicans have upheld that commitment. We have delivered for the American people. We are making sure people keep more of what they earn.
More than 60 million Americans benefited from the new tax benefits since Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cuts law.
Let me remind you about the Trump Accounts. More than 7 million American children are now signed up this year for this special new investment account. It is an astonishing thing. Families, friends, community groups, and even businesses are already investing in them. This is clearly strengthening the American dream for the next generation.
I also want to talk about the border because today our Nation's immigration laws are being strongly enforced. National security begins with border security. Absolutely zero illegal immigrants have been released into our country in over 14 months--absolutely zero--because Republicans have ended the reckless Joe Biden catch-and-release program. And what a disaster that was. Hundreds of thousands of illegal-immigrant criminals have now been arrested and deported since President Trump took office, and we are seeing the most secure border and the most successful deportation operation in all of American history.
This year, Republicans also passed the Secure America Act. This law ensures that immigration officials have the resources that they need to keep our country safe and to keep our communities safe for years to come.
I just want to mention affordability because today Congress is making it easier to build and easier to innovate. The largest housing reform bill in history is now the law of the land. We eliminated burdensome regulations, regulations that made it too costly to build a new home in America. And we are unlocking the American dream of home ownership for a new generation of Americans.
Congress also passed the first major digital asset bill in American history; it is called the GENIUS Act. My colleague Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming has been a leader on the issue. It is time for the Senate to build on that by passing the Clarity Act. America is safer and stronger when we innovate.
I also want to talk about some of the things we are doing here to make sure the President has his team fully in place, and those are confirmations. Today, Republicans are getting the President's team fully in place. Very soon, we will confirm an additional 74 nominees. Well, this will be clearly 600 people confirmed in the second Trump administration. Those are 60 more nominees than he had at this point in the first Trump administration, and we have done it in the face of historic obstruction by the Democrats.
Now we see these same Democrats are trying to tear down our country, and they are trying it all across the Nation. The Democrats' agenda is not for a better America, not for a better future for our children, no, no. It is not even an agenda; it is a manifesto. The Democrats have come up with a ``manifesto''--that is their label for it, not mine, their label, the Democrats--the manifesto, and I see it as a roadmap to destroy America from people that hate America. When you listen to many of their candidates, it certainly doesn't seem like the thing that most Americans would want to see in their future.
These people and their manifesto--it is radical; it is extreme; it is dangerous; it is scary. That is what our Nation is facing today. The Democrats, every one of them, wants to raise taxes on American families. The Democrat mantra calls for opening the borders. Their manifesto wants to defund the police. The manifesto wants to abolish prisons. The manifesto wants to release convicted criminals into our communities all across the country. The Democrat manifesto wants to eliminate Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Under the extreme Democrat manifesto, the American people would be forced to pay more, earn less, and be less safe and secure. That is what we are facing now. Democrats have turned from a party of the extremists now to the party of radicals.
Republicans are going to continue to be the party of results. That is the choice people are facing. What do you want? Results? Safety? Security? Prosperity? Radicals opening the prisons? Opening the borders? Raising your taxes?
Republicans work fiercely to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Republicans are going to continue to fight for freedom, for liberty, and a continuation of American greatness because that is the future that I believe the American people want and deserve.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, on the Trump battleships, while American families can't even keep their heads above water, Donald Trump is spending his time building himself a ``golden fleet'' of battleships the Navy doesn't want.
Just get a load of this headline: ``Cost of Trump's Namesake Warships Likely to Rise by 50 Percent or More.''
Costs to rise by 50 percent or more.
As the article in the New York Times says, his goal is building a ``golden fleet'' of 15 battleships that cost $275 billion. Frankly, when Americans hear this, they have no idea whether they need the battleships. They know the only thing Trump cares about is having his name on things. So the fact that there is a fleet of Trump battleships--cost doesn't mean anything; necessity doesn't mean anything; that people are suffering and need help feeding their families, paying their electric bills, and paying the cost of gasoline means nothing to him. Having his name on a bunch of battleships-- expensive battleships--is all he cares about.
Trump couldn't handle renovating a reflecting pool or building a ballroom, and now he thinks he is ready to design and construct 15 ``Trump-class''--I mean, this guy, he knows no limits--``Trump-class'' battleships that will cost more than a quarter of a trillion taxpayer dollars--a quarter of a trillion dollars. He has had a lot of vanity projects. They have been very expensive. This is the most costly vanity project yet.
The Navy never wanted these ships. The American people never asked for these ships. The only person who wants these ``golden'' ships is Donald Trump so he can slap his name on them.
Trump's willingness to drop $275 billion on another vanity project but not a single penny to lower costs for working Americans just confounds the imagination. Trump could use the money for these battleships to offset the entire nearly $200 billion cut he made to SNAP.
Feeding hungry kids or creating an unnecessary class of battleships to put your name on--which is more important, America? The answer is a lot different than what Trump thinks. But no. Trump would rather feed his own ego than feed the American people. He would rather feed his own ego than feed the American people by putting his name on a $275 billion, 15-battleship outlay.
The ballroom, the Reflecting Pool, the arch, and now the battleships--these are the reasons why more than 7 in 10 Americans think Trump is not focusing on the top issues facing the country.
Donald, the American people don't need a fleet of golden Trump-class battleships right now; they need a life raft.
Mr. President, I have been told that I am a lousy politician but a good Senator. I consider that a compliment. What would happen if everyone in the Senate stopped being a good politician for a moment and strove to be a good Senator when it comes to addressing the issue associated with Social Security?
Over 70 million Americans depend upon Social Security, and ultimately, all Americans will when they reach the age of retirement. Everyone in the Senate and most of the people in the country know that the Social Security System is going insolvent. When that occurs, by law, there will be a cut, if we wait for 6 years, of 22 to 28 percent-- a 22- to 28-percent cut in benefits for everyone on Social Security and everyone who will be.
Members of Congress say they care about Social Security. They say they care about the seniors, they care about preserving promised benefits for current retirees and future generations.
We have had a bill before us called the PROMISE Act by Senator Dick Durbin, my Democratic Senator colleague from Illinois. That would have been a bill that would have set up a Commission, if you will, of the Social Security Advisory Board to put forward a proposal. But the House is out of session. That could not pass. So now I put up a Senate resolution. And we take out the involvement of the Social Security actuaries, and we ask that a group of Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, come together over the next 2 months in a process to produce a potential idea.
This, what I am about to propose, is not about a particular solution. This, what I am about to propose, is about a process by which a solution can be considered, given to the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means for regular-order consideration, and then with a time agreement so that there will be, after that consideration by the Senate Finance Committee in which any member can replace the bill that is brought to them with an amendment in the nature of a substitute-- that ``any member'' could be Bernie Moreno; it could be Elizabeth Warren; it could be Ron Wyden; it could be Bernie Sanders; it could be Bill Cassidy--putting up their own proposal if they don't like what this bipartisan, bicameral group of elected officials comes up with.
Now, this is merely a process. It does not attempt to point in any direction toward a solution. All it asks is that we be good Senators-- putting politics aside and recognizing that if we don't do something sooner than later to fix the problem with Social Security, future Social Security beneficiaries can get as much as a 28.5-percent cut in benefits under current law.
So I am putting it to a test. Will the Senate take up the challenge? Will we put politics aside and step forward on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to actually work for the American people in a way which can ensure that Social Security exists?
So I ask unanimous consent on a path forward that all colleagues should be able to support. It merely, once more, creates a process to do what the American people sent us here to do: Debate solutions, consider proposals, and vote. It does not predetermine the outcome. It just says that Congress must consider a solution--anyone's solution, Democrat or Republican, left and right. It just asks us to do our job to consider the solution and to then go through regular order on the Senate Finance Committee, to be considered by all.
So will we be good Senators, or will we be good politicians? Will we deny progress for the sake of political success? Let's find out.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to set up a process--only a process--for Congress to consider solutions. So my script is: As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 832, which is at the desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, let me say that, for years now, Bill Cassidy and I have worked together in the Finance Committee on healthcare, trying to find bipartisan common ground. And I just want him to know how much I have appreciated working with him.
This is an issue we simply disagree on. And that happens. People have differences of opinion.
The Social Security crisis is a freight train barreling toward our Nation. Social Security will be depleted before the end of the next Presidential administration.
The resolution on offer now claims to be a quick solution to addressing the crisis. Instead, the resolution creates a fast track for Republicans to carry out a long-sought goal of slashing Social Security benefits for retirees and helping billionaires avoid paying their fair share. Each time Republicans get their hands on Social Security, it seems that cuts get made and life gets worse for seniors. Establishing this commission would be a fast track to cutting benefits.
The proposal on offer is a Senate-only process. Under the Constitution, bills raising taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. Because of this constitutional requirement, any Senate-only process, like the Cassidy proposal, could not include a tax increase. This means, under the Cassidy proposal, billionaires could not be required to contribute. We couldn't increase the payroll tax cap or include
Here is the bottom line. Since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, I have a long record of working on a bipartisan basis to fix this problem and protect retired people from missing out on their hard-earned benefits. We can do that by updating Social Security to reflect the economy of America today, by ensuring that billionaires pay into Social Security with each paycheck, like teachers, nurses, and firefighters.
Supporting a scheme like this--a fast track to rip away Americans' hard-earned benefits while shutting them out of the debate--is just plain wrong in my judgment.
If Republicans had any real interest in wanting to shore up Social Security, they would be putting forth their own ideas and working with Democrats to protect the program rather than to undermine it. Democrats have several concrete proposals to protect and strengthen Americans' earned benefits without raising the retirement age, cost-of-living haircuts, or means-testing benefits. It all starts by finally requiring billionaires to pay what they owe, just like the rest of us.
Billionaire wealth has skyrocketed to over $9 trillion this year while working people struggle to scrape enough money together to pay for rent, gas, and groceries. This proposal, in my view, is effectively a wolf in sheep's clothing. It does nothing to protect Social Security and, instead, hands Republicans the key to the castle to start their work of ripping away Americans' hard-earned benefits.
For these reasons, I object.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
Mr. President, it grieves my soul that once again politics and political rhetoric trumps that which we need to do for the country. Let me address the nature of the objection.
Actually, this is a Senate resolution, but it invites the House to participate; and the Constitution requires that anything raising taxes originates in Ways and Means in the House. And so, therefore, they would have to participate. That is the protection of our Constitution.
It is a bipartisan--by the way, this is a bipartisan proposal to set up this process. There is nothing partisan about it. Dick Durbin set up the PROMISE Act.
The House, unfortunately, left July 23 so we could not pass it. This is the best we could do with the House out of session in a bipartisan- initiated process.
Dick Durbin who is a senior Member of the Democratic caucus is the one who is my collaborator.
There is nothing in here to cut benefits. That is absurd. It sets up a process by which a solution can be considered. It does not dictate an outcome. And to suggest that what this does today is dictate an outcome is not telling the truth to the American people.
There is no fast track here. There is 2 months of open dialogue with the American people, and then it goes to the Senate Finance Committee and to Ways and Means for it to then be considered in regular order.
This is basically a time agreement, and time agreements are what we do all the time around here.
I agree with updating Social Security, but we are not going to get there if we say every time one side offers it: Oh, we can't do it because the other side is angling for advantage. Let's be good Senators, not be good politicians.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, just to respond just for a brief minute. You can't originate taxes in the Senate. So what that means is this proposal gives the billionaires a free ride.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, one more time. The resolution invites the House to participate. The resolution says: Please Speaker, please, minority leader, appoint people to participate.
We recognize that Ways and Means have to originate this bill. I wish we could have passed the PROMISE Act, but there were objections to passing the PROMISE Act which would have had to have been passed by the House as well.
So in this, working as well as we can, knowing that Social Security is getting worse and worse by the day, we invite them to participate with the understanding that they could put in whatever they want.
The argument of my colleague from Oregon is that we somehow have a solution baked in. That is not true. This is only a process bill. And if the House wants to advance a bill which taxes billionaires, by golly, they can do it. They can do it under this bill.
Right now, they can't, because there is no mechanism for that bill to advance. We are creating a mechanism by which it can advance. And so, if you want to tax the billionaires, we create the opportunity. If you want to do nothing, you vote against this bill.
I have got limited time left, and I don't feel like sitting back and being a good politician when I should be a good Senator, working to fix Social Security because every day it gets worse and every day the law- required cut-in benefits to beneficiaries increases.
It doesn't get better by waiting 2 years; it gets worse. And opposing this resolution is like basically turning a blind eye to that deterioration.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cassidy and Senator Wyden for the colloquy we just heard because we do need to tackle a number of challenges in the Social Security system.
The most important job of government is, of course, to keep people safe. And increasingly, some of the most constant threats that Americans face are scams and identity theft.
There has been a sharp rise in identity theft and online scams, including the theft of Social Security numbers. Identity theft is more than an annoyance; it can cost people their savings, jeopardize their credit, and more.
This is a danger that we need to take seriously, just as we stopped highwaymen from menacing people on our streets, we similarly must stop the outlaws of the digital age from preying on our people.
Unfortunately, even as criminals steal Social Security numbers, their victims, ordinary Americans, feel as if they have no one to turn to for help. It is not as simple as finding a police officer on the corner to retrieve a stolen wallet or purse.
Criminals have modernized their methods. So the U.S. Government must modernize its response too. That is why I have introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley. Our bill would streamline the process for victims of identity theft to get help when their Social Security number is stolen, giving Americans a single point of contact at the Social Security Administration so that they can get the help that they need.
When someone's Social Security number is stolen, when they are at risk of losing their hard-earned Social Security benefits, they deserve better than to have to navigate a never-ending maze of hold times and transfers as they try to find someone within the government who can help.
This bill is only one step in the work we have to do to fight scammers, but it does mark a commonsense step that Americans from across the political spectrum can certainly get behind. This legislation will help keep more Americans safe, combat fraud and abuse, and makes our government work better for the American people.
Families are already struggling enough right now with high costs. They deserve to be able to keep the money and benefits that they have earned without being threatened by online criminals. And when they are threatened, they should have access to a straightforward and prompt process to get help.
Now, the House has already passed this bill on a strong bipartisan basis. So I hope that we can send this legislation to the President today.
Mr. President, therefore, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, on the merits, there are no substantive objections to this legislation. However, we do have a challenge between the two Chambers of Congress.
The Senate is doing its work. The Senate is taking up important pieces of legislation, reaching bipartisan agreement, and passing them; and they are going to the House of Representatives where right now they are simply sitting and languishing.
House leadership has decided to adopt a strategy that is, frankly, indefensible. It is a strategy where they pass bills that originate in the House; they ignore bills that originate in the Senate, and they let them die.
More than two-thirds of the bills to date that are passed into law have been bills that originated in the House of Representatives. There are numerous bills that this body has passed, often unanimously, 100 to nothing, that arrive in the House that no House Member has any substantive objections to them at all, and they simply put them in the freezer and do nothing.
My colleague knows sometimes if you want to change the behavior of another Chamber, the only way to do so is to exercise leverage. And so, I have placed holds on all House bills coming over here unless and until they start taking up and passing Senate bills. Both Chambers need to do their work.
Our Congress does not work if one of the two Chambers refuses to even consider legislation that has passed the other Chamber. I am in active negotiation with House leadership for them to start picking up and passing legislation here.
One of those bills is a bill I authored called TREY'S Law. TREY'S Law was named for a young man in Texas just outside the Dallas area who was a little boy that was sexually assaulted at a summer camp repeatedly.
He brought litigation. That litigation was settled, but as part of the settlement, he signed an NDA. He signed a contractual commitment to never tell anybody about the horrible sexual assault that he suffered.
He lived with that grief, with that sorrow for the rest of what turned out to be his very short life. At age 28, Trey took his own life. TREY'S Law, which is named for him, is passed in the State of Texas; it has passed in numerous other States like Missouri and Alabama.
