Senate
Page S2343 · Official textThe Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley).
Tuesday, May 19, 2026
Vol. 172, No. 85 · 119th Congress, 2nd session
Prayer
Page S2343 · Official textThe Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer: Let us pray. Sovereign Lord, through all the generations, You have been our refuge and strength. You are without beginning or ending. Lord, how fleeting are life's seasons. We disappear like grass that springs up in the morning but, by evening, has begun to wither. Guide our lawmakers as they seek to confront the problems of our time with Your solutions. Lord, give them stability and serenity as they strive to accomplish Your purposes. Help them to see their legislative work as a divine calling and mission. And, Lord, bring peace to our troubled world. We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.
Pledge of Allegiance
Page S2343 · Official textThe President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (174 characters)
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Reservation of Leader Time
Page S2343 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong)
Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.
Conclusion of Morning Business
Page S2343 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
Morning business is closed.
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)
Page S2343 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Iowa.
Foster Care (Executive Session)
Pages S2343–S2344 · Official textMr. President, you might wonder how this Senator from Iowa gets involved in issues of foster youth.
Thirty years ago, I hired a staffer from Urbandale, IA, by the name of Sarah Gesiriech. Sarah now works for the First Lady in the White House on this issue of foster care.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S2343, May 19, 2026, second column, the following appears: Thirty years ago, I hired a staffer from Urbandale, IA, by the name of Sara Gesiriech. Sara now works for the First Lady in the White House on this issue of foster care.
The online Record has been corrected to read: Thirty years ago, I hired a staffer from Urbandale, IA, by the name of Sarah Gesiriech. Sarah now works for the First Lady in the White House on this issue of foster care.
========================= END NOTE =========================
She was hired by me to work on banking and education issues, but she came to me 1 day and said: I was adopted by my parents, and there are a
lot of things wrong with the foster care system in the United States.S o she said to me: Do you care if I work on that issue as well as the other issues you hired me to work on?
So that is the story behind my being involved with foster care issues.
You learn to listen to these kids who go from home to home maybe three times a year and change schools three times a year. If you listen to them, they say: I would like to have a mom and dad. I would like to have a permanent home. And that touches your heart.
The need to support children in America who want a mom and dad is more important now than it was even 30 years ago.
In 2025, there was an increase in the number of children who entered and were in foster care compared to 2024. Now, that increase is not the case in each and every State. For example, in Iowa, there was a slight decrease in the number of children in foster care from 2024 to 2025, demonstrating Iowa's success in supporting children and families.
At the Federal level, I am committed to exploring policy solutions that improve long-term outcomes for children in foster care. So the bill that I am introducing--the bipartisan bill that goes by the title of Recruiting Families Using Data Act--modifies decades-old Federal requirements and empowers States to develop family partnership plans that incorporate best practices with quality data. By integrating quality data and best practices, States are better equipped to address the needs of children in their care.
Today, I am releasing the discussion draft of legislation to support older youth in foster care. I do that by providing an opportunity for States to expand on services that help these young people achieve independence.
My draft legislation would also require the Government Accountability Office to study the funding formulas used to allocate Federal funds to States as part of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood. That is a long name for a program written 25 or 30 years ago by former Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, who was also very much interested in this issue.
In January of 2025, the Government Accountability Office published a report that studied how States use the Chafee program to support older foster youth who are transitioning out of foster care, which is natural when they reach a certain age. Sometimes it is 18. Sometimes it might be a little bit older. Aging out of foster care is a traumatic time for these kids.
I asked for this report after it was brought to my attention that Chafee dollars were being returned while also hearing that not all eligible youth were being served by the program. As a cofounder and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I continually hear of the challenges that foster youth face as they approach adulthood and how they can be better supported.
By the way, I would like to thank Senator Lujan of New Mexico for his cochairing this committee with me; so it is a very bipartisan effort.
Now, after getting this report, I look forward to getting feedback on how Federal programs can encourage foster youth to achieve self-sufficiency. We have a responsibility to protect children and their well-being.
As we recognize the month of May as being National Foster Care Month, it is my hope that we can continue to find solutions to see that every child has the chance to build a bright future and an opportunity for permanent and loving homes.
I want to congratulate First Lady Trump for her efforts in this area and in her recently holding a hearing in the House of Representatives on this issue.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader (Executive Session)
Page S2344 · Official textThe majority leader is recognized.
Trump Administration (Executive Session)
Pages S2344–S2345 · Official textMr. President, yesterday marked 500 days of the Republican majority here in the U.S. Senate, and what a busy 500 days it has been. We have taken close to 800 votes since last January, confirmed just under 500 nominees to posts across the Federal Government and judiciary, and we have passed bills out of the Senate and into law to make life better for the American people.
When Republicans took over last year, we set out to address cost-of-living issues and put more money in Americans' pockets. We lifted costly Biden-era regulations, from rules that would have driven up the cost of household appliances to rules that would have forced Americans into expensive electric vehicles.
At the start of this year, we took action to drive down the cost of prescription drugs at the pharmacy counter. In March, the Senate passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act--a bill that cuts redtape that has prevented the construction of new housing and kept too many Americans waiting to realize the American dream of home ownership. I am proud of the broad bipartisan support this bill received here in the Senate, and I hope these commonsense reforms will make it to the President's desk in short order.
Lifting costly regulations and taking action to lower the cost of prescriptions and housing are significant actions, but what I consider to be the most consequential action not just of this majority but of my entire time in the Senate is the Working Families Tax Cut. And I say "most consequential" because of the permanent tax relief Republicans delivered in this bill--tax relief that puts more money in hard-working Americans' pockets. That was the centerpiece of this bill, and a whole lot of Americans saw that last month when they filed their tax returns and saw a significantly higher refund.
Hard-working Americans were able to take advantage of permanently lower tax rates, an increased standard deduction, and the 2,200 child tax credit. Six million workers deducted income from tips, 25 million workers took advantage of no tax on overtime, and 30 million seniors were able to reduce their tax burden with the $6,000 senior deduction created by this bill.
The Working Families Tax Cut lets hard-working people keep more of their hard-earned money. It also strengthens America's small businesses and family farms and ranches. Lower tax rates and the 199A small business deduction free up money for them to invest in their operations and their employees. Investment incentives like 100 percent bonus depreciation and immediate research and development expensing help them upgrade and innovate. And a lot of family business owners, farmers, and ranchers breathe a sigh of relief when this bill passed because it protects them from a potentially devastating death tax bill, not to mention the costly estate planning expenses that come along with this tax.
These measures are part of Republicans' focus on strengthening America's economy. An important part of that is strengthening our agriculture economy. America's farms and ranches have faced some serious headwinds lately. Higher input costs, depressed commodity prices, higher interest rates, and natural disasters and disease are just some of the challenges ag producers have faced in recent years. So Republicans set out to deliver some much needed relief to the ag sector.
In the Working Families Tax Cut, we made lasting reforms to strengthen the farm safety net. Thanks to this bill, reference prices for commodity programs more closely reflect the actual market conditions farmers are dealing with. We bolstered crop insurance, and we improved the Livestock Indemnity Program and Livestock Forage Disaster Program to help ranchers and other livestock producers through challenging times. But we still have more to do to strengthen the agricultural economy. Senators Boozman and Hoeven are working on a farm relief package to address the challenges facing farmers right now.
Allowing the year-round sale of E15 fuel is another priority. Year-round E15 is something that helps not only the ag economy but the overall economy by reducing fuel costs and allowing for more homegrown energy. The House has passed a bill to allow year-round E15, and we will be having discussions on how to accomplish that goal in the Senate in the near future.
Republicans have also made it a priority to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. The Working Families Tax Cut included a number of reforms to focus Federal dollars on those most in need, guard against the abuse of taxpayer funds, and hold States accountable for the Federal funding they receive.
New measures in the law prevent noncitizens from receiving Federal healthcare and nutrition benefits and refocus those programs on serving American citizens. The law requires States to be good stewards of Federal programs like Medicaid and nutrition assistance, and it takes aim at duplicative enrollment in Federal healthcare programs, which CMS estimates costs taxpayers as much as $14 billion per year.
Earlier this year, President Trump signed into law Senator Kennedy's bill that helped prevent the payment of Federal benefits to deceased individuals. And after revelations of widespread fraud in the State of Minnesota at the end of last year, we confirmed the first-ever Assistant Attorney General for National Fraud Enforcement.
Then there are our actions to ensure Washington is a better steward of taxpayer dollars. The Working Families Tax Cut prevented Americans' tax dollars from funding big abortion providers for 1 year. Last summer, Republicans passed a rescissions package that targeted funding that had gone to some egregious misuses of taxpayer dollars, like a pride parade in Lesotho and promoting vegan food in Zambia. We continue to work to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted.
I said at the outset of this Congress that I wanted to restore regular-order consideration of appropriation bills, and we were largely able to accomplish that goal, even after Democrats tried to derail the process with the longest government shutdown in history this past fall.
This year, we were able to pass 11 of the 12 full appropriations bills into law, and many of those bills actually spent less money than if we had just put spending on autopilot through a continuing resolution.
The only reason we haven't passed 12 out of 12 full appropriations bills this year is that Democrat colleagues apparently don't believe in securing our Nation's borders. Their refusal to provide even a dollar for the Border Patrol in this year's DHS funding bill is ample evidence of that.
Republicans most certainly believe in border security. In fact, addressing the dangerous situation at our southern border was one of our top priorities when we took over last year. The first bill we passed was the Laken Riley Act to ensure that illegal immigrants who committed certain crimes are not allowed back on our streets. We passed the HALT Fentanyl Act to give law enforcement the tools it needs to go after this deadly poison, much of which flows across our southern border.
The Working Families Tax Cut made a generational investment in border security, and we are seeing the results of that investment and the Trump administration's actions at the border. Encounters at our southern border have dropped dramatically. For the past 12 months, not a single illegal immigrant has been released into the United States.
Democrats are clearly trying to undo that progress, but Republicans won't let that happen. As soon as this week, we will take up a bill to fully fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the remainder of the Trump administration and ensure the Democrats cannot put our Nation's security in jeopardy by defunding law enforcement.
I mentioned earlier that we have confirmed almost 500 civilian nominees since last January, and that has been in the face of a historic--historic--level of obstruction from Democrats. After months and months of unprecedented Democrat obstruction, last year, Republicans took action to restore the Senate's tradition of confirming largely noncontroversial nominees in batches. Last night, we confirmed the fourth package of Trump nominees and effectively eliminated the backlog of nominees awaiting confirmation.
Speaking of Democrat obstruction, Democrats have also blocked several pieces of commonsense legislation here in the Senate. They blocked Senator Tuberville's Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would have simply prevented biological men from competing in women's sports. They blocked Senator Lankford's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that babies who survive abortion are given the same level of care as babies born at the same gestational age. Democrats wouldn't even let us debate these bills--I have to imagine because their position is completely indefensible.
Then, just recently, Democrats blocked the SAVE America Act. We had a robust debate on this bill for several weeks. Republicans gave Democrats opportunities to support the whole bill, and we had standalone votes on some of the individual and very commonsense components of the bill: requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, requiring a photo ID to vote, protecting children from gender transition surgeries, keeping biological men out of women's sports. Democrats are on the record against all of it, and we will be sure the American people know that Democrats are blocking commonsense policies that have broad support from the American people.
I have mentioned a number of accomplishments this morning, but there is more work to be done. Last week, the Banking Committee advanced the CLARITY Act--a market structure bill for cryptocurrencies that builds on the GENIUS Act that became law last year and which was the first-ever crypto bill passed into law.
I expect the Senate will also take action on an artificial intelligence bill this year that builds on the AI framework the White House has put out. Legislation dealing with name, image, and likeness in college athletics is also on the agenda, as is legislation ensuring continued funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
In the near term, we will also need to extend FISA and ensure that this critical national security program does not go dark. We will soon begin work on the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which will continue Republicans' efforts to modernize America's military, and, of course, we will continue to prioritize efforts to make life easier for hard-working Americans.
Mr. President, 500 days ago, Republicans had a long to-do list. We have checked a lot of things off, but we still have more to do, and we are not about to take our foot off the gas.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader (Executive Session)
Page S2345 · Official textThe Democratic leader is recognized.
Trump Administration (Executive Session)
Page S2345 · Official textMr. President, Donald Trump looks at the Federal Government and sees one thing: a cash register full of Americans' money--and he keeps trying to ring himself up.
Nearly $2 billion for his MAGA slush fund, a billion more for his gilded ballroom, and not one serious plan to lower costs for families forced to pay the bill.
This week, Trump showed us again exactly what his Presidency is about: not helping Americans, not lowering costs, not making life easier for working families; but finding new ways to turn taxpayer dollars into political payouts, personal perks, and vanity projects.
Just look at this nearly $2 billion slush fund. Just look at it. It is enough to make you cringe.
Trump settled with himself in his own lawsuit against his own government to funnel taxpayer money to his political allies, January 6 insurrectionists, and far-right loyalists.
Let me say that again: Donald Trump settled with himself in his own lawsuit--have you ever heard of something like this?--against his own government to take taxpayer dollars to his political allies, stuff it in their pockets, and, for all we know, his pocket.
Trump didn't bother making a deal with the Devil. He just made a deal with himself to set up this MAGA slush fund.
That is not justice. That is not law and order. That is corruption--corruption in broad daylight--no disguise, no shame, no attempt to hide it.
And this is the through line of the Trump Presidency: If there is taxpayer money on the table, Donald Trump wants a big cut of it.
Trump wants to fill his coffers. That is why he created this MAGA slush fund. That is why he keeps demanding taxpayers bankroll his billion-dollar ballroom, and it is why his family business always seems to be lurking around the business of government.
Americans are working harder than ever just to make ends meet, while Donald Trump schemes to turn their tax dollars into personal payouts and vanity projects.
And where--where--are the Republicans, here in the Senate and elsewhere? Are they going to stand up for the taxpayer, or are they so afraid of Donald Trump that they will let him raid the Treasury in broad daylight?
The American people are watching, and they will remember who fought to lower their costs and who helped Donald Trump line his pockets.
Reconciliation (Executive Session)
Pages S2345–S2346 · Official textMr. President, that brings me to the Republicans' reconciliation bill. While Americans are getting crushed by the cost of rent, groceries, gas, healthcare, and childcare, Senate Republicans have spent their time trying to salvage a plan to force taxpayers to fund Donald Trump's gilded ballroom. Democrats stopped Republicans' first attempt. Now, Republicans have a choice. Republicans can drop this ballroom boondoggle because Democrats exposed it and the public saw it for exactly what it was, or Republicans can keep this boondoggle in the bill. Either way, Democrats will make sure they will have a chance to vote on it on the Senate floor. Republicans do not--do not--get to hide from this. Americans can barely afford to keep a roof over their own heads. They should not be forced to pay for a golden roof over Trump's head. And, to be very clear, I don't care if the Republicans ask for a billion dollars, a million dollars, or a single dollar. Every penny of taxpayer money for Donald Trump's vanity project is a penny too much, and Senate Democrats will fight to make sure not one penny of Americans' money is used for it. The ballroom is the perfect symbol of this Republican budget bill: Republicans focused on all the wrong things. This bill still pours tens of billions of dollars into Trump's masked agents, uncontrolled raids, and unaccountable police forces. The Republican bill still does nothing--nothing--to lower grocery costs, lower rent, lower gas prices, lower healthcare costs. That is the contrast: Democrats fighting to lower costs, Republicans fighting to launder Trump's corruption through the Federal budget. So let Republicans rewrite the text. Let them change the number. Let them try to hide the ballroom after they got caught. The truth will not change. Donald Trump sees Americans' money as his money. He somehow thinks he is entitled to reach into the average American family's pockets, take the money out of their pockets, and put it in his own. It is incredible. Republicans are writing the check. Democrats are saying: Hell no.
Iran (Executive Session)
Page S2346 · Official textMr. President, on Iran, yesterday, Donald Trump once again displayed the vicious cycle he has trapped America in with his disastrous war in Iran. Within hours, he went from threatening to blow Iran into oblivion to saying that a peace deal was imminent. This he does within 6 hours of one another. Can anyone believe this guy? Whether you are a world leader, an American citizen, or anything in between, can you believe him? He keeps making it up. He doesn't care about the truth. And what is worse is, he thinks you don't care about the truth--that he can lie, lie, lie. First--first--he threatens to blow Iran into smithereens, and 6 hours later, he says a peace deal is imminent. We know it is bull. Everyone knows it is bull. But maybe people don't realize the consequences of that bull--how disastrous this war is and how it turns America's attention, or at least Trump's attention and his followers' attention, to this disastrous war, rather than lowering their costs. We have seen Trump follow the same pattern in Iran again and again. Trump threatens, Trump retreats, then threatens again--rinse and repeat. That is what he does. Trump is practicing "Groundhog Day" diplomacy, smashing the clock over and over again like Bill Murray does in the movie. Trump is no closer to ending this war, no closer to bringing down the skyrocketing costs of this war, no closer to getting our troops out of harm's way. Senate Republicans must not continue to allow Trump to remain stuck in this never-ending loop of threats and failed negotiations. I urge Senate Republicans to support Democrats' War Powers Resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with Iran, which we are bringing to the floor for an eighth vote--an eighth vote--later today. Republicans, instead of perpetuating Trump's reckless cycle, could help break it by supporting our War Powers Act to end the war. That would be doing what the American people need and want.
Center for American Progress (Executive Session)
Page S2346 · Official textMr. President, on a speech I am giving at the Center for American Progress on election protection: Later today, I will speak at the Center for American Progress' IDEAS Conference to detail Democrats' plans to protect our elections from MAGA interference. Donald Trump is escalating his attacks on our elections because he knows his agenda is unpopular. He knows he is going to lose the elections, and so he wants to throw the election, to cheat. Senate Democrats are not waiting until after the damage is done. I am launching Senate Democrats' election protection task force to prevent, monitor, and challenge any malfeasance from Donald Trump and the far right before, during, and after our elections in November. Our task force is bringing together 11 Senators and some of the sharpest election experts in the country--people like Marc Elias, Eric Holder, Vanita Gupta, Norm Eisen, Skye Perryman, and others--as well as a variety of election protection organizations to safeguard our democracy. I am looking forward to detailing some of our task force's upcoming plans, and I encourage everyone to tune in.
San Diego Shooting (Executive Session)
Page S2346 · Official textMr. President, finally, on the San Diego mosque shooting, I speak for the entire Senate when I say that we are praying for the families of the victims of yesterday's heinous mass shooting which killed three people at the Islamic Center of San Diego, the city's largest mosque. One of the victims was a security guard and father of eight, Amin Abdullah, who was killed while preventing the gunman from entering the building. His heroic actions surely saved many lives, and we will always owe him and his family a debt of gratitude. In recent years, mosques, synagogues, churches, and other places of worship have increasingly become targets of discriminatory attacks. We each have a responsibility to condemn the type of Islamophobia we saw in San Diego yesterday, just as we have a duty to stamp out all forms of prejudice and bigotry in our society. No one--no one--in America should have to live in fear of hate crimes or gun violence, but so many do, and that is so, so wrong. Many of us live in fear in our places of worship, in our streets, in the grocery aisle, and we must stop this. Congress needs to come together to combat hate and to pass commonsense gun reforms to prevent violent individuals from acting on that hate with such deadly efficiency. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The majority whip.
Waiving Quorum Call (Executive Session)
Page S2346 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Clarke nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
SECURE America Act (Executive Session)
Pages S2346–S2347 · Official textMr. President, since January, Democrats have refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement; they have refused to fund U.S. Border Patrol. Month after month after month, Democrats have tried to defund law enforcement in America. When illegal immigrant criminals roam freely, our communities are less safe.
The Biden administration tried an open borders approach. From Fairfax County, VA, to San Francisco, CA, Democrats' sanctuary cities all across America continue this dangerous and deadly experiment. Consider the families of Laken Riley, Stephanie Minter, and Sheridan Gorman. These families are mourning the tragic loss of their loved ones, each murdered by an illegal immigrant criminal.
It is time for Congress to fully fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE and Border Patrol keep our communities safe. They protect our country at great risk to themselves personally. The work they do is important, it is urgent, and it is necessary. And the results are undeniable. For the last 12 months, absolutely zero illegal immigrants have been released into our communities through the Biden catch-and-release program.
Republicans are going to make sure that our Border Patrol is fully funded--all of it. This week, the Senate will vote on the SECURE America Act. The SECURE America Act will keep our Nation strong, and it will keep our communities safe. The SECURE America Act funds ICE and Border Patrol. It does it for 3 full years. It builds on the border security successes of the Laken Riley Act, the HALT Fentanyl Act, and the Working Families Tax Cut law. Most importantly, the SECURE America Act guarantees Democrats cannot defund American security during the administration of President Trump.
The SECURE America Act also improves training for Secret Service agents. This prepares agents to counter the evolving threats that we face. It safeguards major national events and every American who attends them. This weekend is the Indianapolis 500. The World Cup is coming up. The 2028 Olympic Games are right around the corner. Americans from coast to coast will be safer when the SECURE America Act becomes law.
Every single Democrat here in the Senate opposes the SECURE America Act. Senator Schumer vowed to fight it. He said he would use "every tool in our arsenal." Why is he saying this? Because Democrats believe in open borders. They are the party of open borders. They are the party of "defund the police."
Democrats' outright opposition to protecting the American people contrasts sharply with their own personal demands, which is opposite of what they want for the American people. Democrats are demanding more personal security for themselves but not for the American people.
Following the murder of a State representative last year, Senator Schumer complained and said:
Text printed in the Record (556 characters)
[W]e need more protection. We need more money.
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut warned that limited resources, he said, "should not be the reason why an assassination of a member of Congress is successful."
Do you know the amount of money that Democrats have demanded? One
billion dollars. One billion dollars to protect themselves, but they vote against protecting our communities. It is wrong. Democrats are much more supportive of protecting themselves and illegal immigrant criminals than they are of protecting the citizens of this great Nation.
The message from the Democrats is this: Our Nation's safety and security doesn't matter.
My message is this: The safety and security of our citizens and our communities should be the No. 1 priority of everyone serving in the U.S. Senate.
Republicans are going to stand up to protect American citizens. We will pass the SECURE America Act, and we will continue to keep American communities safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy)
The minority whip.