It very simply says that NDAs are not enforceable to silence a victim of child sexual assault, that you cannot enforce contractual right to tell a child who has experienced that assault: You may not speak; you have no voice.
This legislation in the Senate was bipartisan. I authored it with Senator Gillibrand. It passed the Senate 100 to nothing. It is sitting in the House, and they have declined to move.
I say to my friend from New Hampshire, I am confident your legislation will pass and will pass the Senate as soon as the House ends its unreasonable blockade against Senate bills. I am in active negotiation with their leadership to get that result. We will get that result before the end of the year.
I hope we get that result soon. I would very much like to lift all these holds and pass important legislation the Senate has already passed.
However, because the House has not yet made that agreement, I have no choice but to object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Texas to get legislation that we have passed here passed through the House of Representatives.
But I think it is really critically important to understand that while he is in these negotiations, people's identities are being stolen, people who need their Social Security benefits are going without as they try to navigate a complex and outdated Social Security system.
It is high time that we pass this bill. I am disappointed that we weren't able to send this bill to the President today. I understand the concerns of the Senator from Texas, but I really do think this is urgent for our people. I hope that my colleague from Texas and I can work together in a bipartisan way to get this over the finish line soon.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the critical need for disaster relief in my home State of Texas for a Texas community that was devastated by historic wildfires. I will seek to improve the pending Disaster Tax Relief Act being considered by the Senate to address that acute need in Texas.
No doubt the current version provides relief that is also badly needed elsewhere. I would like to speak directly to the families of Spokane, WA, who have lost their homes, their livelihoods, their sense of security. The people of Texas stand with you, and we are profoundly grateful to the firefighters and first responders risking their lives to protect their neighbors. That is a pain families in Texas know all too well.
In 2024, Texas witnessed truly horrific wildfires. The Smokehouse Creek fire was the single largest wildfire in the history of the State of Texas. It killed two people. It burned more than 1 million acres. It destroyed more than 500 homes and businesses, and it killed approximately 15,000 cattle.
The Windy Deuce fire was among the most destructive and fast-moving wildfires ever to strike the Texas Panhandle. It burned more than 140,000 acres. Despite the horror and the destructiveness of these fires, they were not treated as qualified wildfire disasters under Federal law.
One result is that any relief payments are subject to Federal income taxes, which dramatically reduces the scope and effectiveness of the badly needed relief. Victims of other catastrophic wildfires do not incur such penalties on the relief they receive.
Disaster relief is important. I am proud to support disaster relief. Americans step in and help their fellow Americans in times of crisis. But disaster relief must be fair. Disaster relief cannot demonstrate favoritism, choosing some recipients as more worthy or luckier than others.
My amendment does something very simple. It includes in this disaster relief bill the worst wildfire in the history of the State of Texas. On any reasonable argument on the merits, the Texas Panhandle wildfires deserve to be included.
I would note also that the score of this provision is, in congressional terms, quite small: $31 million is what this addition costs. In this body, $31 million is a sum that is usually too small even to be written down. Moreover, the House of Representatives and, in particular, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has explicitly committed that if and when we add this disaster bill, that the House, in September when they return, will take it up and pass it.
So this is the path, No. 1, to passing this disaster bill--which I very much want to do--but No. 2, to doing so in a way that does not unfairly leave out the Texans, the victims of the largest wildfire in the history of Texas. We have got to do both.
And so I will now propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass my amendment to the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act to designate the Smokehouse Creek fire and the Windy Deuce fire as qualified wildfire disasters, ensuring that relief payments to those affected receive the same Federal tax treatment as victims of other qualified wildfires.
I urge my colleagues to pass this commonsense amendment today so that Texans receive the same treatment as other victims of wildfires. And I would note that if my colleagues choose not to accept the amendment, the alternative is going to be that nothing passes. That is not an alternative that is good for anybody, and so my hope is that common sense will prevail.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5366, and the Senate proceed to its immediate
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, earlier this week my home State set a new devastating record: Over 2 million acres in Oregon have burned in wildfires across our State this summer. That is the most in recorded history with 2 more months of fire season to go. Thousands of Oregonians have been under evacuation orders or are preparing to be. Our whole State is blanketed in thick smoke, making for some of the worst air quality in the world. Many have lost their homes, their livestock, their businesses, and livelihoods. When you lose your home in a wildfire, the last thing you should be worried about is being hit by a massive tax bill. The bipartisan tax relief bill being considered on the bill today would give the people of my State affected by these blazes some peace of mind. It would lift a massive tax burden and deliver financial relief to every American impacted by a federally declared natural disaster.
It is going to get rid of a totally unfair tax on settlement payments and ensure disaster victims can deduct losses after disasters.
This is an issue the Republicans created under Donald Trump in 2017, but Senator Cruz' amendment would derail a bipartisan proposal entirely. His amendment threatens the lifeline assistance in this bill for Americans that lose their home during a natural disaster.
The Senator from Texas has repeatedly opposed funding for federally declared disasters like Hurricane Sandy. Now he comes to the floor to hold the bill hostage in order to send money to his State for his own priorities while Donald Trump holds up disaster funding for Oregon wildfire victims.
The House has already passed this bill that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis. Now the Senate must do its job, and that is why I am offering up this version of legislation that has already passed through the House.
So, Mr. President, therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request so that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5366 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification?
I would note that I agree with virtually every word that was said by the Senator from Oregon. I agree that this tax treatment taxing someone on a disaster relief settlement from, say, the power company that caused the fire--giving someone a big tax bill for that relief that they are entitled to, it is unfair; it is wrong. I am enthusiastic about passing this bill and passing it now.
What I am not enthusiastic about is leaving thousands of Texans out because just like the citizens of Oregon who suffered devastating losses, just like the citizens of California, just like the citizens of Washington State who suffered devastating losses, there were also thousands upon thousands of Texans who suffered devastating losses. And my proposal is very simple: Let's be fair. Let's not exclude the Texans. Let's provide the relief that is right and just to everyone who has been impacted by these devastating wildfires.
I will point out also the Senator from Oregon said there is an urgency to pass this. I want you to understand that--everyone watching--there are two paths that we can go down. One path is when I decline to make this modification, the Senator from Oregon could say nothing, could just be quiet, and then the Presiding Officer would say, ``No objection is heard,'' and this bill would pass the Senate with the Texans included so it would be fair. It would not be excluding people that are similarly situated. It would be treating everyone fairly, and it would go to the House.
The House will be back in September, and we have a commitment from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction over this, to take this up and pass it. So if the Senator from Oregon chooses simply to say nothing, this bill moves on its way, and it is substantially closer to being signed into law and giving actual relief to the victims of these wildfires. However, the other path--and folks in the Gallery should listen for two words the Senator from Oregon says, ``I object.'' What will happen is the bill dies. It doesn't pass. The victims in Texas get no relief; the victims in Oregon get no relief; the victims in California get no relief; the victims in Washington State get no relief.
I don't understand why that is a good outcome. I think that is a terrible outcome. But the Senator from Oregon has complete control over which of those two paths we go down.
I will not modify my request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection to the modification is heard.
Mr. President, colleagues, this disaster bill, this disaster tax bill includes important bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Senators Lummis, Wyden, and Sheehy to extend a critical tax provision for disaster survivors that we enacted into law last Congress. Two years ago, my Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Act made an important update to our Tax Code.
It made sure that individuals, families, and entire communities who suffered from wildfires received the full compensation that they were awarded in courts to rebuild their lives.
But, unfortunately, every year more devastating disasters take place, and so Congress must extend the same important financial protection to survivors of more recent wildfires.
That is what the House-passed version of the bill would do. But to be clear, disaster settlement funds are not income. They are not a financial windfall. They are certainly not winning the lottery. What they are is compensation, partial compensation in most cases, for what has been lost.
They are meant to give survivors an opportunity to begin to rebuild not just their homes but their lives.
This bill is not just for my constituents in California that have been impacted by the Eaton and Palisades fires 1\1/2\ years ago; it is also for those victims in Oregon and Hawaii and other communities across the country that have experienced similar disasters.
Our bill would ensure that all recent wildfire victims throughout the country have access to the full value of their settlement without any unfair tax burden. It is common sense, and it is a bipartisan solution to protect Americans at the most difficult time of their lives.
We should pass this legislation now. Let's not keep survivors waiting, worrying, and wondering about their financial future any longer.
I want to thank Senators Lummis, Wyden, and Sheehy for their partnership, as well as my colleague Representative Mike Thompson in the House for his steadfast leadership on this issue.
I also want to recognize that the late Representative Doug LaMalfa was such a critical part of this effort. The House fittingly named this bill in his honor because it reflects the tireless leadership he brought to these issues impacting disaster-stricken communities throughout his career. He and I first served together in the California State Senate and then again here--he in the House; I in the Senate.
I would urge all of our colleagues to support the House-passed version of the measure and allow survivors to begin to rebuild their lives without unnecessary fear or delay.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
First off, I rise to recognize all my colleagues that have spoken about the importance of disaster relief, and I think we all want to make sure we help our States. Right now, I rise in support of the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act.
Florida is no stranger to natural disasters. As we speak, we are in the middle of hurricane season, which started June 1. When I was Governor, I wanted Florida to be the national model for disaster relief. We prioritized preparedness, safety, and quick action. But once the storms pass, you know, like anyplace else, Florida is in the same position. Floridians had to rebuild. Families lost homes. Some lost everything they had.
When you are in that position, one of the worst moments of your entire life, you shouldn't have to worry about a rising tax bill. That is why I helped lead this bipartisan bill and previous bills to provide not just Floridians but all Americans all across this country tax relief after disaster strikes, including Texans and Oregonians.
Our citizens need certainty when they are piecing their lives back together; they don't need the government taking a cut of the money they need. This bill just gives certainty of necessary tax relief to victims of natural disasters so they can focus on getting back on track and not worrying about the IRS.
This bill is very critical to my State, but it is also about more than hurricanes. It is not just about hurricanes; this bill helps families affected by all natural disasters, including wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, and any other scenario that can be declared a Federal disaster.
It is good for the entire country. It is a bipartisan bill, and it is a tribute to Doug LaMalfa, who passed away earlier this year.
This passed the House unanimously earlier this year, so if we pass this today, it will become law.
Americans don't need extra worries when the worst happens, and we shouldn't be an obstacle to their recovery. By passing this bill, we will make it easier to rebuild the American dream when hardships strike.
I am not going to give up. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, including with my friend from Texas, to get this bill across the finish line for every Floridian and every American. I recognize the issue he is dealing with, and I look forward to working with him to try to solve the issues Texans are looking at right now.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Madam President, I rise today to speak about a broken promise, a promise that the President made to the country when he took office.
Time and again, the President promised that ``starting on day one'' of his administration, he would ``end inflation''--his words. A year and a half into his term, it is clear that the President not only has broken his word but that he disdains the very notion that he should even try to make good on his pledge.
Now, for the vast majority of Americans of all ages and walks of life, of all political stripes, costs aren't a partisan thing, and it is simply clear: It costs more to be an American with Donald Trump as President.
Part of why I am speaking today is because, as a new Joint Economic Committee minority report details, American life has become more expensive under this administration. As of June, in my home State of New Hampshire, the average Granite State family has had to pay an additional $4,400 for goods and services since President Trump took office. This toll is exacted from virtually every part of everyday life.
In Donald Trump's America, when a person wakes up and starts their day, they now drink coffee that costs around $10 a pound, a 25-percent increase since the President launched senseless trade wars, launched without the support of the American people.
After they finish their coffee and drive to work or to drop their children off at school, they do so in a car that now costs more to fill up every time they stop at the pump. Each Granite State family has spent $596 more on gas, in fact, since President Trump launched his reckless, illegal war against Iran--a war he launched without a plan to win.
Now, let's say our typical American has a doctor's appointment that day. Assuming that they are able to afford health insurance, they will receive care covered by a plan which premiums rose as much as 50 percent under President Trump. Why? Because the President let Affordable Care Act insurance premiums surge.
And at the end of the day, the average Granite Stater returns to a house or an apartment that is also more expensive, as families in our State have so far spent $1,108 more on rent or mortgage payments since President Trump started his term--all because the President refuses to address our country's housing crisis.
And after my constituent gets home and goes to pick up her mail, she opens another electric bill. Electricity has gotten so expensive that people in New Hampshire have had to pay $194 more so far this year than last year because the President caused a worldwide energy crisis and canceled clean energy projects.
Next on the list, my constituent goes into the kitchen to make dinner, where--you guessed it--the ingredients cost more than they did before Trump took office. Granite Staters paid $310 more for groceries last year than they did the year before.
So what has been the cost of the Trump Presidency, a Presidency where food, healthcare, gas, rent, and more have all become more expensive? The costs can be summed up by the figures in this report, but it can also be put more simply. For many in our country, the cost has been nothing less than seeing their chance at the American dream fade before their very eyes.
A year and a half into his Presidency, my Republican colleagues are making excuse after excuse for the President's failure to address the American people's basic needs. They need to stop--stop trying to advance the fiction that the President cares about lowering costs or perhaps is trying to lower costs but is getting some bad counsel from his advisers. If the President actually wanted to help the American people, he would listen to them. He would hear that this economy isn't working for them and, for some, well, it is breaking them. If he cared, this man who was supposed to understand the economy, as well as the hopes and dreams of the American people, would acknowledge that he needs to take action to lower costs. And even if he doesn't care, if this President believed that, in America, Presidents are accountable to the American people, he would be working to make life more affordable.
But this President neither cares nor thinks he is accountable to anyone other than himself and perhaps his billionaire backers. Just consider, he has attacked and dismissed anyone who says that there is a problem at all. He has called inflation a ``hoax'' and dismissed the cost-of-living crisis as--his words--``made up.'' He says this despite the fact that virtually every American of every political perspective-- at least those who live outside the splendor of Mar-a-Lago--knows that American life has become more expensive under President Trump.
So when the American people say that their costs have gone up and the President dismisses inflation as a ``hoax,'' is he saying that American families are lying? Is he suggesting that they should not believe their own eyes, their own understanding of math, when they look at the numbers at the cash register or at the gas pump? Because it is one thing not to solve a problem for American families; it is quite another to essentially say that the American people are lying.
What have American families done, what have the people who gave the President the privilege of serving in the highest office in our country done to have their biggest challenge, their greatest anxiety and fear dismissed by the President as a ``hoax''?
Should we be surprised that a President who incited a mob to storm the Capitol and tried to overturn the voices and votes of the American people dismisses yet again what they have to say? Maybe the President would be more inclined to help the American people if they were a little less decent and a lot better connected. After all, this is President Trump's Washington, and we know well who this President is. He will save one of his corrupt campaign donors asking for a pardon, but he won't lift a finger to save American families a dime on their groceries.
And so I return to the President's promise. When he sought our country's highest office yet again, Donald Trump told the American people to put aside his corruption, his self-dealing, his poor character, his willingness to fan the flames of division and extremism, to forget the way he disrespects our veterans. He wanted us to even forget the attack on this Chamber, to forget the scars of the Capitol Police officers, forget all of this and more because he said he would bring down costs.
And now he is dismissive and contemptuous of anyone who asks him to make good on his pledge. He even undermines my Republican colleagues when they do try, in good faith, to lower costs. He actually threatened to block a bipartisan bill to bring down the cost of housing, a law that we were eventually able to pass.
Now, Donald Trump has made himself very, very clear. His Presidency will be defined not by lowering costs for families but by raising monuments to himself.
It doesn't have to be this way. The American people, right now, want an American dream that they can afford, a dream that doesn't belong just to a privileged few, a dream that is bigger than self-dealing, kickbacks, and self-enrichment schemes in the gilded rooms of Mar-a- Lago. The dreams of the American people aren't focused on golden luxury trappings. Their dreams are less gilded than all of that, but they are also far more noble.