Reconciliation (Executive Session)
Pages S2347–S2348 · Official textMr. President, if you follow the U.S. Senate priority agenda, you are realizing at this moment in time, we are in the midst of a national emergency--a national emergency. What would you guess that would be? The war in Iran? Well, certainly, when it cost America 14 lives at least at this point and when you have billions of dollars being spent. I believe the figures--the latest one reported was $29 billion. Is that the national emergency? No.
Is the national emergency in the Senate the pending invasion of Cuba? No.
How about the President's tariff taxes--tariff taxes that have raised the cost of living across the United States? No, that is not the national emergency.
Gasoline prices--would that be a national emergency to the Senate leaders? It was $5.49 a gallon in Chicago last weekend. But that is not it.
How about grocery prices, utility prices, rent prices, daycare prices? No, that is not on the Republican agenda as a national emergency.
What is on the agenda as far as the Senate is concerned is the billionaire boondoggle ballroom--ballroom. America desperately needs a new ballroom, and they are asking for $1 billion--$1 billion--to build it.
I thought the President promised that his golfing friends and business leaders were going to pay for this, not the taxpayers. Well, that has all changed.
This weekend, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that funding President Trump's personal pet project, his gold-plated ballroom, as currently written cannot be included in the Republicans' partisan budget reconciliation bill before the Senate. To that, I say thank heavens.
I distinctly recall the President's promise that the American people were not going to pay for this ballroom. How quickly he retreated on his word and asked taxpayers to cough up $1 billion--another broken promise.
This ruling by the Parliamentarian in response to a challenge brought by Senate Democrats is a win for the American people across the country, but don't kid yourself--Senate Republicans are already back to the drawing board for this ballroom emergency which we face, attempting to revise the provision so it can be included in the reconciliation bill.
Americans continue to struggle with high prices at the grocery store and at the gas station. Republicans have shown where their priorities lie: appeasing the President and writing him a blank check for a new ballroom and a mass deportation campaign.
This much we know: When President Trump has his way with his billion-dollar ballroom emergency project, there will continue to be no room on the Trump dance card for America's working families.
President Trump's war of choice in Iran, as well as his continued tariffs, is squeezing American families hard--in housing, groceries, and fuel costs and utility bills; inflation that surged to 3.8 percent--the highest level since the pandemic and is outpacing wage growth.
In Illinois, drivers are paying more than $5 a gallon for gas--as I mentioned, last week, $5.49 a gallon in Chicago. Illinois electricity bills are up by more than 15 percent on President Trump's watch, and grocery prices had the biggest 1-month jump in nearly 4 years. Fresh vegetables are 44 percent more expensive than they were just 3 months ago. Ask the shoppers at your local stores; they know this personally.
I recently heard from a constituent of mine from Southern Illinois: Reverend Dr. Anthony Paulson. He wrote about the cost-of-living issues. Reverend Paulson told me that, as a pastor, he witnesses the impact of rising costs on his family, friends, and neighbors. Residents come to his church seeking help with the cost of food, housing, and gas to meet their basic needs. The reverend said he offers the church's compassion and support to anyone in need, but the church and the people he serves have been stretched thin, thanks to the across-the-board price hikes we have under the Trump administration.
I think about Reverend Paulson and the countless other constituents who have called my office to sound the alarm whenever I cast a vote in regard to this issue.
But President Trump said he doesn't think about Americans' financial hardships "even a little bit." He continued:
Text printed in the Record (80 characters)
I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.
President Trump.
Tell that to Reverend Paulson, tell him you don't care about his concerns or the concerns of the people he serves.
I will also note that just yesterday the President's politicized Department of Justice settled a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. What did the President get because of this settlement? A so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund of nearly $1.8 billion. And what will this money from the taxpayers be used for? The administration says it is for, "victims of lawfare and weaponization."
Hold on to your hats and let me tell you the whole story. The whole story starts here on January 6. I was seated in my chair. The other Senators were seated. We were counting the electoral votes.
The Vice President of the United States Vice President Pence was presiding. It was about 2 p.m., at which point the Secret Service came through that door, grabbed the Vice President from where he was sitting in that chair, and removed him from this room.
We sat here and waited, and a minute later, a member of the Capitol Police came before us in uniform and said: Stay in this room, there is a mob outside, but we will make this a protected safe room.
Not 10 minutes later that same officer came before us and said: Cancel everything I said. Evacuate as quickly as possible.
And the Senators of both political parties filed through that door to escape the mob that was invading the U.S. Capitol building where we meet today. It was the most amazing thing to happen in this building since the invasion of the British in the War of 1812. Those of you who have any questions as to whether it actually occurred, look at the video, look at the proof, look at the evidence. The net result was a melee that almost cost more than two or three human lives.
They had over 140 members of the Capitol Hill Police protecting Members of Congress, protecting the Vice President of the United States, and protecting visitors to the Capitol from the mob that President Trump sent to make an impression on the Capitol and the people who were working here. Over 140 instances where these mobsters and insurrectionists beat up the local police who had their lives on the line. You can see the videos. Don't believe a word I said, take a look at the videos and judge for yourself.
The net result was, when it was all over, some 1,500 to 1,600 individuals were arrested and prosecuted for crimes committed that day. Many of them ended up in jail as they should have.
What was the result when President Trump was reelected for a second term? On his first day in office, he gave full and unconditional pardons to all of those mobsters and insurrectionists who invaded the Capitol and attacked our police force. Attacked our police force. Members on the other side come to the floor and talk about who has respect for the police, not one word was said in opposition to the President's full and unconditional pardon to these people who attacked our local police doing their job. Two people as a result of that, two of our officers, died in subsequent days from the trauma that they endured. That is the reality.
Now, what does the President want to do? What has been the promise from the start? We are not only going to release full and unconditionally all of those arrested as an insurrectionist mob on the Capitol. We are going to give them compensation.
How much is it worth to be on the good side of the President with this new MAGA slush fund of $1.8 billion? That money is headed to the pockets of the individuals who crashed this Capitol. Can you think of anything worse, any incentive to attack police worse than that? I can't think of it.
Lawyers for those January 6 insurrectionists who Trump pardoned have already said they are going to apply for compensation. They are going to ask for money to be paid to them for committing a crime. Forget that working people are paying more for gas and they still haven't seen a dime in refunds in Trump's illegal tariffs that pushed up the prices of groceries and clothes and appliances. The President is making sure that those who fought to undermine a free and fair election and those who attacked this Capitol building cashed in, not the hard-working families of America who are struggling mightily to get by.
That should tell you all you need to know about what the President's priorities are. Democrats will fight this unprecedented and unacceptable slush fund, and this week, we will continue to push back on Republicans' partisan reconciliation bill and billionaire ballroom emergency bill every step of the way.
We will work to halt the flow of taxpayers' dollars to Trump's ballroom, his arches, God only knows what he will dream up next, and his mass deportation campaign. And when this bill comes to the floor later this week, the Republicans get to go on record on exactly what their priorities are going to be moving forward. Will our Republican colleagues support our efforts to drive down these family costs, or will they side with President Trump?
The last point I would like to make is from a statement made by a previous speaker on the Republican side. He said that we don't have any respect for law and order and the policemen and law enforcement officials who enforce it. This MAGA slush fund of $1.8 billion for those who came into the Capitol and sacked this building and did their darndest to hurt our law enforcement agents speaks for itself.
What we feel on the Democratic side is that the men and women of law enforcement deserve our respect, and they should be held to the same standards in the Capitol and in the Federal Government as they are held in every State. I don't know of any masked State troopers in my State or in Wyoming. They don't wear masks because they are proud of what they do for a living. Whereas, the ICE agents are just the opposite; they are hiding their identity. And the Republicans want to protect them. I don't understand why.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Indiana.
Honoring Harold Dossett (Executive Session)
Pages S2348–S2349 · Official textMr. President, in May of 1944, before the Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy, Dwight Eisenhower signaled out one American service branch for their loyalty, courage, and fortitude. When Operation Overlord was complete and victory won, he predicted:
Text printed in the Record (28 characters)
[T]here is no organization--
No organization
Text printed in the Record (70 characters)
--that will share its credit more deservedly than the Merchant Marine.
The Supreme Allied Commander was correct, but the credit he spoke of was never given to this service branch in proportion to the sacrifices made. After all, no branch suffered losses at a greater rate during the war--not the Marines, not the Army, or Coast Guard, not the Navy. Of the 243,000 merchant mariners who joined the fight, nearly 9,500 paid the ultimate price.
As we prepare to observe Memorial Day this coming weekend, we remember the fallen sailors of the forgotten service, and we honor a young Hoosier who gave his life aboard one of its ships. Without the sacrifices of the Merchant Marine, America's military would be unable to win its war or to defend its people.
In war, our civilian mariners and commercial vessels transport and supply our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They are the critical link between the homeland in the front, the one that has made the difference between victory and defeat for 250 years.
During the Revolution, they delivered the gun powder the Continentals used to beat the British. In the War Of 1812, they armed their clippers and sloops with cannons. They ran the enemy's blockades, and they brought clothes and guns to our troops. Throughout the Civil War, they carried coal, horses, and food to the Union soldiers along the Atlantic Coast and on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
Wherever our men and women in uniform have gone in the world to defend liberty, the Merchant Marine has followed in support. Whenever America's soldiers have raised our flag in victory, its mariners helped to make the triumph possible. And they have always done this in the face of grave danger and at great cost.
Commercial sailors were among the casualties in America's first naval battle at Machias off the coast of Maine. They were killed by the enemies' fire on the oceans and the Great Lakes. From the Republic's beginning, merchant mariners have died in every major conflict, including Vietnam and Korea, as well as Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.
These civilians transport their cargo into war zones with minimal defense. Because of their vital mission, they are the target of and often sunk by warships and aircraft.
In no conflict was the peril greater than World War II. They left from America's coasts. They headed for the front carrying the Sherman tanks and Mustang fighter planes, steel and lumber, bandages and antibiotics, mail from home, rations, and even chocolate.
On board those ships were what was required to defeat the Axis and to make a soldier's life just a little bit less miserable while doing it. That is, if they made it to their destination; 733 of America's merchant ships were sunk during the war. The Samuel Q. Brown was one of them.
The tanker was on its way from New Orleans to Honolulu carrying 80,000 barrels of fuel when it was struck by a torpedo from a German submarine 100 miles south of Cuba. The ship erupted into fire. Its crew jumped overboard and swam to the lifeboats and the rafts that they had cut loose after the explosion. Two men were lost. The rest watched as the U-boat launched another torpedo and sank the Samuel Q. Brown.
After 13 hours afloat, a Navy patrol plane spotted the survivors who were eventually rescued. The five injured among them were transported to a hospital in Key West, FL. All survived but one, a messman named Harold Dossett. He died on June 1, 1942.
Harold was 27 years old. He was from Princeton, IN. He came from a line of heroes. Members of the Dossett family fought in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. No surprise then that he was active in the history club at Princeton High School before his graduation in 1932.
He was well-known and well-liked in Princeton, a fixture of the downtown square, where the local newspaper noted he was often seen at the front table in the local restaurant the Alco. At the end of the 1930s, Harold relocated to Texas where he found work in the oil industry and ended up as a messman on the Samuel Q. Brown, which was owned by the Tide Water Associated Oil Company.
He had served aboard two other ships before the Samuel Brown; both were sunk after his transfer. "The third one was fatal," his mother later said.
It was during that ship's mission that he joined the list of Americans who have laid down their lives so that their countrymen could live in freedom.
After his body was brought back to Indiana from Florida, Harold's mother was presented with the Mariner's Medal. This is the Merchant Marine's highest honor, and its equivalent to the Purple Heart. Another honor arrived later to address the incredible losses of commercial vessels during the war, American industry mass produced Liberty ships to speed supplies to the front.
In 1945, one of these Liberty ships, the SS Harold Dossett was completed. Ultimately, it was the men aboard those Liberty ships who helped win the war.
As Dwight Eisenhower said, the merchant mariners "brought us the tools to finish the job. Their contribution to final victory will be long remembered," he said--a contribution that cost many lives.
So let us not lose sight that Memorial Day is not just the beginning of summer. It is a solemn day, when we honor and do what little we can to give thanks to the men and women who have died so we can remain free. It is also a time to keep the families of the fallen in our hearts and those serving in danger now in our prayers.
And let us not forget to pay tribute to all--all--of the lost. And one place we can do that is outside of the Gibson County Courthouse in Princeton, IN. You see, a monument there is inscribed with the names of local men who never came home from the World Wars.
Hoosiers, go there. And among the marines, soldiers, and sailors, you will find a merchant mariner, Messman Harold Dossett. Never forget the debt we owe them all.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Washington.
Tribute to Mary Glenn (Executive Session)
Page S2349 · Official textMr. President, 26 years ago, almost to the day, I came here to the Senate floor to speak about a mom in Washington State and a member of my staff. Mary Glenn had come to Congress with Senator Feinstein, a few years before, to share the story of her son Shaun, who was tragically killed by gun violence, and to advocate for change.
As a mother myself, I couldn't imagine the pain that she had gone through, but I could absolutely recognize her passion and her resolve to respond to challenges and hardships, not by getting discouraged but by getting determined to make a difference.
So not long after Mary brought her story here to the Senate, I brought Mary herself onto my team in Seattle, in September of 1995, and it was the best decision I could have made.
Over her 31 years on my team, Mary has handled well over 20,000 constituent cases. That is astounding--20,000. Each case represents an individual or a family seeking help, usually under difficult circumstances. Mary gave everyone who reached out compassion, and she got them results: helping people who were struggling to keep their utilities on and connecting them with social services that could assist them; helping families stay in their homes and fight off eviction.
And no one--absolutely no one--could do more to help seniors get their Social Security and Medicare benefits than Mary Glenn. In some cases, Mary helped people finally get hundreds of thousands of dollars they were owed by the government.
We are talking about life-changing and lifesaving victories for people back in my State.
I remember, during the 2008 economic crisis, she saved so many families from losing their homes that we heard lobbyists here in DC were complaining about her for being too effective. My response to that: Too bad.
Whatever the case, whatever the challenges, Mary has never been afraid to go against big Agencies, navigate complicated systems, or even go toe to toe with powerful special interests.
Now, after many years and countless victories for Washington State families, Mary is moving on to a well-earned retirement. We all wish her the best as she spends more time with her family--her daughter Tiffany, her son-in-law Jon, and especially her grandkids Adalyn and Ellis--and more time at Dawson's, her home away from home.
We are all going to miss her dearly at our office because Mary is more than a trusted resource for our constituents. She is also an invaluable resource to everyone she works with, someone we all turn to for her knowledge, her advice, and her guidance. She exemplifies a true commitment to public service.
When I came to this floor to share Mary's story all those years ago, I came here to speak about a mom who had the strength to speak out after a painful tragedy. Today, I am speaking about a mom but also a grandma, an incredible champion for Washington State families, and a friend.
Mary, thank you. I know Shaun would be so proud of everything you have done to fight for change. You have helped so many families through your hard work, and you have inspired so many people through your resilience, including me.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Ricketts pertaining to the introduction of S. 4560 are printed in today's Record under "Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.")
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to begin the next vote immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion (Executive Session)
Pages S2349–S2350 · Official textPursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state. The legislative clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (565 characters)
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 735, Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina.
John Thune, Ted Budd, Thom Tillis, John Barrasso, Tim
Sheehy, Joni Ernst, Jon Husted, Katie Boyd Britt, David
McCormick, Mike Rounds, John Boozman, Bill Cassidy,
Rick Scott of Florida, Josh Hawley, Cynthia M. Lummis,
Kevin Cramer, Steve Daines.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted "yea".
Mr. DURBIN: I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 38, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (926 characters)
Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cotton Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Durbin Ernst Fetterman Fischer Gallego Graham Grassley Hagerty Hassan Hawley Heinrich Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Reed Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Shaheen Sheehy Sullivan Thune Whitehouse Wicker Young
Alsobrooks Baldwin Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Gillibrand Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Wyden
Bennet
Cornyn
Cramer
Tillis
Tuberville
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong). On this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 38. The motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
Executive Calendar
Page S2350 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina.
Recess
Page S2350 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
Under the previous order, the Senate stands in recess until 2 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:47 p.m., recessed until 2 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Britt).
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Resumed
Page S2350 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Florida.
Recognizing the Significance of Jewish American Heritage Month and Calling on Elected Officials and Civil Society Leaders to Counter Antisemitism
Pages S2350–S2351 · Official textRECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH AND CALLING ON ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CIVIL SOCIETY LEADERS TO COUNTER ANTISEMITISM
Madam President, I rise today to honor an important community in our country that has done so much for our country--Jewish Americans.
America as we know it would not exist without the contributions of Jewish Americans. From Jewish service men and women who have served in every conflict since the Revolutionary War to great minds like Albert Einstein, who helped us to understand the world we live in, their contributions helped to build this Nation. This includes Gertrude Elion, who helped to develop groundbreaking drugs for leukemia and other lifesaving treatments, and Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google.
The success of our Nation is intertwined with the achievements of Jewish Americans. We can never walk away from our Jewish fellow citizens. I am more committed to this relationship than ever before. I am glad we finally have a President who shares that commitment.
President Trump has been the most pro-Israel President we have ever had. He moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem. He appointed the most pro-Israel Cabinet ever assembled, and he is committed to defending Israel, combating terrorism, and protecting Jewish citizens.
But still, unfortunately, we have seen a rise in anti-Semitism and in anti-Israel hate since the October 7, 2023, attacks. What we have seen in that time are some of the darkest parts of humanity on full display. We have seen Hamas sympathizers take over college campuses, destroy property, and do everything they can to instill fear into Jewish students. From being spat at to being verbally harassed, what some of these students have gone through is unconscionable. Countless stories at some of America's best universities, like Columbia, UCLA, and Rutgers, have all the same stories.
Anti-Semitism has cut its way into our political discourse. A new report from Axios this week shows how lawmakers right here in the Capitol are facing an "explosion of antisemitism." Jewish lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, in the House and the Senate, are receiving death threats, harassment, and profane insults that should be out of bounds for American politics.
None of this is OK. We should all be concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism because it is un-American and because it is fundamentally inhumane.
George Washington knew that too. In 1790, Washington made it clear that America "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, RI. He understood and could see back then the importance our Jewish citizens would play in preserving the American experiment.
Make no mistake, the growth of anti-Semitism will not end with anti-Semitism. The Venn diagram of people who spread anti-Semitism and want to destroy Western civilization is just a circle. They are just starting with our Jewish friends. If it grows, everyone suffers. Just like the jihadist adage in the Middle East goes, "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people," and then it will come for everyone else.
This hatred, this evil--we have to root it out. We have to get it out of our schools, our neighborhoods, and our media. We need to call it out wherever we see it. When we go silent, that is when rot festers, and that is what anti-Semitism is. It is rotten to the core and has no place in American society.
The United States must always stand with Israel and the Jewish people. More than ever, we must remain committed to rooting out this evil. That is why I am here today with Senator Rosen to ask for unanimous consent to adopt a resolution recognizing the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month.
Taking a stand against anti-Semitism and celebrating Jewish Americans mean we are fighting to protect our Nation and the blessings we enjoy. I am proud to lead this effort.
I yield to my good friend from Nevada Senator Rosen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Nevada.
I thank Senator Scott.
Madam President, Jewish American Heritage Month is an opportunity to honor the generations of Jewish Americans who have helped to build this country, who have helped to strengthen our democracy, who have helped to enhance our country and advance the promise of America. And this year's celebration feels especially significant as our Nation approaches 250 years of independence.
For centuries, Jewish Americans have been part of the American story. From the Jewish immigrants who arrived here on our shores in 1654 seeking refuge and freedom and opportunity, to Haym Salomon's helping finance the Revolutionary War, to the scientists, artists, teachers, entrepreneurs, servicemembers, and public servants who helped shape this country into what it is today, the story of Jewish Americans is the story of America. It is a story rooted in resilience, in perseverance, in faith, in community, and in an enduring belief in the promise of a better future.
Those values have guided the Jewish-American community for generations. These are the values that taught us to pursue justice, to repair the world, to care for our neighbors, and to stand up for those who are the most vulnerable. They are the values that have inspired Jewish Americans to contribute so profoundly to every corner of American life, from medicine to music, from business to civil rights, from the military to public service. They are the values we continue to carry forward today.
But as we celebrate all that Jewish Americans have contributed to this Nation, we must also acknowledge the challenges our community continues to face because while Jewish history in America is filled with achievement and opportunity, it has also included moments of exclusion, discrimination, and hate.
Unfortunately, we are once again living through a deeply troubling rise in anti-Semitism. Since Hamas' October 7 terrorist attack in Israel, anti-Semitism incidents have skyrocketed across this country. We have seen Jewish students harassed on college campuses. We have seen synagogues and Jewish institutions threatened. We have seen Jewish Americans verbally attacked, physically assaulted, and even murdered simply because of who they are. And all of it--every single bit of it--is unacceptable. There can be no excuses and no ambiguity when it comes to condemning anti-Semitism.
For me, this work is deeply personal. As one of only a handful of Jewish women ever to serve in the U.S. Senate--the third, to be exact--and as the first and only former synagogue president in the Senate, my Jewish identity is part of who I am, and it is part of how I lead. The experiences that my family has endured and the hate that I have personally faced have only strengthened my determination to fight anti-Jewish hatred wherever it exists because even in difficult moments, the Jewish people have always found ways to move forward with hope and perseverance. Those are two qualities we hold dear. Jewish Americans are people who have endured--a people who have persevered through hardship time and time again and a people who continue to believe in the hope and the possibility of a brighter tomorrow. Hope is part of our heritage--the very essence of our faith. Hope is a part of what carried generations before us through unimaginable adversity, and hope is what continues to guide us today.
In celebration of that heritage and in recognition of our history, I am so proud to work with Senator Rick Scott to pass this bipartisan resolution for Jewish American Heritage Month. In doing so, let us celebrate not only the accomplishments of Jewish Americans throughout our Nation's history but also the values that continue to strengthen both our community and our country.
Let us recommit ourselves to fighting hate in all its forms. Let us continue building bridges across all communities. Let us ensure that future generations will grow up in a country where they can live openly, proudly, and safely as Jews and as Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Florida.
Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 738, which was submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (173 characters)
A resolution (S. Res. 738) recognizing the significance of Jewish American Heritage Month and calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism.