Americans want their children to live better lives than they did; with quality, affordable healthcare that can help them rest easier at night; a decent education for their children; a place to build not a gilded ballroom but a home--a home in a country where we don't live fearing one another, divided over politics, but instead united as freedom-loving Americans who know that we are lucky to live in the greatest country on Earth, who love this country too much to ever hate our fellow Americans and who won't let the miracle of self-government die--not in the service of one man's ego, not for anything.
The American people want an America that is as good as this Nation's promise. They deserve a President whose word is as good as our people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Madam President, colleagues, the Trump administration has us stuck in a humiliating quagmire, a total deadlock in Iran. We are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars dropping bombs and firing missiles at Iran.
Iran responds with escalation. They keep the strait closed. They attack our bases. They attack our allies in the region. The war just expands and expands and expands.
In the last week, for instance, a new war is threatening to break out between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, which would likely result in the other strait at the bottom of the Red Sea being closed as well.
Trump personally pays no price for this stalemate. His corruption schemes, his cryptocurrency, his insider trading, the contracts to his sons, all of that has practically tripled his net worth in just 18 short months in office.
No, the price of this war is being plainly paid, first and foremost, by our soldiers who are being put in harm's way for a war that is making America weaker every day.
They are getting killed. They are sustaining life-altering injuries. Many of our soldiers and sailors and airmen have been in the region far past their scheduled deployment. They haven't seen their families in years.
And, of course, American consumers are paying the price as well. Here is the most relevant chart. This is familiar to you. This is what gas prices were doing until the war. They are creeping back well above $4 a gallon right now. That is not affordable for regular Americans, especially Americans who have to travel great distances for work, especially small business owners who rely on reasonable gas prices in order to be able to make their bills work.
Diesel prices are through the roof as well. Fertilizer prices are through the roof as well, all because of this war. No other reason--the war. The prices are this high because of the war. It is farmers, it is small business owners, it is the American public who are paying the price--not Donald Trump.
And so that is why the war is just wildly unpopular, like except for Trump's sort of hard-line supporters, the folks who just don't believe he can ever do anything wrong, nobody wants this war. If you are in a red State or a blue State, this war is deeply unpopular. The American public is smart; they are smarter than a lot of my colleagues give them credit for. They know a war with Iran is unwinnable. They don't want America stuck again in a quagmire, a stalemate in the Middle East.
So how does Trump handle this, a deeply unpopular war, a war that he is losing, a war that is driving up prices for the American public? Well, this is how he handles it: He gaslights.
He tells lies. And the essential gaslight is that: The war is about to end, don't worry. Yes, it appears that there is no end. It appears that you are going to have to continue to pay these prices forever. It appears that America has no endgame, but, don't worry, the war is about to end.
And so I just want to go through this pattern with you because it is really important to talk about the fact that the White House is just not being straight with the American public about what is going on in this war.
Over and over again the President declares that the war is about to be over. He is not telling the truth. He normally declares that the war is about to be over on Sunday night or Monday morning, right before the markets open. But now that we are 6 months into this war, we can see the pattern.
Let me go through it with you quickly. On March 23, Trump announces a deal. I am just going to give you his quotes, these are his words. He says:
The market impact is immediate. That post sends oil prices tumbling nearly 11 percent, but there is no deal. He just made it up. Two days later, the U.S. military is back to conducting strikes.
On March 30, Trump announces another deal. This is Monday morning right before the markets open. He says:
end--
One week later, there is no deal. The opposite. One week later, Trump posts that he is going to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran, ``A whole civilization will die tonight,'' he posts, ``never to be brought back again.''
That is a war crime. The President is promising to kill millions of civilians. He tries to dial it back, but later on that same day he is back to announcing a deal.
Literally, ``I am going to wipe out a whole civilization,'' that morning.
That night, on April 17, he says:
Five days later, there is no deal. Trump announces a resumption of the war with Iran.
Now let's fast-forward 10 days later to April 17. He posts that a deal with Iran is imminent. ``THIS PROCESS SHOULD GO VERY QUICKLY . . .
Two days later, the strikes start again. On May 5, Trump says:
Complete is capitalized; final is capitalized; agreement is capitalized; representatives is capitalized; Iran is capitalized.
Two days later, the deal is off. Surprise, surprise. Every time Trump announces a deal is imminent, it just disappears.
``U.S. forces intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes,'' CENTCOM announces 2 days later.
On May 25, right before the markets open: A deal is imminent.
Right before the markets open. That same day the U.S. military conducts strikes on Iran:
Next Monday, right before the markets open, Trump posts:
How is this working out well for the American public? How is that working out well for the American public? The next day there is no deal. The United States conducts strikes against Iran.
On June 17, Trump actually signs the deal, but it is not a real deal. He does this whole pomp and circumstance signing ceremony in Versailles. That deal was negotiated by diplomatic amateurs. There was nothing actually agreed to. There were words on a page, but from the literal moment the ink was dry, nobody could explain what they had agreed to. Most significantly, Iran thought that the agreement obligated Israel to stop its military operations in Lebanon. Israel did not agree to that.
Iran thought that it had been given control of the strait in that agreement; apparently the American delegation didn't think they made that concession.
Anyway, that agreement lasts 10 days. On June 27, Trump posts that strikes on Iran have resumed.
Let's just fast-forward to the last week because Trump is doing it again. On August 1, Trump posts--I am not sure that I transcribed this wrong or not, but it looks like it says:
I will give him credit he said parameters.
On August 2, ``The deal is imminent, having to do with the [Strait of Hormuz] and also, ultimately, the denuclearization of Iran.''
The deal is imminent on the denuclearization of Iran.
August 4, just a night or two ago, Trump tells Fox News:
Meanwhile, there were reports that Iran isn't even talking to the United States. Trump is saying a deal on the denuclearization of Iran is imminent, and Iran is saying: We are not even in the room.
I mean, we should not accept this level of gaslighting. The word of the President has to matter. Over and over again on 11 different instances, Trump says: A deal is about to happen, don't worry; the war is about to be over.
There is no deal. None of it is real, these promises. I wish it were real. I want to be clear about that. I want the war to end. I would basically support any agreement at this point to end this war.
I was glad that the President got a cease-fire, but I could tell by the terms it wasn't going to last. It wasn't a real agreement. But at this point, many of us are willing to support almost any agreement. It will be a humiliating agreement. It will be one in which Iran will essentially declare victory.
But this war is a disaster. America is losing. Consumers can't afford to pay these prices. Businesses are going under.
We had a record of farm bankruptcies in the last year. We look like a laughingstock, and we are running out of munitions. We don't have what we need to protect ourselves anymore.
Reports are that we have gone through half of our Tomahawks. Our allies in the region have fired 70 to 80 percent of their Patriot missiles. This is a crisis. It has to end.
But maybe there is an explanation for why Trump continues to do this gaslighting, particularly right before the markets open.
Trump announced now a week or so ago that if you pay him $100,000 a month, he will give you advance notice of American foreign policy decisions.
I don't understand why that is acceptable to anybody in this Chamber. If you pay Donald Trump $100,000, he will give you advance notice of America's foreign policy decisions.
If we are about to sign a peace treaty, and you give him $100,000 a month, he will give you advance notice of that. If strikes are going to resume against Iran, if you pay him $100,000 a month, he will give you advance notice of that. That is a subscription service for insider trading, and it is unquestionably lucrative.
On August 1, Trump posts that a deal is imminent. Remember, people still take him seriously. Not everybody knows about this history of gaslighting.
On August 1, Trump says that a deal is imminent, and the market impact is immediate. Oil prices fall by 5 percent right as the markets open.
The next day, right before the markets open, Trump says again ``The deal is imminent''--another 5 percent drop.
And so you see how his statements move the market, and you can see how if you get advance notice of those statements, even by a few seconds, you can capitalize on that market movement. You know that if Trump says a deal is imminent and the markets are going to move 5 percent and you pay $100,000 to Donald Trump to get that information early, you can make a boatload of money.
And so maybe the war continues because Trump has found a way to monetize the war in a disgustingly corrupt way. I get that at some point we become immune to all of this, but can any of my Republican colleagues defend the President selling announcements from the White House for $100,000 a month in the middle of a war?
Is any Republican Senator willing to come down to this floor and defend the President of the United States setting up a subscription service for public policy announcements from the White House so as to advantage certain players in the marketplace who are willing to pay that amount of money?
Of course not. And if you know in your heart that it is corrupt, that it is wrong, then you should say something about it because the war might be continuing--not just because of incompetence but because the President has found a way to make money. More people are going to pay him $100,000 for these announcements in the middle of a war. Frankly, people would be willing to pay it absent a war, but he will make more money during a war because his announcements clearly move the markets in the middle of a very complicated conflict where the decisions of the U.S. Government immediately change oil markets.
The reason this war is dragging on endlessly--it does matter, and my colleagues should care about Trump's insider trading subscription scheme. It is just so discouraging that nobody on the other side of the aisle says anything about this when the credibility of the White House and of our country is just getting destroyed and sullied. But my Republican colleagues should also care that the war is being waged with a level of embarrassing incompetence that is making America weaker, that is getting us nowhere.
This body works best when the President's party stands up to him and says ``enough,'' whether it is corruption or incompetence. That is what Johnson's party did during the Vietnam war. It is actually what the Democratic Party did with President Obama during the late stages of the Afghanistan war when many of us decided that America had to withdraw and opposed President Obama's party. It is what many of us did here during the early stages of the war in Yemen that President Obama was bringing the American military into. Many of us opposed it, got up on this floor and explained why we opposed it.
Republicans can do that too. You can say that this war has to end. You can
Madam President, today, I have the honor of rising in recognition of a true Florida hero.
I know we hear a lot these days about entire political parties adopting platforms that want to defund and abolish the police, but in Florida, we do it a different way--an entirely different way. In fact, we watch what other crazy places are doing, and we just do the opposite, and it has worked out quite well.
One of my favorite parts of my job as a U.S. Senator now, after having been the Florida attorney general and having worked with law enforcement for many, many years, is to spotlight Florida's brave law enforcement heroes when they do something uniquely heroic. It shows why a free society operating under the rule of law has to have brave men and women to answer a call and stand on a line to bravely serve us. Today, it is an honor to recognize Lee County Sheriff's Office Deputy Raymond Tellez Ferriol with the Florida's Finest Award.
Earlier this year, Deputy Tellez Ferriol saved the lives of three young girls.
Many people know Florida is a peninsula. We are surrounded by the ocean. On this particular day, there was a rip current that was very close to shore. If you have lived in Florida for any time or even if you have traveled to Florida, you know that rip currents can be incredibly deadly, pulling even expert swimmers out to sea very quickly.
On this day, it was supposed to be a time of fun in the Sun, but it almost turned deadly when three young girls got caught in a very strong rip current and were struggling to stay above water and get back to shore.
Deputy Tellez Ferriol was on patrol in full uniform, just going about his day protecting Floridians. He heard bystanders screaming for help. He immediately ran over, and without hesitation, he went into the water to rescue these three young girls. He grabbed flotation devices and started swimming. Thankfully, he was able to get them back to shore safely, as in this area, the strong rip current was really pushing all of them out. It was because of his bravery and his quick thinking that these girls are still alive.
While this instance had a happy ending, it is worth reminding Floridians and everyone heading to Florida--and we know there are many moving to Florida. It doesn't matter where I go in the Nation; someone I talked to just had a family member move to my home State and is one of my new constituents. But it is always important to remind everyone who lives in Florida or who visits our State's beaches of the hidden dangers of rip currents. There have already been eight confirmed deaths due to rip currents since the start of this year in Florida. So we always advise folks to swim with a partner, to consider swimming when there is a lifeguard on duty, and to identify and know what each beach warning flag means.
But today is about recognizing Deputy Tellez Ferriol. He was there that day because he was serving his community as a guardian, as someone who signed up to put his safety behind the safety of others.
I, for one, am incredibly honored and incredibly thankful that there are people like Deputy Tellez Ferriol and others who answer the call so bravely to serve others as their profession. Law enforcement officers do so much every day to keep us safe, and it is always such a joy to highlight those who show exceptional bravery and save lives.
Today, I recognize one of Florida's finest, Lee County Sheriff's Office Deputy Raymond Tellez Ferriol.
Madam 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.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 434, S. 3266.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 3266), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 198, S. 434.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic, as follows:
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Peters substitute amendment at the desk 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute was withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 6748) in the nature of a substitute was agreed to as follows:
The bill (S. 434), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. President, I will soon ask that the Senate pass S. 2398, the Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act. The Tick Act was approved by the Senate HELP Committee more than a year ago with strong bipartisan support.
I am proud to have authorized the original Tick Act in 2019 with my colleague Senator Tina Smith. Our bipartisan legislation strengthens Federal efforts to confront the alarming public health threat posed by Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses.
The Tick Act essentially has three parts: First, it reauthorizes funding for the CDC's four Centers of Excellence in Vector-Borne Diseases; second, it extends grants to State and local public health departments to help them treat, test for, and conduct public education
Our bill is named after our former colleague Senator Kay Hagan. Kay, with whom I had the pleasure of serving, passed away in October of 2019 at the age of 66 from complications of a deadly tick-borne illness known as the Powassan virus. It is my hope that reauthorizing the Tick Act will help prevent future tragedies such as this one.
Tick-borne diseases are a major public health concern, and the incidents have exploded over the past 20 years. Each year, the State of Maine has hit a new record high in the number of cases of Lyme disease. Last year, Maine reported 4,257 cases. Undoubtedly, that understates the number of cases because many are not reported. But that amount alone is more than double the number of cases reported in my home State just 6 years ago. Current projections show that 2026 will yet again be a record-setting year. This is a record that we do not want to set.
The Lewiston Sun Journal reported just last week that every community in Maine's Franklin County faces a high risk of tick encounters for this season. Nevertheless, I am encouraged that we are making progress, and we have made progress in the 6 years since this law was first enacted.
For example, a clinical trial for a Lyme disease vaccine is underway right now at the MaineHealth Institute for Research. It has always struck me, as I run, that every year my beloved Labrador retriever can get a vaccine for tick diseases and yet we cannot--we humans cannot-- and I am hoping this clinical trial will be successful, and it will make a real difference.
Reauthorizing the Kay Hagan Tick Act would allow crucial projects, such as that research and others across the United States and public education campaigns--which are so important in teaching people what to do if they have a tick bite--that will all be allowed to continue.
I want to thank Senator Smith for partnering with me on this reauthorization, and I would note that we have 21 bipartisan cosponsors. I urge all of my colleagues to support this lifesaving legislation.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 154, S. 2398.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italics, as follows:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee-reported amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senate to pass S. 1838, the DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act.
Thousands of Americans live with Down syndrome, and yet research has been underfunded for decades.
In 2017, Congress encouraged the National Institutes of Health, the NIH, to launch the INCLUDE Project--an effort to make groundbreaking discoveries about conditions that disproportionately affect people with Down syndrome, like Alzheimer's disease.
The INCLUDE Project brings together multiple NIH institutes under a coordinated approach that is already delivering significant scientific discoveries as well as new treatments.
The bipartisan, bicameral DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act will officially authorize the INCLUDE Project into law.
The bill will ensure that Congress and the American people have visibility into the scientific breakthroughs that are so needed for this community. The INCLUDE Project is already yielding significant scientific results, and Colorado is at the core of these scientific advances.
Today, Colorado is proudly home to the world's leading Down syndrome advocacy, research, and medical care partners at the Global Down Syndrome Foundation, the Linda Crnic Institute for Down Syndrome, the Alzheimer's and Cognition Center, and the Sie Center at Children's Hospital Colorado.
We need to make sure that improving health outcomes for individuals with Down syndrome remains a priority and do so in honor of DeOndra Dixon, an extraordinary person who was an advocate leaving a legacy that will help improve lives for generations.