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 that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 738) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Florida.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Rikhye nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote start immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Clarke nomination?
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) would have voted "YEA," the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted "YEA," the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith) would have voted "YEA," the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy) would have voted "YEA," the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted "YEA," and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) voted "YEA."
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 38, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (1,013 characters)
Armstrong Banks Barrasso Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cotton Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Durbin Ernst Fetterman Fischer Gallego Graham Grassley Hassan Hawley Heinrich Hoeven Husted Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Reed Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Shaheen Sullivan Thune Whitehouse Young
Alsobrooks Baldwin Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Gillibrand Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Wyden
Bennet
Blackburn
Cornyn
Cramer
Hagerty
Hyde-Smith
Sheehy
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Cloture Motion
Pages S2351–S2352 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (572 characters)
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 737, Evan Rikhye, of the Virgin Islands, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years.
John Thune, Ted Budd, Thom Tillis, John Barrasso, Tim
Sheehy, Joni Ernst, Jon Husted, Katie Boyd Britt, David
McCormick, Mike Rounds, John Boozman, Bill Cassidy,
Rick Scott of Florida, Josh Hawley, Cynthia M. Lummis,
Kevin Cramer, Steve Daines.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks)
By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Evan Rikhye, of the Virgin Islands, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
Further, if the present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted "Yea."
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (910 characters)
Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Wicker Young
Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen
Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden
Cornyn
Tillis
Tuberville
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 47. The motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
Executive Calendar
Page S2352 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report the nomination.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Evan Rikhye, of the Virgin Islands, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of ten years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The majority whip.
Order of Procedure (Executive Calendar)
Page S2352 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time with respect to Executive Calendar No. 737 be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, tomorrow; further, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Legislative Session
Page S2352 · Official textMr. 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.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Virginia.
War Powers Resolution
Pages S2352–S2353 · Official textMr. President, I rise to talk about the next vote the Senate will have on a War Powers Resolution, and this will be the eighth such vote. I want to dig into the topic for a minute why this vote is different than the earlier seven. Before I do, let me just kind of dig into the procedural nature of this vote.
War Powers Resolutions, like other Senate legislation, get referred to a committee--in this case, the committee of jurisdiction is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member.
The committee does not have to take up legislation, and it is often the case--and I have often filed legislation that has never been taken up, not just by SFRC but other committees as well. If there is not a critical mass, it may not be taken up.
In matters of war, the drafters of the War Powers Resolution deemed the topic so important that they created a proceeding by which a single Senator could ask that the committee be discharged from consideration of the bill and the bill be reported out of the committee without a recommendation for actual consideration on the floor.
And so War Powers Resolutions in the instance of hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress, a Senator can file a resolution, a certain number of days elapse, and then we can come to the floor and ask for the committee to be discharged.
We have had seven earlier votes--all unsuccessful--asking that this war, which is now, I believe, on day 81, be--if a committee is not going to take it up, let's at least have the debate on the floor of the Senate that the Constitution intends.
And so the formal vote that we will have later is not a vote on the resolution itself, which says no war in Iran absent a vote of Congress, but it is a vote to discharge that resolution from the committee and allow it to be debated on the Senate floor. That is what we are voting on.
Should a matter that is in committee, that has been held in committee with no action for now 80 days during the midst of a pending war in which 14 American troops have been killed, hundreds have been injured, and we have spent north of $29 billion--if we are not going to have committee action on the bill, can we not take it up on the floor of the Senate and debate it in front of the American public?
So now to my question: Why is this vote different than the vote we had last week? And I would argue there are a couple of reasons that make this vote different and the stakes higher that should suggest a need to finally take this matter up on the Senate floor.
First, we are now well past the 60-day deadline in the War Powers Resolution that, under the view of some, provides a President the ability to unilaterally take the Nation to war without a vote of Congress. I don't read the statute that way, but a number do, and we can have a good-faith disagreement about what the statute means.
But last week was the first time we had a vote after the 60-day deadline. The clock keeps running. We are now, I believe, at day 81. We are well past the statutory time that might give a President an argument that "I don't need to come to Congress to get a war approved."
The fact that we are now well past that deadline--a deadline that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle say should be an important milestone in terms of congressional review--is important.
The second thing that is important is we are in a cease-fire, but kind of a particular cease-fire right now. We are in a cease-fire where there is no active bombing, but there are still hostilities--the blockade of Iranian ports by the United States, the significant closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran's military action--action taken against both military ships and commercial ships. We are in a cease-fire, but we have not ended hostilities, but the cease-fire entered a new phase just within the last day or two.
As you know, President Trump indicated that he was within an hour of ordering the restart of the bombing campaign but decided that it would be a good idea to engage in discussion with regional nations about: Could there be a path forward to find a diplomatic end to the war?
And my argument, Mr. President, to you and to all of my colleagues and to the American public is this: If we are in a cease-fire where we are trying to find a diplomatic path forward, rather than precipitously start a bombing campaign again, this is exactly the time where Congress should be having a debate about the rationale for the war, the status of the war, the plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, what a likely diplomatic off-ramp would look like, what the costs of the war are, how much U.S. munitions have been depleted, how much U.S. military facilities have been damaged.
When we are in this cease-fire period trying to find a diplomatic off-ramp, this seems, to me, to be the perfect time for the Senate to have the deliberate discussion about the need for a war that we should have had before the war began on February 28. Let's take advantage of this moment.
One issue in particular that is important right now is that Iran is transmitting to the President of the United States proposals for a diplomatic solution. As all know, Iran presented a proposal to the United States--to President Trump that he immediately dismissed as garbage. Guess what. No one in this body or in the House has been shown what that proposal is. None of us know what was in the proposal that the President dismissed as garbage.
This body contains many Members who have served in the military. This body contains many Members who have been on the committees of jurisdiction--the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Intel Committee--not just for years, but in some instances for decades.
I assert that in the Senate and in the House, there are many people who would have some significant expertise about analyzing a proposal from Iran and determining whether or not it had merit.
Maybe it is a hundred percent garbage. Maybe it is a good offer. Maybe it is somewhere in the middle where there are pieces of it that are good but more needs to be done. But thus far, not a single Member of the 535 public servants serving in the House or the Senate know anything about the deal that the President has thrown out, and that is a very important fact.
Do we want to let--we have let one President take us to a war that has caused the injury and death of American troops, the spiking of gas prices, the spending of $30 billion. We have let him do that on his own. Do we want to also give him the sole ability to review a peace proposal, a diplomacy proposal, an end to the war and to make the decision on his own without any examination by this deliberative legislative body about whether the proposal is something that we can work with?
Are we so willing to let this President tell our sons and daughters: You are going back to war because I have determined that the peace proposal, the diplomacy proposal, is garbage without letting anyone in the article I branch even review it?
I think the fact that there have been peace proposals presented to the President that we have not seen is also something that is extremely important as we contemplate this War Powers Resolution.
Let's have the discussion, including analyzing proposals that have been made, so we can offer our advice to the President about whether diplomacy seems like it is realistic or doable and not have him dismiss deals out of hand without sharing the contents.
And, finally, there is one additional matter that puts this in a different light than last week. It was only last week right before the vote that some of us were informed by the White House that the White House refused to share with Congress the legal rationale for this war. Any administration that takes the Nation to war does so bound to follow the law, and any administration that takes us to war does so on the basis of a legal opinion developed by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. And that has been the case during all of the administrations that I have served under including President Trump term 2.
The boat strikes that President Trump's administration were carrying out in the Pacific and Caribbean, the military operation in Venezuela--they were both justified by a legal opinion.
Now, I was disappointed that the President was unwilling to make that legal opinion available to the public, but the White House did allow us--the Members of the Senate and House--to read it in a classified setting so we could at least read what the legal rationale was and reach our own conclusion about whether we thought the legal rationale made sense.
To my knowledge, in my now nearly 13 years in the Senate, this is the first instance of a President taking us into military action and refusing to show the House or Senate the legal opinion. There is a legal opinion that has been drafted to justify this war, but the administration will not let any of us--I thought it might just be me--they turned down my request to look at the legal opinion--but I have gone to the leadership of the Armed Services Committee and the other key committees, and they haven't seen it either.
Are we really willing to go to war on the basis of a legal opinion that the administration is unwilling to even show to us who are Members of the U.S. Senate? I mean, it sort of raises the question: What are they hiding? If they feel confident about their legal rationale or about the factual assertions they would make in the legal rationale, they would be willing to show it to us--as they have with respect to other military actions as recently as the attack of Venezuela to depose the Maduro government.
So I would argue that one important feature of this motion at this time to discharge the committee would be it would force the administration to come forward and finally show us the legal rationale upon which they base this, in my view, illegal and unwise war.
So those are at least four or five reasons why this vote this week to discharge this matter from the committee and finally bring it to the floor of the Senate is different than any of the seven votes we have had before. We are well beyond day 60. We are in this fragile cease-fire. That is the perfect time to have a discussion before we start up the war again.
The President is receiving peace and diplomatic proposals that he is throwing into the trash can without sharing them with us. We might have some ideas about the merit and validity of those proposals, and we ought to be able to decide whether they have merit enough that that is the path we should take instead of sending our sons and daughters back into harm's way by reengaging in the bombing campaign.
Finally, if the administration is unwilling to share with us the legal rationale for the war, that should be a flashing red light to every Member of this body.
So, Mr. President, within a short period of time, I will come to the floor and make the motion, and we will have this vote on an eighth motion to discharge. It is my hope that it is successful and we finally move to having a debate about this most consequential war in full view of the American public.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Connecticut.
War Powers Resolution
Pages S2353–S2354 · Official textMr. President, I am glad to join Senator Kaine on the floor today in support of his resolution. I have admittedly lost count on how many of these resolutions we have brought before the body. This must be our seventh, eighth, or ninth. That is extraordinary, duplicative, redundant, but necessary because, at least in my time in the Senate, never before has this country engaged in such a significant, consequential, deadly, and costly military operation overseas without the consent of the people and without the consent of Congress.
The Founding Fathers were really intentional in lodging the warmaking power not in the executive branch but in the legislative branch. There are few questions we confront that are more serious than about when we send our men and women to die overseas, when we decide to expend such a sizable amount of our hard-earned taxpayers' money on military operations. And it should not--it cannot--be simply one individual who makes those decisions. It has to be all of us.
So these are increasingly heartbreaking motions to make because it shouldn't be up to the minority party. The majority, who asked for the consent of the governed to lead this Senate, should do their responsibility under the Constitution and have a full debate on an authorization for military force.
Here is my guess: It would not pass. If Leader Thune brought an authorization for military force against Iran here in the Senate, it would not pass. I don't think it would even get 50 votes. It might not get 40 votes. It would fail, and the President would not have the authorization to continue these operations.
I am going to just talk about two, I think, important topics that I have yet to address on the floor. The first is the consequences of spending this much money on a war that is making us less safe. I have made this case before on the floor, and I won't go into it again, but this war is not making us any safer. This war is jeopardizing our security around the world. But at what cost?
In hearings last week, the administration suggested that the cost of the war is about $29 billion. To most military experts, that just didn't pass the straight-face test, the smell test. In fact, one group of experts actually did an accounting based upon what they know of the costs of an engagement like this, which has largely been an air campaign but has required a massive deployment of forces into the region. They said it looks to be about $15 billion in mobilization, administration, and combat cost, general operations costs; $41 billion when you look at all of the weapons that have been expended; about $12 billion in losses, damages, destroyed assets. And we are learning that there is a really extensive amount of damage that has been done to our fixed resources in the region. Then we probably spent another $3 billion or so supporting our partners in the region. That is about $72 billion that has been spent just in the first 70, 80 days of war.
And I get it. Even, I think, for my colleagues, you kind of lose the value of money when you are in this place and allocating tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on a regular basis for the operations of the Federal Government. And for my constituents, they even lose track of what is a big number anymore at the Federal Government.
What does $72 billion mean? Well, let me give you a little bit of context. What is the entire operations budget for the National Park System on an annual basis? Is it $71 billion? No. Is it half that? No. Is it 10? No. The entire operations budget for the National Park System is $2 billion, just to give you kind of a sense of what we are talking about here. In 2\1/2\ months of war, we have spent $70 billion. The National Park System needs about $2 billion to operate. Their entire budget of deferred maintenance--if you wanted to fix everything that is broken in the National Park Service, how much would it cost? It would cost $33 billion. So half of what we have spent on the Iran war could fix up every national park in the country to tip-top shape.
How much do we spend on elementary education--elementary, middle, and secondary education? Every year, about $33 billion. So if you took the amount of money we spent on the Iran war and dedicated it all to K-through-12 education, we would triple the amount of money that our elementary, middle, and high schools get in this country. What an important investment that would be. What would it mean to your child's elementary school to have triple the amount of Federal funding? That would mean that you could reduce class sizes, you could hire more paraprofessionals. Urban school districts could hire guidance counselors and social workers for the first time. New school buildings would go up. Leaks would be fixed.
How about medical research? The total budget of NIH and CDC? About $60 billion. So if we had taken this money that we have spent in just 2\1/2\ months of war and applied it to medical research, we would double--double--this year's budget for medical research. If you doubled the NIH and CDC budget this year, I guarantee you we would cure at least one disease; we would find a treatment years ahead of schedule; we would save lives, thousands of lives. But, instead, we are spending this money on a war that is making us less safe and driving up costs for millions of Americans.
Again, I am just telling you the cost to the government of this war. Of course, we are seeing billions of dollars being spent by businesses, by farms, by consumers because gas prices are out of control. This week, they will probably hit $5 a gallon in Connecticut. That will put a lot of my small businesses out of business if gas prices remain at $5 through this summer. There will be lots of families in my State--who for the first 60 days were probably able to manage that extra cost--who are going to have to cancel a week or two or three of summer camp for their kids this summer because they are going to have to make a choice as to whether I fill up my tank to get to work or whether my kids get to go to basketball camp. Those are the decisions that families are going to make.
The second thing, very briefly, I want to talk about is another cost. The President is not spending his time right now trying to end this war. Reports are that the President has become bored of the Iran war, and that is why we are in a stalemate. Nothing is changing. Nothing is happening. We are blockading the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians are blockading the Strait of Hormuz. Peace negotiations are stuck. And so day, after day, after day, grocery prices climb, gas prices climb, and the reports suggest it is because President Trump has lost interest in the war.
What is he interested in? Well, we found out this week. Instead of spending his last several weeks trying to end the war and bring down costs, the President has been engineering a novel, new corruption scheme to pad his pockets and his supporters' pockets. We learned this week that the President is settling a lawsuit that he lodged against himself for $1.7 billion. The President sued himself. He sued the IRS--but essentially he was suing himself--and then he settled with himself for $1.7 billion to be deposited into a slush fund that the President can use at his discretion to reward his political supporters.
We found out just hours ago that in that settlement is included a provision that stops the IRS from auditing the President or his family. So instead of ending the Iran war, instead of trying to do something about these spiraling prices and costs that are being borne by families and the Federal Government, the President has spent the last few weeks reaching his hand into the Treasury, stealing from the American people $1.7 billion to be put into a slush fund that he controls, to reward his political supporters, and securing an agreement with the IRS that no matter how much fraud or illegality he and his family and his business entities engaged in, they are getting off scot-free. Everybody else in this country plays by the rules, can be audited by the IRS, and is subject to the Tax Code. The President, as of today, is no longer subject to the Tax Code. His past fraud, his past illegality has been immunized, and he is getting $1.7 billion of your money to give away to his political supporters.
That is why the war is still happening. That is why these costs--right now, likely $70 billion to the taxpayer, billions more in increased costs--that is why they continue to go up and up and up--because the President has become bored by the war. He doesn't pay the cost of the war. In fact, every day, he gets richer because, instead of ending the war, he is spending his time finding new, novel, and corrupt ways to reach his hand into the Federal Treasury and get paid by the taxpayers of this country.
I am glad that we are getting closer to 50 votes. I imagine that when we come back from recess, after many of my Republican colleagues have heard about the misery that is being visited on this economy because of these high prices, we will reach enough votes to pass this resolution. But we will not stop bringing these measures before the Senate until that day comes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Wisconsin.
War Powers Resolution
Pages S2354–S2355 · Official textMr. President, I rise today in opposition to President Trump's war of choice in Iran that has cost taxpayers billions and taken the lives of 13 American servicemembers.
Since this war began over 11 weeks ago, it has been abundantly clear that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth don't know what they are doing. They have offered shifting rationales for why we are at war, moving the goalposts by the hour. There seems to be no plan or timeline for when this war will end. This administration has also been caught flat-footed at every turn, including not anticipating that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed and the skyrocketing gas prices that followed.
It is not just Americans at home who are paying the price for this conflict. American servicemembers are sounding the alarm, too, that the Trump administration wasn't prepared to keep them safe. First, we learned that servicemembers who were injured in Kuwait in a March 1 drone strike had to wait nearly a month to get care for their traumatic brain injuries. Now we are learning that troops in the same unit had their calls for support from the Army ignored. Soldiers stationed in Kuwait asked for additional medical personnel and medical supplies before the war began, but that request was denied. These same soldiers also recount that they did not get the proper training for responding to an attack.
They were told: Don't worry about protection.
MAJ Stephen Ramsbottom told CBS News that he believed MSG Nicole Amor, an Army reservist who was killed in the attack, could have survived her wounds had the military been properly prepared for retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases.
All of this points to a larger problem and a larger pattern of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth being totally reckless, starting a war without the careful planning necessary to protect Americans. And while two in three Americans say this war was the wrong decision, President Trump keeps threatening to ramp up this conflict, putting our troops further into harm's way. He has even hinted that he is interested in starting another war in Cuba.
Americans didn't ask for this war of choice. Their elected representatives in Washington didn't even vote on it. And yet it is Americans who are paying the price every single day.
I am glad to see more of my Republican colleagues are listening to their constituents, and I was pleased to see another vote to stop this reckless and illegal war.
But it is not enough. It is time for Congress to finally be a check on this President.
Stand up for your constituents and our servicemembers, and join us in voting to stop this war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The minority leader.
War Powers Resolution
Page S2355 · Official textMr. President, well, earlier today, Trump said he was just an hour away from launching another wave of attacks on Iran before he changed his mind.
Trump says: "We may have to give Iran another big hit"--that "we're all set to start" bombing at a moment's notice.
This President is like a toddler playing with a loaded gun. If there was ever a time to support our War Powers Resolution to withdraw troops from hostilities with Iran, it is now.
We have long since passed the War Powers Act's 60-day threshold to end hostilities that many of our colleagues cited as the time their position on this war would finally change. Every second we wait to end this war is another second Donald Trump puts our servicemembers at risk.
If Republicans truly believe that this war is going well, that Trump is some strategic genius, then why are they hiding behind shifting deadlines and fake notifications of the "end of hostilities"? Why do Republicans pretend Trump's war ended after 60 days, when it clearly has continued, with U.S. and Iranian forces exchanging fire in the Strait of Hormuz?
And the lack of planning in this whole war is just appalling. It is obvious even to a layman that the greatest vulnerability we faced, if we challenged Iran, was the Strait of Hormuz. And yet, despite the fact that many said, "Secure the strait before you do anything else," Trump ignored it.
And look at what is happening now: Gasoline is $4.50 and going up.
How can anyone believe this President has a strategy, has a plan, knows what he is doing?
Senate Republicans are silent on Trump's war because they know it is a massive blunder, but they are foolish to think that silence will spare them. The American people's outrage over skyrocketing costs is right at their doorstep.
Americans took note all seven times this Republican majority passed up the opportunity to support our War Powers Resolution to end this disaster, and they will take note of those Republicans who pass up the eighth time--the eighth opportunity--to stop this war, which will occur shortly when we vote.
I thank Senator Kaine for his leadership on today's resolution.
Every week this war continues and Republicans continue to sit in silence, Democrats will force a vote on the War Powers Resolution and make Republicans go on record with their support for this war.
Let me be clear: Reasserting Congress' authority on matters of war and peace isn't a partisan issue. It never should have been one. It is a constitutional issue. It has been what this country has stood for, for centuries.
This vote is about fulfilling our most basic responsibility as Members of the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Virginia.
DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge
Pages S2355–S2362 · Official textDIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge
Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546a and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 185.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (253 characters)
Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign Relations, S.J. Res. 185, a joint resolution directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Mr. President, I know of no further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Is there further debate?
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 185.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BARRASSO: The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (973 characters)
Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Cassidy Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murkowski Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Paul Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden
Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fetterman Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Wicker Young
Cornyn
Tillis
Tuberville
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The joint resolution is discharged and will be placed on the Calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, before I offer remarks this evening on voting rights, I want to take a moment to acknowledge a horrible tragedy that struck my home State of California just yesterday.
Yesterday afternoon, two assailants opened fire at the Islamic Center of San Diego, in what authorities are now investigating as a possible hate crime. Three people were killed: a security guard and father of eight named Amin Abdullah; Mansour Kaziha, a store manager at the mosque for 40 years; and Nader Awad, a member of the mosque who lived right across the street and whose wife was a teacher at the school.
Amin is credited with sounding the alarm bells as soon as the incident began, heroically saving the lives of everybody who was inside the mosque. And while authorities are still piecing together exactly what happened, what we do know is that Mansour and Nader somehow drew the shooters away from the mosque, into the parking lot, long enough for them to choose to flee the scene, as hundreds of police officers arrived.
Their sacrifices and their bravery were not in vain. Mr. President, 140 children were inside the center's school at the time, and they are all OK, now reunited with their parents.
Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and everyone impacted by this horrific act of violence.
I want to share my particular gratitude with the women and men of the San Diego Police Department and other first responders who responded literally within moments of first being alerted about the shooting, saving hundreds of lives in the process.
I want to echo the words of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria, who said yesterday:
Text printed in the Record (136 characters)
[A]n attack on any one of our communities . . . because of who they are, what they believe, or how they pray--is an attack on all of us.
Colleagues, we must remain united against hate in all its forms and reject those who spread Islamophobia and White supremacy of any type.
And I want the Muslim community of San Diego, the community throughout California, throughout the country, who may be angry or anxious at this moment to know this: We stand with you. We mourn with you. And we will not allow hate and violence to divide our country or define us.
Mr. President, our late friend and colleague Congressman John Lewis once said:
Text printed in the Record (106 characters)
The vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a democracy.