This bill has support on both sides of the aisle, including Senators Jerry Moran and Cory Booker and Representatives Diana DeGette and Richard Hudson. We also thank Senators Bennet, Padilla, Capito, Coons, Van Hollen, and Ossoff for their support.
We are determined to get this bill across the finish line for DeOndra and for the thousands of Americans who will see their lives improve for the better by this critical research.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1838.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill 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 bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hickenlooper substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 6751), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed to as follows:
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. President, I am very pleased that we could pass these two very important bills this afternoon.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that the University of Maine has an excellent lab that specializes in testing ticks for pathogens, and it has worked very closely with our game wardens, with foresters, with the others who are routinely in the woods of Maine and are exposed to tick bites. It actually has developed a little tick kit where you can send the tick into the lab, and it will be tested for pathogens.
So I would be remiss if I did not salute the University of Maine for its excellent work on tick-borne illnesses. This legislation is going to make a big difference in helping to advance their work, as well as the research at the MaineHealth research institute.
Mr. President, I also would be remiss if I didn't recognize, once again, the incredible partners that have been behind these Down syndrome advocacy, research, and medical care--primarily the Global Down Syndrome Foundation, but also the Linda Crnic Institute for Down Syndrome, the Alzheimer's and Cognition Center, and the Sie Center at Children's Hospital Colorado.
Mr. President, a few years ago, I met a young woman who lives in the Chicago suburbs. She told me a story of her college career and what it led to. It was something I had never heard before.
Her experience in trying to pursue a degree leading to law enforcement took her not to the normal, predictable academic sources, but to a new industry, which was opening up in our country--for-profit colleges and universities.
Hers was a sad story. She had been enrolled in one of these for- profit colleges and paid the tuition, took the courses--some of them in person, some of them online--and ultimately went to a counselor and asked if she was headed for a bachelor's degree because of her coursework, and he assured her that she was. She went on to say that she hoped to be able to get into law enforcement--that was her ultimate goal. He gave her assurances that that would happen.
She finished her degree at this for-profit college and university in Chicago and then took her certificate showing her graduation to would- be employers--police departments in the area. They laughed at her, and they said: That is not a real school. That is a for-profit school, and the courses you took don't count. If you want a degree in law enforcement that leads to a real job, you can't get it from a for- profit college and university.
Well, that was a heartbreak to her because she spent years working on it. But what was even worse was, she was so deeply in debt for student loans that she borrowed from this phony university.
She, when I met her, was living in her parents' basement, had no future ahead of her for doing what she thought was the right thing-- getting a college degree.
What she didn't know, and what we know now, is that there are two numbers that tell the story of for-profit colleges and universities. You hear their names like University of Phoenix--that is probably the most prominent one people hear over and over--and you see their advertisements and brochures that are mailed to high school seniors enticing them to sign up for these for-profit schools.
What you don't know is that although only 8 percent of high school graduates go to for-profit colleges and universities--8 percent--30 percent of all student loan defaults are the students from these same schools.
What is going on here? Such a low number--8 percent--going on to these schools and such a high number of loan defaults. That is because they issue worthless degrees and entice these students into deep debt.
Many times, a parent or even a grandparent will cosign on the loans for these for-profit schools; and when everything falls apart, as it is likely to, everybody is held liable and responsible. That is why we have had an ongoing battle here in Washington for years against the for-profit college and university industry.
There was a legal battle in a case called Sweet v. McMahon, which has gone on for years. It finally, this week, came to an end, and it is an important
It was the largest class-action settlement against the Federal Government in the history of our Nation. That is life-changing news for nearly half a million Federal student loan borrowers who will receive $23 billion in relief after being misled and defrauded by for-profit colleges.
If you listen to the radio on your morning commute or watch TV after a long days' work, then you have no doubt been hit with flashy advertising from institutions like the University of Phoenix looking to lure in unsuspecting students.
Here is the catch: These institutions often rip off those students, lying about their prospects for a job, their ability to have credits that transfer to any other school, or their likely salary after graduation.
In fact, these schools, as I mentioned, enroll only 8 percent of the students but account for 30 percent of all Federal student loan defaults. Too much debt; too little education.
NPR recently highlighted the story of Jessica Feindt of Michigan. She enrolled at the University of Phoenix to study psychology.
She said she ``paid a lot out of pocket'' and ``through student loans.''
She realized later that the school's recruitment counselor had repeatedly misled her, including by telling her that a degree would be accepted by Michigan graduate programs--that was false.
By the time she had learned her degree was useless, she was already underwater and deeply in debt. So she joined this class-action lawsuit, originally filed during President Trump's first term, to get relief. Mr. President, 4 years later--it took 4 years--she will finally see the relief, which she is entitled to.
The first Trump administration--go figure--denied nearly all of these claims by the students, which a Federal court described as ``disturbingly Kafkaesque.''
But in 2022, President Joe Biden and his administration settled the case and forgave the student loan debts of nearly 300,000 borrowers who had been defrauded. Under the terms of that settlement, borrowers who were not part of the original class had 5 months to file claims. If the Department of Education had not adjudicated the additional claims by early 2026, borrowers still waiting in limbo would be automatically entitled to relief.
But while the Trump administration can quickly green-light permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, as in their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, they hesitated when it came to giving relief to these students who just wanted a fair shot.
In late 2025, the Trump administration asked for an additional 18 months to review the students' claims--students who were defrauded by these schools.
A Federal district judge said ``enough.'' Last month, a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld this decision. Good.
Like their tactics with DACA recipients and the slow-walking of renewal applications with the USCIS, the administration was asking for more time so that they could bleed out these borrowers and deny relief to hundreds of thousands of students deep in debt living in their parents' basement trying to figure out if they had a future.
This is where the priorities lie. I am glad these borrowers, after years and years of waiting, will finally get the relief they are entitled to.
For the last 15 years or more, I have sent a letter to every high school counselor in the State of Illinois. I send it about the first of the year and warn them: Be careful not to let your students be lured into these for-profit colleges and universities. They are going to send them brochures. They are going to tee them up with all sorts of things on the internet. It will be a dazzling display about the college, which is not a real college; it is a for-profit college and university.
Be careful. The time that you spend there, the money that you spend there may be a total waste or worse. It could be a debt that trails you for years and years, if not decades, in your life.
Thank goodness for these students, the thousands of students who are benefited by President Biden's decision. The courts finally stood by them and gave these students a second chance. It has been a situation I have run into time and again. I have threatened some of these for- profit schools as a way of getting them to drop the loans that they were enforcing on these students because I know what happens in the end.
Students need to be careful. You can't go wrong starting with city colleges and community colleges in your community. It is affordable. There are alternatives there. Most of the time, the hours that you earn there are going to be transferable to real colleges and universities. I beg my young students in Illinois to start there and the student counselors to do their job and discourage kids from getting involved with these for-profit schools.
Mr. President, last October, the Trump administration cut more than $7 billion in energy grant funding going to States across America, including more than $580 million for Illinois. At the time, the administration promised that these cancellations were meant to cut ``waste, fraud, and abuse.'' But someone once told me that in politics there is always a good reason, and then there is always a real reason.
Of the 284 cancelled grants, how many do you think went to a State that voted for President Trump? 100? 50? 10? Of the 284 grants this administration revoked, only one went to a State that voted for Donald Trump. The rest went to blue States. At the time, the Trump administration went through pains to tell us that these cancellations were not political. We knew that could not be true. And now, we have proof.
The Department of Energy admitted in court documents that these cancellations were ``based solely on the political identity of the recipient's state,'' or in other words ``whether the recipient's location was in a Blue State.'' The administration wasn't making policy based on what's best for America. They were making decisions based on the President's vendettas. This is petty, it is unlawful, and it is wrong.
It is especially egregious to cancel these crucial grants when Americans' energy bills are skyrocketing. In the last year alone, Illinoisans paid $210 more for their power, and that number is only expected to go up in light of Trump's war with Iran. You would think that President Trump, who ran on bringing costs down on ``day one,'' would make addressing these record price hikes his top priority. Instead, he has deeply undermined our capacity to lower prices, all to settle petty political scores.
In Illinois, more than $150 million of the cancelled awards were meant to upgrade the power grid. These upgrades would have made the grid more reliable in the face of rising energy demand. Now, that work is in jeopardy. When the government cancels funding for grid upgrades, those needs do not just go away. Instead, utility companies will pass along the cost of upgrades to consumers. My constituents are paying more for their electricity, heating, and cooling because of President Trump.
That is why I am leading Illinois Democrats in a letter to Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and OMB Director Russ Vought outlining the harm these cancellations have done to our State over the past 9 months. I urge my Republican colleagues to join in urging this administration to reverse course and reject this administration's blatant defiance of Congress' authority under the Constitution. If this precedent is set, your State could be next to see its funding revoked.
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, as the Presiding Officer knows, one of the privileges of being a Senator is the opportunity to work alongside dedicated, talented staff. They take the Senator's ideas and concepts and turn them into real legislation that improves the lives of our constituents and improves our
As I near the end of my career in Congress, I reflect on the staff who have come and gone and the work we have done that will have a lasting impact on the Nation.
Today, I honor an invaluable member of my team, my HELP Committee deputy staff director, Danielle Janowski. She is leaving Capitol Hill after nearly 17 years of service.
Danielle joined my HELP Committee leadership team in 2023 when I became the ranking member. She had previously worked in the House and for Senators Ernst and Thune. As deputy staff director, she kept the trains moving. She made sure that staff were all rowing in the same direction and that every committee product was done on time and was of the highest quality.
Danielle is an institutionalist at heart, and it was through that lens that she always fought for the HELP Committee to be strategic, thorough, and professional. She cares about this institution and what it represents. She views it as her duty to mentor other young staffers to carry forward the traditions and collaboration that the Senate deserves.
It is because of her leadership that the HELP Committee has been successful in getting bills signed into law that lower the cost of healthcare, strengthen our education system, empower workers, and enhance our retirement system.
Importantly, Danielle has been a leader in the fight for life. She spearheaded my work to protect unborn babies and mothers, an issue so important to me and to the people of Louisiana. Her passion for this cause and her deep connection with the pro-life community made her indispensable and an effective champion. She was instrumental in leading the first pro-life hearing this Congress, my investigation into abortion pill manufacturers harming mothers, and our efforts to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood in the Working Families Tax Cuts. None of this would have been possible without her passion, strategic guidance, and unrelenting determination. Babies' lives have been saved, and families are better off because of the work that she led. And what can be more important than that?
What Danielle will be most remembered for on our HELP team is her exceptional leadership and friendship. She is beloved by everyone who worked with her--a trusted and calming presence during transitions and chaotic times. When there was conflict or when staff simply needed someone to talk to, Danielle was there. She is an advocate, a mentor, a sounding board, and a friend to everyone.
Her departure is not only a loss for the office but for the entire Capitol Hill community. But our loss is someone else's gain. I am proud she will continue her public service at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, leading policy to improve families' health and drive down the cost of care. She will continue to make a positive difference and be an invaluable partner to those who remain in Congress. I look forward to working with her in this new capacity.
It has been a pleasure to watch Danielle grow as a leader and as a person. I thank her for her service to my office, to the Senate, and to the Nation.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the greatest teams to ever wear the black and gold, the 1960 Missouri Tigers. They finished 11 and 0. They conquered the Big Eight. They defeated the Navy Midshipmen 21 to 14 in the Orange Bowl in Florida. But their greatness can't be measured by their record alone; their story is about something deeper--perseverance after humiliation, accountability in the face of injustice, and the integrity of men who kept their word.
To understand what they accomplished, we must go back 2 years. Dan Devine arrived at Missouri in 1958 and inherited a program searching for its footing. His first team brought one terrible afternoon in Norman, OK. The Sooners beat Missouri 39 to nothing. It was a humiliating, dismantling, and devastating loss.
After the game, Coach Devine stood before his players in the visiting locker room, knowing full well many of those men would graduate having never beaten OU. Coach Devine looked at the younger men and made a promise: Two years from that day, Missouri would return to Norman, and Missouri would win.
That was no small pledge. Oklahoma ruled the conference at that time. The Sooners hadn't lost a conference game at home since 1942. Norman was where the soaring dreams of visiting teams came crashing down to reality. But a promise had been made by Coach Devine, so for 2 years, the Tigers went to work.
By the fall of 1960, Missouri had become a machine--powerful, disciplined, relentless. The Tigers went into Happy Valley and beat Penn State. They traveled to Lincoln, NE, and shut out the Cornhuskers. They defeated the powerhouse that was Colorado. Eight games, eight victories--not a single team put up double digits against them.
Then came the return to Norman. Oklahoma struck first. For a moment, the Tigers were seeing ghosts. For a moment, the boys in black and gold had ``Boomer Sooner'' ringing in their ears. For a moment, it felt like 1958 all over again. But this Missouri team did not panic; it answered.
Norris Stevenson, one of the great pioneers in Mizzou history, tore down the sideline for a 77-yard touchdown. Later, with Oklahoma threatening to seize the momentum, Stevenson broke free again, this time from 60 yards out. He finished with 169 rushing yards and two touchdowns. Missouri finished with 41 points. And when the clock hit triple zeroes, the scoreboard read ``Missouri 41, Oklahoma 19.'' Two years from the humiliating loss on the field, Dan Devine and his players walked out of Norman as victors--a promise they had kept.
The Tigers returned home undefeated and ranked No. 1 in the Nation. Only one obstacle remained between Missouri and an unblemished season. Unfortunately, that obstacle was Kansas.
Rivalry games can produce strange results. Sometimes, the underdog rises. Sometimes, the favorite has an off day. And sometimes, Kansas simply uses a player who wasn't eligible to be on the field.
The Jayhawks defeated Missouri on the scoreboard. For a few brief and fraudulent weeks, they called themselves conference champs, but there was a problem: The Jayhawks had discovered that the only way they could execute better than Missouri was by breaking the rules.
The Big Eight ordered Kansas to forfeit the victory and stripped the Jayhawks of the conference title. Kansas could keep the memory of the final whistle; Missouri kept the title. That distinction matters. A football game, yes, is a contest of strength, but it is a contest that is governed by rules. Without rules, victory means nothing. A championship obtained by cheating is not a championship at all.
The people of Kansas have spent more than six decades trying to turn a blatant penalty into a moral victory, but the truth is harder to bear, and facts are stubborn things. Missouri finished 11 and 0, reminding the conference and the American populace that cheaters never truly win.
But Missouri's season wasn't finished. On January 2, 1961, the Tigers took the field in Miami against fourth-ranked Navy. Watching from the stands was President John F. Kennedy. Navy had a Heisman Trophy winner named Joe Bellino. Missouri had a defense built to break the will of its opponent.
The Tigers held that year's Heisman winner just to 4 rushing yards. Then they overcame a 98-yard fumble return. They absorbed every blow Navy could deliver, and when the night was over, Missouri had won 21 to 14, securing the first bowl victory in school history.
Every generation needs examples of men who stuck to their word. Dan
More than six decades later, the 1960 Tigers still embody the character of Missouri. We are a people who work. We are a people who endure. We are a people who keep our promises.
The men of that team brought home a Big Eight championship and the Orange Bowl championship game in a perfect season, but their greatest legacy was the example they left behind: Stand firm, do the work, keep your word, run the ball, and never surrender what was rightfully yours.
Today, I am proud to honor Coach Dan Devine, Norris Stevenson, and every member of the undefeated 1960 Missouri Tigers. Their promise was kept, their championship was earned, their record remains perfect, and Kansas still lost.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 833, which is before the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion 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. 833) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
I am grateful for your recognition, Mr. President.
And I am going to try to get this order right. This is legislative session. I am going to give some remarks and then ask for a unanimous consent on a bill.