Today, that sacred right is under assault. And with its recent Callais decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has dealt our right to vote another devastating blow.
Sadly, this ruling did not happen in isolation. It is the culmination of a decades-long effort to undermine the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the promise of American democracy itself. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, this decision marks the "latest chapter in the majority's now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act."
All in what appears to be Donald Trump and his allies' attempt to cling to power--not by addressing the exploding costs of living that are crushing so many families across America, not by ending this unauthorized war in Iran, but by undermining our democracy, rigging electoral maps, and gaming the system in their favor.
What is clear with the Callais decision and earlier voting rights decisions by the Supreme Court is that they have rejected both the text and the purpose of one of the most important laws of American history.
You see, the Voting Rights Act was born out of struggle, including the struggle of Americans who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, decades ago, and endured incredible violence and persecution simply for demanding that democracy in America truly include everyone.
When the Voting Rights Act finally became law 61 years ago, America made good on a promise: that our democracy would truly belong to everyone. And the results were undeniable. In just the first decade after its passage, the disparity in voter registration rates between Whites and minority communities dropped from 30 percent to 8 percent--huge progress. And communities that had long been denied a meaningful voice in their government gained representation in local city halls, in State legislatures, and--yes--right here in Congress.
The law enjoyed decades of bipartisan support. Its initial passage and every reauthorization had been bipartisan. In fact, the last time Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, in 2006, it passed the Senate unanimously.
Yet we know there have been always those determined to undermine and weaken this landmark law, including Chief Justice Roberts himself. When he was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, he wrote memos attacking the Voting Rights Act and devising legal arguments to undermine it. And he succeeded. Beginning with the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision, he and the Court's extreme majority began dismantling the law's core protections.
In the Shelby decision, the Court declared that the law's preclearance protections were no longer necessary because of how far we had come as a country, ignoring the mountain of evidence that they were presented with, showing the chronic problem that voting discrimination continued to be.
The consequences of that decision were both predictable and swift. Republican State legislatures immediately unleashed a flood of new discriminatory voting bills. Many turned into laws--everything from restrictive voter ID requirements to closing polling sites in minority communities, to restricting voter registration drives and attacking early voting.
It is no surprise, then, that the participation gap between White and minority voters soon began growing again, after decades of narrowing, including and especially in the States that were previously covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. According to one Brennan Center analysis, as many as 9 million more ballots would have been cast in the 2020 election without the Shelby decision of 2013.
And, now, the Callais decision goes even further. This decision has already thrown elections into chaos, with States racing to redraw political maps ahead of this November's midterm elections.
You don't believe me?
The Supreme Court has already given Alabama permission to use a map found by a lower court to be intentionally racially discriminatory. But the Supreme Court is sanctioning Alabama's use of that map.
The State of Louisiana, which just had a primary election yesterday, dropped the State's House primary elections, even after absentee voting had already begun, in order to redraw congressional districts for the current year.
And, as we speak, in South Carolina, they are debating whether to redraw the map to entrench Republican power.
Colleagues, this is not representative democracy; it is a political power grab. Sadly, Callais is just one part of a broader effort to skew our upcoming elections and make participation in our democracy process harder for millions of Americans. We see it in efforts to purge voters from the rolls using flawed Federal databases. We see it in attempts to impose burdensome ID requirements that threaten to disenfranchise women, students, seniors, Native communities, and both rural and blue-collar voters who may lack passports or their original birth certificates. And we certainly see it in Trump's obsession with the SAVE Act, which would make it harder for eligible Americans to register to vote, stay registered to vote, or actually cast their ballot.
Colleagues, all of these efforts are rooted in the same dangerous idea: that political power can be preserved by restricting rather than expanding voter participation.
That is un-American.
We are living in a pivotal moment for American democracy. In the difficult days of Jim Crow, Americans chose to organize, to march, and to sacrifice to pass the Voting Rights Act. And now, following their example, Americans today are marching again.
Last weekend, thousands from across the country gathered in Alabama and returned to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, determined to carry the legacy of the Voting Rights Act and the civil rights movement forward. A new generation is taking up the torch to defend the principle that, in a democracy, every voice matters and every vote counts equally.
Colleagues, we have a duty to join them, beginning with the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the protections gutted by the Supreme Court.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, first, let me thank my good friend Senator Padilla from California for his good work on this issue and so many other issues of civil rights and of keeping our democracy secure and safe, of voting rights. He is an amazing asset not just to this Senate but to California and to the country, and I thank him for his continued, ever-present leadership on these vital issues, which I know he feels so deeply about.
Now, in America, voters choose their leaders; leaders don't choose their voters. But MAGA has launched a coordinated campaign to handpick the electorate in 2026. That effort spans all three branches of government.
Donald Trump has virtually made election denialism a prerequisite for serving in his administration. You have to lie about the election--lie to yourselves, lie to other people--to get a job in any sensitive area in this administration. Trump and his band of MAGA loyalists have jumped at every opportunity to intimidate election officials, to attack vote-by-mail, to seize voter data, and to undermine our elections in any way they can.
In Congress, Trump's MAGA majorities keep pushing the SAVE Act, which we know would disenfranchise tens--tens--of millions of voters.
With the SAVE Act, Republicans would purge millions of American citizens from the voter rolls through a screening algorithm designed by none other than the trio--the evil trio--of Trump, Vought, Musk, and their DOGE squad.
And as I have been saying for months--I started saying this months ago--it is Jim Crow 2.0. And when I started saying it, now when I say it, the MAGA right goes crazy. They get angry. They get apoplectic. Do you know why? They know it is true.
They know it is Jim Crow 2.0, and they know they are doing everything they can to steal our election, rather than compete in our election.
The radical rightwing majority on the Supreme Court has aided Trump's assault on our democracy every step of the way. The Callais decision was the MAGA Court's latest move to resurrect Jim Crow South, upending half a century of precedent and progress when it gutted the Voting Rights Act for which Martin Luther King, Jr. and so many others marched, bled, and ultimately gave their lives.
The decision issues a deliberate blow to democracy, stripping voters of protections while handing MAGA politicians free rein to rig maps that drown out their voices, especially those of historically disenfranchised communities. Callais did not come out of nowhere. Oh, no. For years, beginning with Chief Justice Roberts in the awful and evil Shelby County decision, the Republican-appointed majority, led by Roberts, chipped away at the Voting Rights Act in decision after decision.
Indeed, Roberts began railing against the Voting Rights Act since the early eighties. Now Roberts says his job is to call balls and strikes--bull. For someone who famously said that his job is "to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat," John Roberts sure is swinging for the fences to help Donald Trump subvert our elections. Democrats are not going to wait until the damage is done. Oh, no. That is why Senate Democrats launched our Election Protection Task Force, the most expansive election protection effort our caucus has ever undertaken.
We are going to bring together lawyers and observers, rapid-response teams, cyber security experts, State and local officials, and the most renowned election experts in the country to protect our democracy before, during, and after this election. We are going to fight like hell to make sure our elections belong to the voters--not to Donald Trump.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in standing up for democracy where every eligible American has a voice and the right to vote.
I want to thank Ranking Member Padilla for organizing this floor block today and for his leadership in the fight for our democracy. The freedom to vote is the bedrock of our government, and it is fundamental to all of our freedoms. It is how Americans make their voices heard and hold their elected officials accountable.
It has stood the test of wars, economic strife, and a global pandemic. And now, despite continued attacks on access to the ballot box, we must continue the difficult but critical work of protecting and advancing this right. It is on every generation to do that.
That work hasn't always been easy. Throughout our country's 250-year history, there have been moments when we have needed to course correct and take action to ensure that our country lives up to its ideals. This is one of those moments.
On April 29, in a decision joined by six Supreme Court Justices, the Court in the words of Justice Kagan: Completed the demolition of the Voting Rights Act.
In doing so, it undermined fair representation across the country and made it harder for all Americans to have an effective voice in our political process; and it created chaos, including in Louisiana where ballots were already being cast.
Congressman John Lewis once said that voting is the most powerful tool we have to create a more perfect Union. It was John Lewis' faith in our country and our democratic ideals that led him to Selma, AL, where he helped lead 600 marchers across the Edmond Pettus Bridge on that dark day that became known as Bloody Sunday. The horrific events of the day shocked the Nation. Soon after, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and, as he said, with the outrage of Selma still fresh urged Congress to guarantee the freedom to vote.
Months later, with the help of former Minnesota Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, whose desk I stand behind right now, whose name is carved into this desk, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law.
And historically, protecting meaningful access to the ballot box has brought both sides of the aisle together. The Senate reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 1982 by a vote of 85-8, including 43 Republicans; in 1992, by a vote of 75-20, including 25 Republicans; and in 2006, with a unanimous 98-0 vote, 51 Republicans.
But now so much of the progress that Americans have fought and even died for is at stake. In case after case, these Justices have gutted critical statutes that protect Americans' constitutional rights and diminish our voice in democracy. In cases like Citizens United, the Court unleashed a wave of special interest spending in our elections. In the Shelby County and Brnovich decisions they led to a flood of laws that made it harder for eligible Americans to vote.
The Court has barred Federal courts from policing partisan gerrymandering as well. And now in Callais, it has allowed States to dilute minority votes. In parts of our country, these actions are already effectively shutting minority voters out of the political process. Six Justices overturned Congress' express purpose and effectively eroded section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court has green-lit racial gerrymanders that undermine fair and equal representation, and in the words of Justice Kagan in dissent "threatens a half-century's worth of gains in voting equality."
In her dissent in Brnovich, Justice Kagan noted that the Voting Rights Act reminds us of the best of America because it, in her words "marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality"--and the worst of America because it was and remains necessary. That couldn't be clearer today. After the Callais decision came down, Republican legislatures immediately started the process to carve up majority-minority districts. In some cases, like in Louisiana, they did so even though the votes had already been cast.
The fact that all these States have rushed to change their maps to dilute the votes of certain communities shows that the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever.
It shows, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent in Shelby County, the shortsightedness of undermining a law that is serving its purpose, likening the Court striking down at that time section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to "throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
And yet it also demonstrates the power of the vote, the power that the American people hold when they exercise their constitutional rights and hold their leaders to account. In election after election, it is clear the American people are demanding change. This is no surprise. This administration has been hurting people across the country with their costs, chaos, and corruption.
The President went into a unilateral war without coming to Congress, and in a significant vote today, Congress said no. Congress should have a say. The Senate should have a say.
Americans, why are they so angry? Well, they are seeing rising costs, not just for gas prices from this unauthorized war, but also for food and housing and healthcare costs from these tariffs and refusal to extend the ACA, the Affordable Care Act tax credit, and a refusal to step back and say: Perhaps we should just have targeted tariffs instead of pushing the economy into a tailspin with these across-the-board tariffs. And then trying to do it again and again and again even when the Court says that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal.
The President himself has said:
Text printed in the Record (51 characters)
I don't think about Americans' financial situation.
Americans heard that loud and clear.
The fact is our colleagues know that this agenda is not right. They know that they shouldn't be rubberstamping everything the President has done, as a number of our colleagues just showed with this vote on the war powers.
Well, now we ask them to join us, to listen to the American families and change these policies. This administration is doing all it can to make it harder for the American people to have a meaningful say in our democracy.