But I really want to, first, talk about something really challenging, tragic, that happened in the State of New Jersey. Edwin Lopez-Cornejo died. He is dead, and it is a death that did not have to be.
He was detained by ICE on June 18. He was sent to Delaney Hall in my home city, in Newark, NJ--it is a detention center--and he never came out alive.
Mr. President, 20 years--20 years--Edwin lived in the United States of America, 20 years of building a life here, 20 years of being connected to people and community, 20 years of making here in America a way forward. And yet, in less than 2 months of detention, the immigration system in our country led to his death.
And in Delaney Hall, he is the third person in 9 months to die; the 23rd person to die in ICE custody this year--not the first warning sign, not the second, this is the third death at the same facility and yet nothing changes.
Let me tell you exactly how Edwin Lopez-Cornejo died because his family deserves to have his name said on the Senate floor and his story told plainly.
Edwin had diabetes. He had high blood pressure. He needed his medication to survive, and Delaney Hall denied it to him. The day before he died, he told his mother that his arm had gone numb, half his face had gone numb. And understand, this is not a minor complaint. This was a man that was having a medical emergency, telling someone exactly what was happening to his body.
Did anyone come to his aid? No. Did he get his medication? No. Less than 24 hours, he was dead.
Doctors have warned us, attorneys have warned us in New Jersey, families have warned us, a chorus of people in our communities--not politicians, not political activists--doctors, lawyers have been warning us, detainees who walked out of that building, with their testimony and the facts and the evidence, people have said over and over again that this facility is dangerous. It is not well run, and within it is a pattern of disregard for human decency.
DHS has known that Delaney Hall is nothing short of a travesty since they reopened it over a year ago. So who runs what is, for so many, a house of horrors? Who runs the institution that I saw myself when I went there and met people? This is not for serious criminals. This is not a place for folks who have done serious crimes in our country. This is a detention facility for people, many of them have been in our country for decades, many of them have American spouses, American children.
And when I went there, I saw mothers who were recently postpartum who were not getting the support. I saw a woman who lost her child while in that detention facility, had a miscarriage there, did not get the support that she needed. Story after story, people told me what is going on there, the horrors that are going on there.
And who runs it? The U.S. Government does not run that center. It is a private group called the GEO Group, a private for-profit prison that has high-level Republican officials among its former employees. This group won a billion-dollar contract: no competition, no bidding, lots of campaign contributions, a phone call, a signature, and they have a billion dollars of taxpayer money.
New Jersey had to sue this company just to get health inspectors through the front door of a facility operating on American soil, funded by American taxpayers, and our State couldn't even do basic health inspections.
They did not get--they did not get--the permits to open that place. They did not have inspections before they did so. This is a private company taking a billion dollars of American taxpayer money. The less they provide sanitary services, the less they provide doctors and medical professionals, the more profit they make off of taxpayers. At whose expense? At the decency of American people and at the expense of the lives of the people who are there.
We give them hundreds of millions of dollars. And what are the reports out of Delaney Hall? Spoiled food, contaminated water, staff who retaliate against people brave enough to speak up about the conditions. A billion dollars in inadequate accountability. A billion dollars in inadequate healthcare. A billion dollars and a man whose face is numb, whose arm is numb, who is asking for help--does not get treatment, does not get healthcare.
So, here is the truth. It is clear for the GEO Group that part of their business model is this cruelty: cut medical staff, skimp on food, let the air-conditioning go out during the hottest days in New Jersey, let the roof leak, cram more bodies into less space. Every corner cut is a dollar of their profit. Every dollar of their profit is a dollar that the GEO Group's executives get to celebrate on their next earnings call.
GEO Group's stock has more than doubled since February of 2026--more than doubled. You know why? Well, follow the money.
Three million dollars from the GEO Group and its executives went into Donald Trump's campaign, into his PAC, into his inauguration. It is a pay-to-play that is worse than that. A pay-to-play and people get hurt. Lives are lost.
Over $2 billion in Federal contracts to run facilities like Delaney Hall in our country. This is not immigration policy. This is not what we stand for. No one loses their humanity because they are incarcerated. No one should lose their basic rights because they are behind bars.
Look, I am all for what this administration promised it would do. They said they would go after the ``worst of the worst.'' They said they would go after
I believe we should have strong borders. I believe we should get criminals off of our streets. But the people actually locked up in that building in Delaney Hall? We know that more than 70 percent of the people have never been convicted of a single crime.
I met a high school student who had more of a Jersey accent than I do, who just wanted to walk with his class--rounded up. I have had the Catholic church reach out to me because of the sweeps they are doing around schools and churches. I have had family members beg me to get folks out in order to see their American children hit milestones like birthdays and graduations. I have been appealed to by everyone from priests to Republicans in our community. Many are following our laws.
But we in the U.S. Senate, Congress, hold the purse strings the administration depends on. We should be a check and a balance. We should demand that our taxpayer dollars are being used.
And when we see a body count climbing that is not normal, when we see more and more deaths, when we see a mother's son whose face went numb the night before, we should be asking for action and accountability.
Edwin Lopez-Cornejo's death was not a tragedy. A tragedy is something that no one could have prevented. This is a choice. Every single day the DHS keeps Delaney Hall open is another choice to let this happen, three times already. We should not make this choice.
Mr. President, I am now asking for a unanimous consent to pass the Delaney Hall Closure Act, which would close Delaney Hall within 90 days. They are out of excuses. We are out of time. How many more people should die?
So as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of my bill at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
I have been advised to address this so-called Delaney Hall Closure Act.
My colleague's bill, though, really doesn't do anything to address the issues that he has raised. He doesn't hire a single doctor. He doesn't ask a single nurse. It doesn't require a single inspection. It simply orders the Department of Homeland Security to close Delaney Hall, cancel its contract, and permanently prevent ICE from using the facility again. Two pages, three commands: Close it, cancel it, never open it again. That is abolition with a short title.
The diagnosis is ideological, and the prescription was written before the patient entered the room. If something goes wrong at a hospital, you investigate what happened. You identify the failure. You discipline the people responsible. You repair the facility, improve the procedures, and make the hospital better. You don't unlock every door, abandon the building, and announce that healthcare itself was the crime.
If the bridge needs repair, you fix the bridge. You don't blow it up and congratulate yourself for preventing future traffic accidents. Yet that is the theory behind this bill. A tragedy did occur; therefore, Democrats say law enforcement must disappear.
But closing Delaney Hall doesn't eliminate the need for detention. It leaves three choices: transfer detainees somewhere else, possibly further from their families, lawyers and doctors; crowd them into another facility and further strain medical staff; or release people the law says should remain in custody, while this ceases the removals, and so they are not completed.
The bill provides no replacement capacity, no transfer plan, no continuity of care requirement, no additional medical funding. It removes a thousand-bed facility from the system and calls the resulting chaos compassion.
And let us be clear about why immigration detention exists. It is used to ensure appearances at immigration proceedings, facilitate lawful removals, and to protect the public from criminals.
My colleague and my friend from New Jersey says many detainees have not been convicted of crimes. That is beside the point. A person doesn't need a criminal conviction to lack a lawful right to be in the United States of America. That is our immigration laws. That is how we have operated for decades. And anyone detained can leave detention whenever they want. They must simply agree to return to their home country.
What Democrats demand is for illegal aliens to remain in America and be above the law.
Now, I am willing to take my colleague's concerns seriously. If Delaney Hall needs more doctors, let us fund more doctors. If it needs more nurses, better medication tracking, stronger inspections, faster emergency response, or better communication with families, let us write those regulations into law and pay for them.
I would gladly work with my friend the Senator from New Jersey on additional resources for safe and secure ICE detention facilities. But there is one problem. My colleague and others on his side have vowed to not give ICE one more penny.
We have just lived through this with a shutdown. We heard these words on the floor from many Members of the other side.
They also voted against a bill that allocated 45 billion to further fund and sustain the capabilities of ICE in their detention facilities.
So the position apparently is this: Vote against the beds. Vote against the facilities. Vow to deny the agency another dollar. Then point to a stray condition and demand that the facility close.
You can't pull the batteries out of a smoke alarm and then pose behind the ashes demanding to know who failed.
You can't starve a system, condemn the strain, and call abolition the only human solution. That is not good-faith oversight. That is not serious governance. That is not a viable solution.
Democrats oppose the funding needed to enforce the law. They oppose the facilities needed to hold people safely. They oppose the removals that detention makes possible. Then, when the system shows any pressure, they point to that pressure as proof that enforcement itself must end. The sequence never changes: defund, obstruct, investigate, abolish.
The goal for many Democrats is very clear. It is not better detention facilities; it is no detention at all. The bill does not make one detention facility safer; it shuts down a facility and pushes the problem somewhere else.
A serious Senate would let the current investigation run its course, correct failures, and strengthen the system. An unserious Senate shuts down the building and pretends the law no longer needs enforcement.
I object to using a pending investigation as a ploy to dismantle law enforcement. I object to defunding ICE and then blaming ICE for lacking resources. Fix what is broken. Hold wrongdoers accountable. Protect every person in Federal custody, of course, but we must enforce the law.
Mr. President, I appreciate the good-faith words of my colleague, and I will take it to heart that he is against unnecessary deaths and that the GEO Group should be investigated thoroughly and be held accountable. I do want to make followup points.
First of all, I live in North New Jersey. I used to run the police department as its mayor. There is nobody who feels more urgency for public safety in my city than I do. I hired many law enforcement officers and worked well with ICE, worked well with the FBI and with the DOJ--with all of the Federal law enforcement officers--in a coordinated effort to protect my community.
This idea that Democrats want to defund ICE is wrong. I actually believe we need law enforcement in our communities to keep us safe. But I want to make sure we do it in a way that comports with our values and our decency.
Let's be clear. There is no law enforcement agency in America that has more money than ICE has right now. As to this idea that the Democrats have done anything to defund it right
Now, I like my colleague's metaphor that if a bridge is broken, you close the bridge. I know this because, again, I was a mayor. If people are falling through holes on a bridge, we close the bridge. Do the inspections, but don't leave people in a hellscape where people continue to die in that facility. Keeping that open is irresponsible. ICE has enough money to transfer to other facilities the people who are a real threat. ICE has enough money to run around my State and overspend for real estate, as they have done in one of my towns. They are throwing cash around in a way that should offend Republicans and anybody who is fiscally prudent, but we are not holding the people accountable.
Yes, if something is broken, you stop using it. If people are dying because of a defect in a car, you don't use it. If people are falling through holes on a bridge, you close it. We have a responsibility to taxpayers' money, and we have shoveled this Agency more money than any law enforcement agency there is, and then we are not doing what is necessary to hold these people, like the GEO Group, accountable.
I will continue to stand for law enforcement. One of the reasons I got elected by my State is that we drove crime down in the city of Newark. Everybody saw it. Investment came back, and the population came back. I believe in creating safety in my community. This is not about the accusations that somehow, Democrats don't believe we should have strong law enforcement. If anybody believes in that, I know my record here in the Senate speaks to that.
How can we stand here and allow this from a facility in which multiple people have died in the most gruesome ways? How can we allow this from an organization that is supposed to be providing healthcare but is denying it? How can we allow this in accordance with our own values? Enough is enough.
Delaney Hall is a nightmare. I did not come to the floor to talk about closing facilities all over the country; I am talking about one facility with a record of people dying unnecessarily, with a record of people being denied medical care, with a record of people being denied healthy food--one facility that is failing. For this body to keep it open while waiting for something to change while more people are suffering and may die is irresponsible beyond compare.
I believe there is common ground on both sides of the aisle where we can achieve the highest levels of safety and also ensure that within our incarcerating facilities, people are treated with dignity. I have worked across the aisle with Senator Lindsey Graham, with Senator Chuck Grassley, and with Senator Mike Lee to improve conditions in the Bureau of Prisons. I hope that when it comes to ICE facilities and this private, for-profit company where people are dying that we can find some common ground to stop this nightmare from happening.
Mr. President, one of the questions we all have to wrestle with in life is, Why do the innocent suffer? Why do the righteous find, at times, the circumstances of their lives to be so painful as to be beyond imagined? And how does one make purpose out of pain?
Of all the diseases that afflict mankind, ALS is one of the most cruel. It robs someone of their ability to speak, to walk, to move, to care for themselves, yet leaves them completely present and conscious.
Over the 16 years that I have served here in the U.S. Senate, I have been blessed by visit after visit from families going from office to office to ask not for themselves, not to lessen their pain or their suffering or their challenges but to try and turn their experience into a positive investment for others, lots of different families with lots of different challenges--mostly medical--sometimes the parents of children taken hostage in other countries or veterans who didn't get the benefits they were entitled to but often families whose loved ones or who they themselves are suffering with cancer, with Parkinson's, or with ALS.
Today, I am coming to the floor to celebrate a great and enduring friendship and partnership that has helped to make a difference in this dread disease. Through some of the visits to my office, I have gotten to know some amazing people: Craig and Kristen Colby of Delaware; Brian Wallach and Sandra Abrevaya; Dan Tate, whom I knew from college.
My engagement in trying to tackle the ravages of ALS began earlier. A dear friend from Newark, DE, Alex Snyder-Mackler--his father Scott lived with and then died from ALS; my chief of staff lost his father to ALS; and my brother lost his best friend. And now today, my best friend from growing up, Dr. Jack Flynn, is bravely living through what has been a tragic and difficult diagnosis and a steadily worsening condition.
When you meet someone with ALS, they are always accompanied by someone by their side who knows every detail, who helps them to eat, to talk, to live, to communicate. And they are looking for ways to make meaning out of their suffering.
Through all of this, I have had an incredible partner and advocate, a dear friend--the senior Senator from the State of Alaska, my colleague Senator Lisa Murkowski. We are the cochairs of the Senate ALS Caucus, and I am blessed to have her with me on the floor today as we announce the next step forward in our work together on ALS.
Mr. President, we go through periods here in the U.S. Senate where there are frustrating issues that we deal with. There are hours of unknown as to what is going to happen. Are we going to be able to make something happen? Are we making a difference? And some days can be particularly discouraging.
We have a long way to go before this day is through, but to be here at the midpoint of this day and to be able to, as my colleague and friend from Delaware has stated, to be able to celebrate an accomplishment is a reminder that we do good here. And we don't do good on our own. It takes teamwork. It takes cooperation and collaboration. It takes advocacy. This is really what makes me just filled with a level of optimism and hope as we are talking about where we are at this moment for the ALS community.
The House passed the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act. We call it ACT for ALS. They passed it a few weeks ago, and then the Senate was able to pass it in wrapup. Yes, that means it passed by unanimous consent here yesterday. We are now in the final step of reauthorizing a program that is making a real difference for people living with ALS.
I think it is so important to just take a step back and say ``What does that mean?'' because we have not found the cure, unfortunately, for ALS. This legislation is not about this magical treatment that has come to be. But what we were able to do working together now 5 years ago when we passed the ACT for ALS Act, we created this pathway for individuals. It is kind of a roadmap. We said: If you are not eligible to participate in clinical trials to access investigational treatments, there is another way here for you.
We provided some pretty important funding to NIH and to FDA to accelerate the research, to improve the data sharing, to help speed up the development of new therapies. But what really comes about with ACT for ALS is it gives people who are living with ALS the opportunity to try.
Just let me try something. It might not work, but let me try because right now, the diagnosis I am living with offers no hope.
So this is something that gives those living with ALS some hope. This is a program that works. So we passed it 5 years ago. What we have now done is a reauthorization that allows us to build on this progress that we have made to ensure that individuals that are living with ALS can continue to access these clinical trials and the programs that
Senator Coons has mentioned the advocacy. Those caregivers, those who stand with and are wrapping their arms and their hearts around their loved ones who are dealing with ALS--this is about hope for them as much as those who are living with this dread disease.
My friend has acknowledged the names of those he calls friends.
Dan Tate--I was able to receive a text message on passage of the reauthorization here saying, you know, ``Go dudes'' or something like that. I don't know that I am a dude, but I loved the enthusiasm he had.
Brian Wallach has been an extraordinary partner over the years. You mentioned Sandra Abrevaya. Absolutely.
Then there is my personal advocate, my cousin Jenny Dwyer. It was through Jenny's husband Pat that our family learned of ALS, as Pat lived with ALS for 8 years; and as a family, we came to not only understand the disease and the awful progression, but it allowed us to understand some of what families go through who live with the almost daily heartbreak as you are watching your loved one progress through this diagnosis.
So to the advocates: Know that your work matters. Know that your stories matter. Know that you have made a difference.
So we are pleased to be able to be at this place where we can move to finally get this reauthorization into law. We have to work things through the two bodies here and get it signed in.
There is more that we have to do. We are working on some good things as the cochairs of the ALS Caucus--the Justice for ALS Veterans Act, which is a really good one, and the ALS Better Care Act. Again, these address some of the challenges that face individuals with ALS as well as their families when they are trying to access the care and access the benefits after a loved one has passed.
We know that for those that are living with ALS, every day matters, every day is precious, and we cannot afford to lose momentum when promising therapies are being studied. I am reminded if not weekly, maybe daily sometimes that people are waiting. People are waiting, and they are counting on us to show up for them.
So to all those in the ALS community: Thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for your heart and your passion and your persistence but also your willingness to open your hearts and to share your stories so that we can also become motivated and tenacious on your behalf.
I am very grateful for my friend from Delaware. It is hard, as I hear stories of your dear friend and as he goes through these stages of this disease. And know that even though I have not met Jack, he is in my heart as well, as well as the many, many whom we are advocating for.
With that, I thank again not only Senator Coons but all Members here in the Senate that have joined us in this effort to end ALS.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from the truly great State of Alaska.
Our mutual friend Dan Tate, long known here as an active lobbyist, who is living with ALS, has been texting the two of us about the impact that this research has had on him and his condition and on many others.
He most recently texted me:
The ACT for ALS bill that we helped get passed 5 years ago and that we are now reauthorizing--I will remind you that initially, advocates were seeking $10 million.
Do you remember the Ice Bucket Challenge of 2014? They were seeking $10 million in Federal medical research. This year, it was $115 million. In total over the years since we have passed this legislation through this Chamber, $391 million has been invested.
There are today 1,200 people living with ALS enrolled in a landmark genetic study, and there have been significant steps forward in experimental treatments.
Dr. Sabrina Paganoni of Mass General Brigham Neuroscience Institute said: We are at a turning point because we have a greater awareness of ALS, more funding for research than ever before, and more treatments in development than ever before.
When Lou Gehrig gave a speech announcing his retirement from baseball, he concluded by saying: I am the luckiest guy in the world. Many saw that as a bitter irony because he left an outstanding career in baseball to struggle and suffer through an ultimately terminal disease.
But I have to say that I am the luckiest man in the world to have the blessing of the great, enduring friendship of a colleague and partner from Alaska; of the steady and reliable and motivating input of so many advocates and cared-for people living with this dread disease; and the lifelong partnership and friendship of an amazing man, Dr. Jack Flynn.
In a determined effort to deliver hope and change, Senator Murkowski and I and all of us in this ALS Caucus are determined to get this bill to the President's desk, signed into law, and to deliver another generation of medical research to get us closer to that day when no one--no one--has to face the diagnosis or live with ALS and it will be a chapter in our history, not a threat for our future. But for today in this body, I am grateful for a chance to celebrate a significant step forward, a unanimous action by this Chamber, and the delivery of hope to so many around our Nation and our world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable member of my staff who is retiring from public service: Mr. David Grannis.
I must admit I misled David into coming to the Senate floor for this speech. I told him I was coming to speak on something completely different because he is not fond of being the center of attention, particularly when he is the subject of praise, but he deserves it--both the praise and the surprise--since he has been known to play a practical joke or two himself. All I told him is I needed to discuss a very important matter on the floor of the Senate and I wanted him to hear it.
By the way, everything I made up on the way over here, you can completely ignore. That was a ruse.
What I wanted to come here to talk about was, in fact, David Grannis. David is no stranger to these farewell speeches. Congresswoman Jane Harman gave one about him leaving her office. Not to be outdone, Senator Feinstein has given two farewell-to-David speeches--one when he departed as staff director for the Senate Intelligence Committee and another when he left her office as chief of staff.
This speech today may be the last of its kind, or may not. You never know. But let me begin by quoting my former colleague, the late, great Senator Feinstein, who said:
I cannot improve on those comments, so I will not try. Instead of sharing again his long list of accomplishments--the major pieces of legislation that he has helped to pass, the critical oversight that he has delivered, or the assistance he secured for so many grateful Californians--I want to talk about David as a person and what he has meant to the many dozens of us--probably hundreds of us--who have had the privilege of working with him.
When David first joined my office as a senior policy adviser, I knew we were gaining someone with a wealth of experience. I had known him from his time on SSCI and also serving with Senator Feinstein. But what I did not fully appreciate, what I could not have known was that our team was not only gaining someone with just incredible experience but also someone who cares so deeply about the people he works with and someone who is just a superlative mentor, particularly toward the junior staff, many of whom are here with us today to honor him.
His impressive CV does not mention his acerbic wit, his many practical
One of our young staff Andrea calls David ``best friend.'' And that is not an exaggeration. He once told her that she should ``heckle every staffer on our team who was late to their meeting regardless of who they were, and yes, [including the] Chief of Staff.''
He has encouraged ``spontaneous selfies'' and participated in staff chats exclusively in all caps. Andrea, and all of us, know that he is someone who will never fail to make someone laugh during a very stressful day.
To know him is to be on the watch for practical jokes, sometimes by his hand and other times played upon him. And we won't even get into the ``caps lock'' incident or the role he has played as ``Mr. Liquid.'' And I am not going to get into those things because I have no idea what they are.
When Sydney on our team noted that we would ``lose a true institution'' with David's departure, she may have been thinking about this interaction she had with David:
Sydney, then assistant to our legislative director, joined a staff delegation trip with a branch of our Armed Forces, and because she was one of the only Senate staffers on the trip, and perhaps because they thought Sydney was the legislative director herself, they named the trip ``STAFFDEL DUCKOR,'' Sydney's last name. And so, when Sydney returned, David had printed a floor chart version of the STAFFDEL DUCKOR documents, alongside a 30-inch-tall headshot of Sydney--a floor chart that still, on occasion, is wedged in a place that Sydney will somehow run into it when she least expects it, like in a stairwell. Sydney's giant mug or the floor chart is sure to pop up at unexpected moments, courtesy of her mentor David Grannis.
As Ian, a former staffer for Senator Feinstein, noted, David had an ``extraordinarily hard job over many years, even for a chief. But he did it so well and kept his cool, protecting the boss as well as the staff with that [s]-eating grin as his shield and that . . . wit as his sword.''
Even when he is at his busiest, David has always had time for everyone from interns to LDs. As Ian put it, ``He acted as if he wasn't too busy for you, [not] at all.''
A consistent theme for David is talent spotting and uplifting staff. Megan, who was a young Feinstein staffer in her San Francisco office, found out when the Senator had a need for a new director of scheduling. David brought her out to interview. Now, Senator Feinstein wasn't convinced that Megan was the right fit, but David was not deterred. So he flew her out again, this time to staff the Senator, training her on how to do the job, and then made the case again to the Senator. And wouldn't you know it, she got the job.
As Megan told us, ``It shaped my entire career trajectory, shaped me as a leader, and showed me how to lead a ship in troubled waters.'' She also noted that she eventually told David a couple of years later that ``the Senator said she wanted to kick [him] in the pants when [he] recommended [Megan].''
Alexandra, a mentee of David's, remembered that he took a chance on her and remembered the time he took to engage interns and teach them about the Senate, like in a scavenger hunt that ended in the interns needing to get the torture report recreated in the documents room and have David autograph it, which he most gamely was pleased to do.
And when Brett was called by David to offer him a job, he did the sensible thing: He asked for a little bit of time to talk to his wife about it. And as Brett tells it, ``There was a long pause. Then, in a tone I would come to know very well over the next several years, David said: `Really? You seriously need to think about this?'''
As Brett put it, ``That's David in one line--you never quite know if he's teasing you, testing you, or just telling you the truth. Twenty- plus years in Congress, and he remains, to everyone who's worked with him, [kind of an] enigma. The enigma is the method. He protected the staff so [they] could just do the work. That wasn't an accident. That was David, protecting people who didn't even know they were being protected.''
Even in our office, David had an eye for talent, never failing to mention when an intern or a junior staffer did a first draft or came up with an idea that was brought to him and then brought to me. He could do it with the smallest of projects. But he knew how to handle the biggest tasks, especially on the Intelligence Committee.
As Mike Buchwald told us, ``David was known for approaching politically charged issues with integrity and a commitment to ensuring the Committee fulfilled its constitutional oversight responsibilities.'' That is the highest charge of the Intelligence Committee, as we saw with David's handling of the Senate CIA torture report, its creation, and its release.
It was because of David, Senator Feinstein, and the many talented members of the SSCI staff, that this report ever saw the light of day, culminating in a floor speech by Senator Feinstein for the ages. David and Mike worked on draft after draft of the speech, announcing the ``painstaking process'' to chronicle each of the CIA's abuses of power. But they were never sure the speech would actually see the light of day.
Finally, one morning at 9 a.m. David dropped by Mike's desk, saying simply, ``Let's go to the floor. She's giving the speech.''
She gave that speech right here, speaking truth to power, calling out abuses of power.
Dan, a SSCI staffer at the time, noted David's immense work with a bipartisan group of Senators to ban the CIA's ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' which included torture tactics such as waterboarding. As Dan put it, David ``served our country in enormously consequential ways, almost entirely out of the public view. And because of the quiet, persistent work he did, the known history of the United States is different, and more honest, than it would otherwise be.''
Now, I want to make one thing very clear. I don't want any of this praise to make you believe he is perfect. He is not. David, for example, would prefer that, today, I quote from the wisdom of Fangorn or Lothlorien, which I will not do because, for one, I have no idea who they are; and, what is more, I suspect it is some obscure reference to ``Lord of the Rings.''
He once gave a presentation to our staff at a brown bag lunch in which he said that, of the top 100 films ever made, three of the ``Lord of the Rings'' movies--three of them, mind you--were in the top 10. So you can see he is prone to occasional but glaring lapses in judgment.
I am sorry, David. You are just wrong about that. And I know that I am pissing off Stephen Colbert and a lot of other people by saying that. But really? Three of the greatest movies of all time, ``Lord of the Rings'' movies? I mean, does that even require discussion?
Another member of our amazing staff Sircey noted dryly that ``behind the wit, David genuinely cared about the people he worked with--even if he wasn't always going to admit it.'' She cited specifically how he brought his wonderful humor to the--well, the bowels of the basement where our office was once located--actually, twice located--which David took to calling the ``lower chamber.''
Peter, a colleague from the Senate Intelligence Committee, remembered two benches. Senator Feinstein would occupy the ``hot bench,'' peppering you with questions. David, in contrast, was a ``cold bench,'' where he would just stare at you uncomfortably with a
When Peter, a former prosecutor, was told to run a hotline, he had no idea what to do--something I can relate to after joining the Senate after so many years in the House. So Peter asked David how to hotline something. And according to Peter, he just ``stared at me for a long time. He then took a long, deep breath. And then he continued to stare.'' Classic David Grannis.
Deanna noted that David is the reason ``so many of us got our start on Capitol Hill'' through his steady advocacy.
Ricky noted a simple code to live by that David would repeat:
That is outstanding advice for Senators and staff alike.
Tonya said he was ``never afraid to poke fun and turning almost anything into a punchline, he truly cared for and mentored so many young staffers.''
Flavio said that ``despite his seniority, or more likely because of it'' through humor and pranks, David ``makes our office laugh while teaching us the importance of timeliness and delivering praise'' and always advocating for interns and junior staff, even if they didn't ``always understand the pre-2001 movie references.''
Megan said he shared important life lessons, Grannis style: Don't attend a meeting and change the agenda. And--if you think you have it bad, someone always has it worse.
When Jahari first moved from our Fresno office to DC, she was nervous, but in her telling, David was the first person she chatted with and immediately felt at ease. When other staff ask who has become her mentor, as she put it, ``David is an easy answer.''
This character of David is not new. During Senator Feinstein's first farewell speech about him, she noted the same:
Now, speaking of The Rock, I fear this speech would be incomplete without talking about the ``big hunk of beef'' incident, which I am told is a favorite story of David's.
David and Senator Feinstein's legislative director Rachel were staffing the Senator during a late-night vote-arama--something we have had a lot of experience at lately. It is around 2 a.m., and the Senator is flipping channels between CNN and the floor and random channels when she finally lands on a movie starring none other than The Rock. After a while, she just matter-of-factly states, ``That's a big hunk of meat,'' causing David, at a safe distance, to laugh uncontrollably.
When I put out the call for recollections of David and their memories of his time on the Hill, the response, as you have heard just a small sample, was overwhelming. But now I want to share my own.
David has not only been a mentor to the staff, he has helped mentor me as well. We began working together almost 2 years ago when I was elected to the Senate; and in that time, I have been such an enormous beneficiary of his experience and his wisdom, his sense of humor, his poise under pressure, his intellect, and his friendship.
I am so lucky. I am so lucky to have had you on my team--so lucky.
On the most extensive range of issues--from foreign policy, to national security, to intelligence reform, to Senate procedure, and so much more--he has been the most extraordinary source of knowledge and expertise.
I have come to rely upon him implicitly and without hesitation. The respect he is held in by Senators and staff is unrivaled on the Hill-- truly. He has dedicated himself to public service for decades now, and the Senate and the country are immeasurably better for it. He is the quintessential public servant.
Thank you, David. Thank you.
Finally, I want to end my comments by thanking David's wife Kerry and their wonderful children Sarah, Amelia, and Nathaniel. Senate staff make a lot of sacrifices to serve the public--financial and otherwise, late nights, weekends, missed trips--and their families are the ones who support them the most.
So thank you, David. I can't wait to see what you do next, and the legions of staff that you helped and influenced and mentored and supported can't wait either. We all thank you.
I yield the floor.
(Mrs. MOODY assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. McCORMICK assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 877 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Marine Corps; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:
On page S4504, August 6, 2026, in the third column, the following appears: PN681--MARINE CORPS nomination of Vincent J. Noble, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 2, 2025.
The online Record has been corrected to read: PN681-4--MARINE CORPS nomination of Vincent J. Noble, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December 2, 2025.
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 Nathan Fairholm, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Nathan is a graduate of Vermillion High School in Vermillion, SD. Currently, he is attending Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, where he is pursuing a degree in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Nathan for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, today I recognize Tyler Groen, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Tyler is a graduate of Brandon Valley High School in Brandon, SD, and a recent graduate of South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, having earned a degree in human biology. Next year, Tyler plans to attend medical school. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tyler for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, today I recognize Walker Larson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.
Walker is a graduate of Aberdeen Christian School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, he is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, where he is pursuing a degree in history. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Walker for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.
Mr. President, each of us serving in the Senate hopes to leave behind some sort of legacy. My own begins with the interns that have passed through my office. Over my four decades in Congress, I have had more than 3,000 interns work for me at one point or another, although my staff are convinced that the true number is even higher. These young people have covered me with glory, and it has been a great privilege to help them get their foot in the door of politics. Today, I would like to recognize one of my former interns, who has made a name for himself in his own right: mayor of Rockford, Tom McNamara.
Tom worked in my office in Washington, DC, in 2005, around the time he completed his undergraduate degree at John Carroll University. He arrived with a strong commitment to public service--a commitment instilled by his parents and honed during his time at school. At John Carroll, Tom volunteered at a correctional facility, where he assisted parolees and probationers who struggled with alcohol and substance use disorder. In between answering phone calls and giving tours of the Capitol, Tom's interest in the criminal justice system only deepened. He contemplated how he could improve the way we treat the incarcerated and how he could make his vision a reality.
After completing his internship, Tom took on a full-time role in my office as a staff assistant. But, in a great loss for my operations, he soon decided that he wanted to continue his education at John Carroll and returned to his alma matter to obtain a master's degree in nonprofit administration. While studying, he simultaneously worked at a nonprofit to help incarcerated individuals reunite with their families and reintegrate into society. But Tom couldn't stay away from Rockford for long. After completing his master's, he moved back to the Forest City to be closer to his family. Upon his return, he immediately plunged himself into a wide array of community service initiatives and began to assist candidates in various political races.
As Tom settled down in Rockford, he increasingly reflected on those who lacked the same opportunity. He could count on his fingers the number of his high school classmates who still lived in Rockford and was worried that this trend would continue unless someone fought to change it. Fortunately, Tom is not the kind of person to sit on the sidelines. In 2013, he ran to be alderman for Rockford's 3rd Ward, where he ran against a three-term Republican incumbent. Tom won and quickly got to work investing in Rockford. As alderman, Tom led initiatives to revitalize Rockford's housing market and spark new commercial developments across the city. When the city faced a budget crisis in 2017, Tom helped to craft a compromise resolution that spared the city from tax hikes while investing in public safety initiatives. With his success as a first-term alderman, it is no wonder that he won Rockford's 2017 mayoral race with 68 percent of the vote.
If you want to know how Tom has performed as mayor, just look at the numbers. In 2021, there were 2,301 instances of violent crime in Rockford. Last year, there were 1,359--a 41-percent decrease over the course of 5 years. In 2017, Rockford's property tax rate was 3.31 percent. Today, it is less than 2 percent. Property values have increased 56 percent since 2017, the number of vacant buildings has decreased by 17 percent, and the city is adding thousands of jobs as major corporations move in. It is remarkable to witness the transformation Rockford has undergone under Tom's leadership. Dilapidated factories are being turned into new homes and businesses, and people are flocking to what the Wall Street Journal has described as America's ``top housing market.'' The problem of vacant homes has been reversed, and now Rockford is racing to construct enough houses for all those who hope to move to the area.
While these changes are the fruits of the labor of thousands of people committed to Rockford's future, it is important to note the central role Tom has played in the city's redevelopment. Tom brought together police and community groups for more effective violence prevention programs. He worked with businesses and the city council to incentivize new developments across the city and balance Rockford's budget. As mayor, he brought an infectious sense of hope and optimism that now permeates throughout the city. I have worked with Tom throughout the years on a variety of Federal initiatives in Rockford, where I have had the opportunity to see his love for his city and community firsthand.
Of course, if you knew Tom's family, none of this would be surprising. Public service runs in the McNamara blood. Tom's grandfather served on the city council and school board in Whiting, IN. And John, Tom's father, was a U.S. Army veteran, having earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam, and was mayor of Rockford during many of the Forest City's darkest years. Like Tom, John guided Rockford through an incredibly difficult time and helped the city recover from a devastating manufacturing recession. Also, like his son, John did it all with unyielding optimism. John was a dear friend of mine, and I know that he would be so proud to see all that Tom has accomplished.
While Tom is stepping down from his position as mayor, his time in public service is far from over. Later this year, he will become CEO of the Illinois Municipal League, an organization representing Illinois' 1,300 municipalities. I look forward to seeing how he will support the State of Illinois in this new role.
I am grateful that I had the opportunity to welcome Tom to the world of politics more than two decades ago. It has been a great honor to see him develop as both a leader and public servant. I hope the whole Senate will join me in congratulating Tom, his wife Sarah, and their children Olympia and Malachy as they begin the next chapter of their lives.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I am correcting the record and releasing my hold on Executive Calendar No. PN681-2, the promotion of Lt. Col. Vincent J. Noble.
When I placed a hold on this promotion on March 24, 2026, I had gathered, from public reporting, including a New York Times article from 2007, that Vincent J. Noble was part of a Marine unit that fired at civilians as he and his patrol traveled 7 miles along a highway in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on March 4, 2007, killing 19 civilians indiscriminately.
Following my initial public statement regarding my concerns about this military promotion, I received additional information from the Department of Defense clarifying the nature of Noble's conduct in March 2007, over which the U.S. Marine Corps Court of Inquiry had conducted an in-depth investigation.
Based on the official documents I have received from the Department of Defense related to Noble's time with the Marines, as well as additional public reporting from the Military Times, I now know that Noble was not involved in massacring civilians on March 4, 2007.
The U.S. Marine Corps Court of Inquiry convened in January 2008 determined the marines defended themselves appropriately and proportionally against the March 4, 2007, ambush, that no punitive or adverse administrative actions were warranted against the personnel of the convoy, and that the findings of the initial investigating officer were inconsistent with the evidence considered by the court.
I had originally received an incomplete and inaccurate representation of Noble's actions. Now, I am relieved to know he was not responsible for these civilians' deaths.
I have also been concerned with Lieutenant Colonel Noble's admission of falsified military records. However, these events have been dealt with by the Commander, Marine Forces Central Command, with Noble having pleaded guilty and admitting his conduct unbecoming an officer.
I remain hopeful that Noble proves to be a better colonel than he had been earlier as a captain, and I am releasing my hold.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Kenneth Sorenson to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of Hawaii. Mr. Sorenson has devoted four decades to the Department of Justice, serving with distinction as an assistant U.S. attorney, first assistant U.S. attorney, criminal chief, senior litigation counsel, and most recently as acting and interim U.S. attorney. Throughout his career, he has successfully prosecuted complex cases involving espionage, terrorism, public corruption, narcotics trafficking, and violent crime, earning multiple awards from the Department of Justice and the FBI, including the prestigious J. Michael Bradford Award recognizing the Nation's most outstanding assistant U.S. attorney. His extensive experience, steadfast commitment to the rule of law, and record of public service make him well qualified to continue leading the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii, and I support his nomination.
Mr. President, on Wednesday, August 5, 2026, I participated in the Minnesota Farmfest Governor Forum in Redwood County, MN. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the vote before the Senate to confirm Erica Schwartz, of Florida, to be Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rollcall vote No. 220, Executive Calendar No. 910.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and thank Jim Macrae for his extraordinary career of public service and for his contributions to expanding access to primary care for all Americans. As he retires from the Health Resources and Services Administration after decades of dedicated leadership, he leaves behind a legacy that has made our healthcare system stronger.
Throughout his career, Jim has been a tireless champion for community health centers and the millions of patients who rely on them for high- quality, affordable primary care. As Associate Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration's Bureau of Primary Health Care, he oversaw a huge expansion of community health centers, leading and strengthening one of our Nation's most successful healthcare programs and ensuring that community health centers can continue providing high-quality care in underserved communities across this country.
Primary care is the backbone of our healthcare system. Community health centers make up a major portion of that backbone. While we have made great progress towards ensuring all people have access to the primary care they need, there is much more to be done.
Community health centers provide affordable, quality primary medical, dental, and mental health care as well as access to low-cost prescription drugs to over 32 million people. In Vermont, nearly one out of every three people receive their primary healthcare through a community healthcenter across over 90 sites--something that I and my fellow Vermonters are very proud of. I thank Jim for his support of Vermont's work to build a vibrant network of community health centers across our State.
Over my years in the Senate and as chair and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have worked hard to expand community health centers. Jim has been an effective partner in these efforts throughout the years. As Jim begins this well-earned retirement, I extend my deepest gratitude for his dedication to improving our healthcare system and the health of millions of Americans. We owe him our thanks and respect.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Rebecca Redding Briles on over 30 remarkable years of dedicated service to the people of North Carolina.
Rebecca began her public service career with Congressman Bill Cobey before joining Congressman Howard Coble's office in 1995 as a caseworker and community outreach representative. Working in a one- person district office, she managed all constituent requests for the region while serving as a trusted liaison between North Carolinians and the Federal Government. She provided expert assistance on a wide range of issues involving Federal agencies, represented the Congressman at community events throughout North Carolina's Sixth Congressional District, and built lasting relationships with constituents, local leaders, and public officials through her unwavering commitment to public service.
Rebecca continued her dedication to serving North Carolinians in Congresswoman Renee Ellmers' office from 2013 to 2015 as director of constituent services. In this leadership role, she managed operations across two district offices, mentored a team of constituent liaisons, and ensured that constituents received responsive, compassionate, and effective assistance.
In 2015, Rebecca brought that same leadership and steadfast dedication to my office as regional director of constituent advocacy. She has been a trusted resource, providing expert assistance on immigration and U.S. Department of State matters. Her work has helped employers secure critical workforce talent through successful visa coordination, including support for businesses expanding operations in North Carolina. She has also been a tireless advocate for veterans and Social Security beneficiaries.
When a North Carolina family faced severe financial hardship, Rebecca worked tirelessly to expedite the processing of their Social Security benefits. With the family's home on the brink of foreclosure, her persistent advocacy secured the timely release of those benefits, allowing them to remain in their home during a time of great need. This example reflects the compassion, persistence, and effectiveness that have defined Rebecca's work throughout her distinguished career.
Rebecca Redding Briles' lifetime of service to North Carolina stands as a testament to the extraordinary impact one dedicated public servant can make in the lives of others. I congratulate Rebecca on this well- deserved recognition and thank her for her unwavering commitment and compassionate service to the people of the great State of North Carolina.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Susan Rene Collins on her remarkable 23 years of dedicated service to the people of North Carolina.
Rene began her public service career with then-Congressman Richard Burr as a constituent advocate and continued serving alongside him after his election to the U.S. Senate as a senior constituent advocate from 2003 to 2022. Throughout her tenure, she demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the people of North Carolina, assisting thousands of constituents in navigating complex Federal agencies. She also led critical efforts during times of crisis, coordinating the rescue and evacuation of Americans from Lebanon, Peru, and Afghanistan. In addition, she helped North Carolina communities recover from devastating hurricanes by working closely with Federal, State, and local partners to ensure that countless families and individuals received the assistance they needed most.
Continuing her dedication to serving North Carolinians, Rene joined my office as a senior constituent advocate in 2022. She quickly became a trusted resource, providing expert assistance on immigration and U.S. Department of State matters. Her work has helped employers secure critical workforce talent through successful visa coordination, including support for businesses expanding operations in North Carolina and healthcare providers working to address physician shortages. She also continued her commitment to humanitarian service by assisting Afghan Special Immigrant Visa recipients in navigating the relocation process safely, reflecting her steadfast dedication to serving others with professionalism and compassion.
Rene's commitment to public service extends far beyond the ordinary. In one extraordinary case, she worked tirelessly to secure visas for a father and his young son, who had been diagnosed with brain cancer and required lifesaving treatment at Texas Children's Hospital. Not only did she obtain the visas, but she did so in record time, helping ensure the child received the medical care that ultimately saved his life. Her efforts forever changed the lives of that family.
Susan Rene Collins's lifetime of service to North Carolina stands as a testament to the extraordinary impact one dedicated public servant can make in the lives of others. I congratulate Rene on this well- deserved recognition and thank her for her unwavering commitment and compassionate service to the people of the great State of North Carolina.
Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Janine M. Osborne on her remarkable 41 years of dedicated service to the people of North Carolina.
Janine began her public service career as a district representative for Congressman Howard Coble. From 1985 to 2015, she managed constituent requests and served as a trusted liaison between constituents and all levels of government. She provided expert assistance on a broad range of Federal matters, represented the Congressman at public events, and built lasting relationships with constituents and public officials throughout North Carolina's Sixth Congressional District.
Janine continued her commitment to serving North Carolinians in Congressman Mark Walker's office from 2015 to 2021 as director of constituent services. In this role, she demonstrated exceptional leadership by supervising and mentoring a team of constituent liaisons while personally managing nearly half of all constituent cases received by the district office.
In 2021, Janine brought that same leadership and dedication to my office as deputy director of constituent services. She oversaw complex constituent casework, mentored staff, and served as a trusted resource. While carrying these responsibilities, she continued to maintain an active caseload, further strengthening the reputation my State offices have earned for delivering exceptional constituent service.
Janine's commitment to helping North Carolinians extends far beyond the ordinary. One of the most powerful examples of her dedication is her effort to secure the Medal of Honor for U.S. Army Captain Hugh R. Nelson, Jr. Spanning 7 years, this effort began in Congressman Walker's office and culminated in my office, where then-
Janine Osborne's lifetime of service to North Carolina stands as a testament to the extraordinary impact one dedicated public servant can make in the lives of others. I congratulate Janine on this well- deserved recognition and thank her for her unwavering commitment and compassionate service to the people of the great State of North Carolina.
Mr. President, I would like to recognize the accomplishments and service of Becky Pringle as she concludes her final term as the president of the Nation's largest labor union, the National Education Association, NEA. Throughout her tenure, Becky's passion and purpose has united 3 million educators and their allies across the country to use their collective power to fight for the respect and dignity our educators deserve and to protect the promise of public education for all students.
Becky has worked with the national union for more than 30 years. She first joined the NEA in 1981 as an eighth grade science teacher from Philadelphia and began her leadership journey as a local union president. She then served on the board of directors for NEA and the Pennsylvania State Education Association.
During her tenure as NEA president, she helped focus the Nation's attention on how the pandemic impacted our students, schools, teachers, education support professionals, and school leaders. Becky's determination also strengthened the labor movement and expanded worker power, fighting to grow NEA membership at a time when workers and public sector unions are under attack. She has been recognized for her leadership by the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Action Network, American Association of University Women, and President Barack Obama's Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.
Becky understands that public education is the backbone of American democracy, where all people come together to learn and grow. Thank you, President Pringle, for your tireless dedication to our Nation's teachers, students, and school leaders across the country.
Mr. President, as our nation reaches the height of another fire season, it is my honor to pay tribute to our wildland and aerial firefighters.
As we gather in the Senate today, wildland fire crews are working long days in difficult conditions across the country to protect resources, property, and their fellow Americans. As first responders, they don't get to choose when and where they are needed. One phone call can send them hundreds of miles from home for days or even weeks. Operating on the ground and by air, this profession demands endurance, quick thinking, and extraordinary precision to get the job done.
More often than not, success in getting the job done is measured by what never happens: a neighborhood that doesn't burn, a family that doesn't lose everything, a highway that remains open, a town that gets another chance. Those victories rarely make the evening news, but they matter just the same.
With catastrophic wildfires burning in our Nation today, It's worth taking a moment to honor the brave men and women leading our Nation's wildland fire response. They are neighbors, parents, sons, daughters, veterans, and friends. They are ordinary people doing extraordinary work under extraordinary circumstances, and they deserve our recognition and thanks.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Voice for Farm Workers Act, which I introduced today.
Our Nation's farmworkers are the backbone of the U.S. food supply chain. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress created the Farmworker Coordinator position: one person statutorily dedicated to serving as a liaison between the more than 2 million farm workers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately, Congress has never provided the resources necessary to support a position of this magnitude. The time to fix this injustice is now.
The 2023 U.S. Department of Agriculture Equity Commission Interim Report included a strong recommendation for the USDA to fund and elevate roles for professional staff solely dedicated to farm workers' concerns and perspectives.
That is why I am introducing this bill to expand and strengthen the Coordinator position to carry out the responsibilities necessary to better meet the needs of our farmworkers. This bill would also support increased collaboration within the Department, with farmworkers, and with relevant stakeholders to create recommendations for new initiatives and programs to support farmworkers.
As we negotiate a new farm bill, I urge my colleagues to prioritize and support the workers that ensure our families and loved ones remain fed and healthy. Farmworkers' voices must be and deserve to be heard.
S. 5303. A bill to amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to establish the Office of the Farm and Food System Workforce; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Supporting Our Farm and Food System Workforce Act, which I introduced today.
Farm and food system workers feed our Nation, We know this well in California--the agricultural heart of the Nation--where we have one of the largest populations of farmworkers and food system workers in the United States. Throughout pandemic, these workers put food on our tables and kept our grocery store shelves stocked despite facing deep- rooted inequities in the workforce and often experiencing food insecurity themselves.
Right now, just one person in the Federal Government is statutorily dedicated to serving as a liaison between farm workers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture--the Farmworker Coordinator. While the 2008 farm bill created this position, Congress has never provided the proper resources to support or staff this position. The 2023 U.S. Department of Agriculture Equity Commission Interim Report included a strong recommendation for the USDA to fund and elevate roles for professional staff solely dedicated to farmworkers' concerns and perspectives.
It is time that we give those who provide the food for our Nation a voice in the national conversation. We must give farm and food system workers a dedicated office within the USDA to integrate their invaluable perspectives into the decisions that directly affect their lives and livelihoods.
That is why I am proud to introduce this bill, which would create the USDA Office of the Farm and Food System Workforce to not only serve as a liaison for farm and food system workers but also to provide a platform for their concerns and interests to assist in the creation of recommendations and new initiatives for the Department.
The bill would also create a Farm and Food System Worker Advisory Committee, composed of a diverse cross-section of members representing these workers' varied interests and perspectives--such as workers themselves, labor unions, higher education professionals, civil rights advocates, women worker-focused groups, and trusted community-based non-profits.
The legislation would also establish a Farm and Food System Workforce Interagency Council, comprised of representatives from various Federal Agencies to improve coordination, planning, program development, and policymaking across Cabinet-level leadership. The Office would also appoint staff to various USDA entities to serve as liaisons on matters related to farm and food system workers within the Department.
Finally, the bill would require annual, publicly available reports, in multiple languages, about the Office's work, including recommendations to improve the work and livelihood of farm and food system workers, the climate change impacts on the food system, and the barriers workers face to accessing Federal programs.
During this year's farm bill negotiations, I urge my colleagues to remember the workers behind the American food system, the workers who keep our families and communities fed and healthy. These workers deserve a seat at the table.
S. 5304. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide increased labor law protections for agricultural workers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Fairness for Farm Workers Act, which I am reintroducing today.
Farmworkers feed our Nation. This is especially true in California-- the agricultural heart of the Nation. California is the most successful State in agricultural production and has the largest population of farmworkers. In fact, nearly half of the country's vegetables and over three-quarters of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California.
Farmworkers put food on the tables of millions of Americans despite working through extreme weather conditions, injuries, disasters, pandemics, and more. Yet farmworkers have been unjustly excluded from labor laws. The time to address these inequities is now.
While the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established Federal standards for minimum wage and overtime pay, the law excluded millions of domestic and agricultural workers--workers who were and remain overwhelmingly people of color. In 2016, California recognized the need to provide farmworkers overtime protection. The California overtime law, which ensures farmworkers will have an equal right to overtime pay, serves as the model for this Federal bill.
Farmworkers in California and across the Nation deserve an end to discrimination in labor laws. We must undo the discriminatory exclusion of farmworkers by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act.
That is why I am proud to introduce this bill, which would improve the lives of farmworkers and their families, create equity in our food system, and benefit farming communities as the increased wages are spent in local businesses.
This bill will gradually implement overtime pay over the course of 4 years and bring greater equity to the American agricultural industry and greater prosperity to historically marginalized workers.
I want to thank Congresswoman Grijalva for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to provide a measure of long-overdue fairness for our Nation's farmworkers.
S. 5309. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide payments for alternative manure management practices under the environmental quality incentives program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act. This legislation will help dairy and livestock producers reduce methane emissions, improve air and water quality, and implement more sustainable alternative manure management practices.
As the leading dairy State in the country and the second in cheese production, California is the largest producer of milk, butter, and cheeses like mozzarella, Monterey Jack, and queso fresco. Dairy operations contribute billions to California's economy but are also a significant source of California's methane emissions.
Recognizing the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions like methane, California and the dairy industry are working to reduce dairy methane emissions by 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, largely due to the successes of California's own Alternative Manure Management Program, AMMP.
The COWS Act would allow alternative manure management practices to be eligible under USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to help dairy and livestock producers transition towards pasture- based management, alternative treatment and storage practices, solid separation systems, and scrape technologies.
These practices, which have proven to be effective through the AMMP, will provide more resources for the dairy and livestock industry to modernize technologies for manure management that help boost profitability, improve water quality, and reduce methane and nitrogen oxide emissions.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural operations is critical for addressing the climate crisis. Because of the high construction and operation costs associated with anaerobic digesters, nondigester manure management practices can provide a more cost- effective alternative for family dairy and livestock operators seeking to improve air and water quality for their communities.
I would like to thank Congressman Costa for leading this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the COWS Act.
S. 5320. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit certain securities trading and related communications by those who possess material, nonpublic information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.
Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''
Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock.
I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage.
But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.
Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute's name, did not define `insider trading' because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.''
Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''
Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''
State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''
This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.
Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.
By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.
I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.
S. 5323. A bill to designate a building of the Chancery of the United States in Pristina, Kosovo, as the ``Eliot L. Engel Building''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 5352. A bill to amend the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act and the Water Desalination Act of 1996 to reauthorize certain desalination programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Voice for Farm Workers Act, which I introduced today.
Our Nation's farmworkers are the backbone of the U.S. food supply chain. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress created the Farmworker Coordinator position: one person statutorily dedicated to serving as a liaison between the more than 2 million farm workers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately, Congress has never provided the resources necessary to support a position of this magnitude. The time to fix this injustice is now.
The 2023 U.S. Department of Agriculture Equity Commission Interim Report included a strong recommendation for the USDA to fund and elevate roles for professional staff solely dedicated to farm workers' concerns and perspectives.
That is why I am introducing this bill to expand and strengthen the Coordinator position to carry out the responsibilities necessary to better meet the needs of our farmworkers. This bill would also support increased collaboration within the Department, with farmworkers, and with relevant stakeholders to create recommendations for new initiatives and programs to support farmworkers.
As we negotiate a new farm bill, I urge my colleagues to prioritize and support the workers that ensure our families and loved ones remain fed and healthy. Farmworkers' voices must be and deserve to be heard.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Supporting Our Farm and Food System Workforce Act, which I introduced today.
Farm and food system workers feed our Nation, We know this well in California--the agricultural heart of the Nation--where we have one of the largest populations of farmworkers and food system workers in the United States. Throughout pandemic, these workers put food on our tables and kept our grocery store shelves stocked despite facing deep- rooted inequities in the workforce and often experiencing food insecurity themselves.
Right now, just one person in the Federal Government is statutorily dedicated to serving as a liaison between farm workers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture--the Farmworker Coordinator. While the 2008 farm bill created this position, Congress has never provided the proper resources to support or staff this position. The 2023 U.S. Department of Agriculture Equity Commission Interim Report included a strong recommendation for the USDA to fund and elevate roles for professional staff solely dedicated to farmworkers' concerns and perspectives.
It is time that we give those who provide the food for our Nation a voice in the national conversation. We must give farm and food system workers a dedicated office within the USDA to integrate their invaluable perspectives into the decisions that directly affect their lives and livelihoods.
That is why I am proud to introduce this bill, which would create the USDA Office of the Farm and Food System Workforce to not only serve as a liaison for farm and food system workers but also to provide a platform for their concerns and interests to assist in the creation of recommendations and new initiatives for the Department.
The bill would also create a Farm and Food System Worker Advisory Committee, composed of a diverse cross-section of members representing these workers' varied interests and perspectives--such as workers themselves, labor unions, higher education professionals, civil rights advocates, women worker-focused groups, and trusted community-based non-profits.
The legislation would also establish a Farm and Food System Workforce Interagency Council, comprised of representatives from various Federal Agencies to improve coordination, planning, program development, and policymaking across Cabinet-level leadership. The Office would also appoint staff to various USDA entities to serve as liaisons on matters related to farm and food system workers within the Department.
Finally, the bill would require annual, publicly available reports, in multiple languages, about the Office's work, including recommendations to improve the work and livelihood of farm and food system workers, the climate change impacts on the food system, and the barriers workers face to accessing Federal programs.
During this year's farm bill negotiations, I urge my colleagues to remember the workers behind the American food system, the workers who keep our families and communities fed and healthy. These workers deserve a seat at the table.
Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Fairness for Farm Workers Act, which I am reintroducing today.
Farmworkers feed our Nation. This is especially true in California-- the agricultural heart of the Nation. California is the most successful State in agricultural production and has the largest population of farmworkers. In fact, nearly half of the country's vegetables and over three-quarters of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California.
Farmworkers put food on the tables of millions of Americans despite working through extreme weather conditions, injuries, disasters, pandemics, and more. Yet farmworkers have been unjustly excluded from labor laws. The time to address these inequities is now.
While the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established Federal standards for minimum wage and overtime pay, the law excluded millions of domestic and agricultural workers--workers who were and remain overwhelmingly people of color. In 2016, California recognized the need to provide farmworkers overtime protection. The California overtime law, which ensures farmworkers will have an equal right to overtime pay, serves as the model for this Federal bill.
Farmworkers in California and across the Nation deserve an end to discrimination in labor laws. We must undo the discriminatory exclusion of farmworkers by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act.
That is why I am proud to introduce this bill, which would improve the lives of farmworkers and their families, create equity in our food system, and benefit farming communities as the increased wages are spent in local businesses.
This bill will gradually implement overtime pay over the course of 4 years and bring greater equity to the American agricultural industry and greater prosperity to historically marginalized workers.
I want to thank Congresswoman Grijalva for introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us to provide a measure of long-overdue fairness for our Nation's farmworkers.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Converting Our Waste Sustainably (COWS) Act. This legislation will help dairy and livestock producers reduce methane emissions, improve air and water quality, and implement more sustainable alternative manure management practices.
As the leading dairy State in the country and the second in cheese production, California is the largest producer of milk, butter, and cheeses like mozzarella, Monterey Jack, and queso fresco. Dairy operations contribute billions to California's economy but are also a significant source of California's methane emissions.
Recognizing the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions like methane, California and the dairy industry are working to reduce dairy methane emissions by 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, largely due to the successes of California's own Alternative Manure Management Program, AMMP.
The COWS Act would allow alternative manure management practices to be eligible under USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to help dairy and livestock producers transition towards pasture- based management, alternative treatment and storage practices, solid separation systems, and scrape technologies.
These practices, which have proven to be effective through the AMMP, will provide more resources for the dairy and livestock industry to modernize technologies for manure management that help boost profitability, improve water quality, and reduce methane and nitrogen oxide emissions.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural operations is critical for addressing the climate crisis. Because of the high construction and operation costs associated with anaerobic digesters, nondigester manure management practices can provide a more cost- effective alternative for family dairy and livestock operators seeking to improve air and water quality for their communities.
I would like to thank Congressman Costa for leading this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the COWS Act.
Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Van Hollen, Kim, Alsobrooks, and Blunt Rochester in introducing the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, a bill that will finally define the offense of insider trading. This legislation is desperately needed because in the absence of a statutory definition, the courts have cobbled together a dizzying array of interpretations of anti-fraud statutes, creating what is an inconsistent and complicated body of common law for deciding insider trading cases. What should be simple has become unnecessarily complex.
Indeed, Judge Jed Rakoff, who has presided over many insider trading cases before the Southern District of New York, wrote in a recent opinion that ``the crime of insider trading is a straightforward concept that some courts have somehow managed to complicate.''
Consider the following hypothetical example. A financial analyst receives information about XYZ Corporation's earnings from a company insider, like an executive or board member, before this information is publicly released. The analyst then shares this inside information with her portfolio manager, who subsequently trades in XYZ stock.
I suspect most Americans would agree that the portfolio manager was given an unfair advantage.
But the courts are not so sure. They have left an open question whether this very trade would constitute illegal insider trading. Experts agree that this kind of judicial uncertainty is one reason among many of why Congress must clarify the law of insider trading.
Current SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in response to questions for the record that ``following several high-profile insider trading cases, in 1988 Congress adopted the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act, but despite the statute's name, did not define `insider trading' because of lack of consensus of how to define it. Almost four decades later, the situation is even muddier as courts have applied the concept to various fact patterns.''
Former SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have written that ``[t]he shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules.''
Columbia Law School Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., noted that ``there is general agreement today that the law of insider trading has grown overly complex and technical. As a result, it is hard for the public to understand its logic or for practitioners to give advice with respect to the scope of the prohibition. Moreover, to the extent that insider trading is judge-made law, disparities and inconsistencies among the U.S. circuit courts becomes inevitable because there is little in the way of a definitive statutory text to provide precise guidance.''
State regulators agree too. For example, Maryland Commissioner of Securities Melanie Senter Lubin has stated on behalf of the North American Securities Administrators Association that ``defining the standards for insider trading liability by statute would add greater clarity and consistency to this important area of the law.''
This is precisely what my colleagues and I are doing in our bill. We are seeking to finally distill the offense of insider trading to clear bright line rules. Simply put, if a person trades a security on the basis of information that the person is aware is material and nonpublic and is aware was wrongfully obtained, then that person has engaged in unlawful insider trading.
Under our legislation, insider trading would be prohibited if a trader knows or has reason to know that her information was wrongfully obtained, for example, through theft, bribery, hacking, misappropriation, or a breach of a fiduciary duty for a personal benefit. We do not intend to restrict those who take the time to independently develop their own information from publicly available sources from trading on the independently developed information.
By cracking down on those who rig securities markets to favor the well connected, our legislation provides everyday investors with a fair shot at seeing some returns after investing their hard-earned savings. Incidents of insider trading and the perceived pervasiveness of the practice have for years served to validate the public's worst assumptions about Wall Street culture. It is time we clearly define what is appropriate under the law and take this meaningful step towards improving the integrity of our securities markets for professional traders and retail investors alike.
I would like to thank my Banking Committee colleagues for working with me on this legislation, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting the Insider Trading Prohibition Act.
Mr. President, I have four 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 6, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 6, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 6, 2026, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m. on Friday, the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to consideration of H.R. 5334; further, that the only amendments in order be the following to be offered by the sponsor or their designee and with 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote and up to 5 minutes under the control of Senator Graham prior to the vote on passage: Graham-Blumenthal No. 6711, Graham No. 6712, and Paul No. 6715; further, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the Paul amendment, if offered, and upon disposition of the Paul amendment, the Graham-Blumenthal amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; finally, if passed, the Graham amendment to title No. 6712 be agreed to; that the title, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; further, following disposition of H.R. 5334, the Senate resume executive session and vote on confirmation of the nominations en bloc; finally, that the cloture motion with respect to amendment No. 6732 to H.R. 6500 ripen following disposition of the nominations en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions which are at the desk: S. Res. 836, S. Res. 837, S. Res. 838, S. Res. 839, and S. Res 840.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for evidence related to an investigation of an individual who made a threat against Senator Elizabeth Warren in a communication sent to the Senator's office. The U.S. attorney's office investigating the matter is seeking employee testimony from Senator Warren's office for use in its investigation and in any future legal proceedings arising in this matter. The Senator would like to cooperate with this request by providing relevant employee testimony from her office.
This resolution would authorize employees in the office of Senator Warren to provide relevant testimony in this investigation and any future legal proceedings in this matter, with representation by the Senate legal counsel.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Friday, August 7; 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 notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the nominations en bloc pursuant to S. Res. 817 postcloture; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to legislative session and execute the order in relation to H.R. 5334; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Friday's session of the Senate, that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