You know, Democrats win sometimes; Republicans win sometimes. And when you lose an election, as we have been seeing in these races across the country, then you should listen. You should say: We should maybe change our policies or maybe we should change our candidates or maybe we shouldn't just listen to everything about what the President wants or who the President wants us to vote for. That is how a democracy works.
But instead with both the SAVE America Act and with this court ruling, they are trying to change the rules of the election and trying to change the people who can vote instead of changing their policies and candidates, which has historically been how Americans have been able to find agreement and a party is able to win because they actually find policies and ideas that people want to hear about and that they think will change and improve their lives.
So the SAVE America Act, legislation that Donald Trump, by his own admission, has said "will guarantee the midterms," that bill would create burdensome hurdles for people to register to vote and result in voters' sensitized data being turned over to the Federal Government, something the Justice Department has already tried to illegally pressure States to do, and that is far from the only attack on elections by this administration. The President has repeatedly threatened to nationalize election administration, replacing the judgment and experience of State and local officials--Democrats and Republicans--going so far as to say:
Text printed in the Record (81 characters)
Republicans should say we want to take over. We should take over the voting . . .
Now, Minnesota and 18 other States have sued and have won a preliminary injunction because, as the judge wrote, the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections. Undeterred, the President continues to float illegally ending mail-in voting nationwide and directing the Postal Service to simply refuse to deliver some voters' mail-in ballots. There are also concerns that Federal agents could be deployed to polling locations to intimidate voters--something that is of special concern in my State given what we saw with the overrun of ICE agents doubling the number of Minneapolis-St. Paul police for months. Make no mistake, six Supreme Court Justices have damaged our democracy, but they do not have the last word because, as Justice Ginsburg, whom we miss very much, noted in her Shelby County dissent:
Text printed in the Record (128 characters)
Under our constitutional structure, Congress holds the lead rein in making the right to vote equally real for all U.S. citizens.
It is long past time for Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and it is long past time for us to pass other commonsense bills, like the effort I worked on alongside the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senator Padilla, and Senator Schumer, to advance the Freedom to Vote Act--legislation that, instead of creating barriers to the ballot box, expands access to the polls to ensure all eligible Americans can vote regardless of their ZIP Code. Ultimately, the final check on a Supreme Court weakening our democracy and an administration that is doing all it can to rig the rules--that check is the people. Americans are seeing what has happened, and it really makes them mad. They have turned out to vote in municipal elections, in the Mar-a-Lago legislative election, in cities from Omaha to Miami, in places like Texas--all over this country. In Selma, the police brutally attacked the peaceful marchers. John Lewis' skull was fractured, and he bore the scar for the rest of his life. The images were broadcast nationwide and shocked the American people. Every year since, there is a ceremony to commemorate Bloody Sunday. I was there a number of years ago with Congressman Lewis. That weekend, after 48 years, the White police chief of Montgomery handed his police badge to Congressman Lewis and publicly apologized for the police not protecting him and the freedom marchers. Nearly half a century later, that apology came. Mr. President, 48 years is a long time to wait for an apology, and it only happened because people like Congressman Lewis never quit fighting for progress, for civil rights, for economic justice, and to defend the voting rights of every American. So today, less than 1 month after the Callais decision, when the challenges we face are clear, we cannot quit either. Just this past weekend, thousands again protested in Selma and Montgomery for the fundamental freedom to make their voice heard in our democracy because the people of this country will not be silenced. They marched because, in Congressman Lewis' words, "The right to vote is precious and almost sacred, and one of the most important blessings of our democracy." When those marchers did what they did and proved then what we must remember now and what those marching in Selma and across the country remind us today is that although progress may not be without setbacks--and we are in a major one right now--no obstacle will block the American people from having their voice heard. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Democrat whip.
Mr. President, the issue is our right to vote in this democracy and in this country. For many of us, that has never been a big question. We registered. We vote regularly. We show our identification. We get our ballots, do our civic responsibility, push the ballot into the machine in my hometown, and get a little sticker to wear on your lapel that says "I voted." It is simple, easy.
But I can remember when voting was not so easy for a lot of people. The year was 1965, and I was a college student here at Georgetown in Washington, DC. We heard about a march that was going to take place in Selma, AL, and a number of my fellow students and I sat up one night and said: Why don't we go? Let's go. Let's be part of this.
So we talked about it, and here is the way the conversation went:
Do you remember what happened in Mississippi last year when those three guys from up north--New York and places like that--went down to Mississippi for the Civil Rights Movement, and they were murdered, and they never found their bodies?
At that point in time, they had not found their bodies. They did later.
They associated the murders with members of the Ku Klux Klan who were out to get these foreign meddlers who were coming into Mississippi, pushing for the right to vote for Black people.
We talked about it and said: Well, is it safe to go down there and march?
We went back and forth and back and forth and ultimately decided not to go. Bad decision. I wish I had gone.
Why were they marching in Selma, AL--a town you haven't heard of except for that march? It was over the issue of the right to vote for Black Americans in that town.
Here are the numbers. There were 15,000 eligible Black voters in Selma, AL. How many were actually registered to vote out of the 15,000? There were 335. What happened? Why didn't more register? Because they put a test down, a literacy test, before they could vote, and you had to pass that test to be eligible to vote. They asked constitutional questions like "The Constitution has the phrase `letters of marque and reprisal.' What does that mean?" I am not sure I can answer it standing here today as a Senator. They couldn't answer it, either, and they were denied the right to vote.
That was the reality of the voting crisis in America in the 1960s that led to the Civil Rights Act.
Let me fast-forward in my story to a much more recent time. It was about 25 years ago. I was on a trip down to Alabama, this time with John Lewis, my friend and fellow Member of Congress, who actually marched in Selma the day that I didn't go. We went to a number of places and saw a number of key locations in Birmingham and Montgomery, AL, where important civil rights events had occurred.
The highlight of the trip was going to be on Sunday. After breakfast, we were going to go march together across and down the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. Unfortunately, I was called back home. I had to leave to catch a flight.
I said to John Lewis: I am sorry to miss this opportunity, my friend. I really wanted to be there finally to march in Selma.
He said: What time is your plane?
I said: 8 o'clock.
He said: We are going to get up at 5 and go over there, you and me, and I will march with you down the Edmund Pettus Bridge and show you where they almost killed me.
I said: I wouldn't miss it for the world.
We got up at 5 o'clock, took the drive over to Selma, and marched down and across that bridge. And I thought of all the times I had seen the video and film of John Lewis--this young, idealistic Black man--wearing a tan raincoat, marching with the folks across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and the troopers coming up and battering him so badly, they fractured his skull and almost killed him. He survived, thank God. And he talked about that day and what it meant to him. I wish I had been there. I hope I would have survived it, as he did. I hope I wouldn't have had to go through the beating that he did.
When we talk about the right to vote and the Voting Rights Act, it was created here in Washington the next year by Lyndon Baines Johnson, as President, because he said: Once and for all, we have to put an end to this. We have to say that every American, regardless of race, creed, or color, has an opportunity to vote, and they can never be denied for their racial composition or whatever it might be.
We are back debating the same issue, and, of course, the question is: Do we need a Voting Rights Act? Senator Durbin, you are talking about something that was passed 50-plus years ago. Why do we have to continue to have a provision in the law to protect your right to vote?
Well, my experience as a Congressman and as a Senator has been that there are nefarious, devious ways to make it tough to vote. You can draw a map that basically says you will never get to vote for anybody you want. You are always stuck in the wrong district, the wrong place. That is called gerrymandering or redistricting to deny a constitutional right. Or you can basically be the object of discrimination. That can happen too.
So the issue of voting is so sacred and key to our democracy that I believe the Voting Rights Act should be in place. As a warning to those who would violate it, there is a price to be paid. That, to me, doesn't seem like too much to ask. In fact, it gets down to the heart of who we are and where we are today. You hear a lot of people now talking about illegal and ineligible people who are trying to vote. There have been suggestions that some of them are illegal, undocumented people living here who should never have come into this country and once here, should never be allowed to vote. In fact, the other side has proposed--the Republicans have proposed that people prove they are American citizens before they can vote. The interesting thing is, they say: We want to see your identification before you vote. Well, what identification would you produce? The same thing you produce every day--your driver's license, right? Everybody uses their driver's license. I do to prove who I am when I buy a plane ticket or something. But the Republican approach says that a driver's license is not eligible to be used for identification under their new law. Under their new law, you basically have to produce one of two things. A passport. Well, I have a passport. Doesn't everybody? No. Half of Americans don't own a passport. Well, then get one before the election. I have a problem. I need $165 to buy a passport, and I have to wait a few weeks, maybe a few months if it doesn't come through quickly. So that is one proof of identification, which many people don't have and can't get in time for an election, not for sure. The second thing they would like you to produce is your birth certificate that proves you are who you say you are because your name is on it. It is OK for me, if I can ever find the darn thing up in that box in my closet. But I can find my birth certificate that has my name on it. My wife is not so lucky. It has her maiden name on her birth certificate, of course, so she has to go ahead of time and obtain a new birth certificate, pay for it, and get it delivered with her married name on board. Why? The basic premise is to make sure that you are an American when you vote. Well, this must be a real problem. If we are going to ask people to produce a passport or a birth certificate with their birth name on it because we want to keep ineligible people from voting, this must be a real problem. Well, we took a look at it, and here is how it turns out. Over a span of 20 years of voting in America--imagine the millions and millions of votes that were cast--they found a number of people who were ineligible because they weren't citizens of the United States, who actually tried to vote. Out of 40 million people, how many do you think they found? Seventy thousand? No. Seven thousand? No. Seven hundred? No. Seventy-seven. Seventy-seven people who tried to vote who were ineligible. Now the other side--the Republicans--is coming up with the idea to go buy a passport to prove you are eligible; go find a birth certificate that fits the law to show you are eligible. The point I am making is this: 77 people who were stupid enough or devious enough to try to vote and weren't eligible shouldn't create a hardship for every other conscientious American who gets up regularly and never misses the opportunity to vote. To put some new identification requirement in there for registration just makes no sense to me whatsoever. That is why we continue to debate about voting. Incidentally, let's say the obvious. One of the reasons we continue this debate is that a former President, and now President again, has decided he never lost an election. He says, in the year 2020, he never lost to Joe Biden. It has reached a ridiculous point, where nominees to become a Federal judge for life--attorneys--come before us; take an oath; and testify in the Judiciary Committee, where I am the ranking member. We ask these judicial nominees a basic question: Who won the election in 2020? I will bet you, if I went to the Galleries up there, everybody could answer: Why, of course, Joe Biden won that election. These nominees cannot say those words. They are afraid of the reaction of Donald Trump when he hears that they are not promoting the Big Lie--that he never lost an election. Think I am exaggerating? Just 2 or 3 weeks ago, Senator Coons of Delaware started asking those nominees who had won a lifetime appointment on a Federal bench another basic question. The amendments to the Constitution include an amendment that says: If you have been elected two times as President of the United States, you can't run for a third term. So Senator Coons asked these nominees that question: Do you believe that because Donald Trump was elected twice as President that he is prohibited from running for a third term? They refused to answer. "It may be an issue on a case before me someday." That is not what it is all about. Donald Trump likes to hold out the possibility that he will run again, even though it is clearly, clearly unconstitutional for him to even consider it. But these nominees are in such fear that he will end up vicing them or taking them off the list to be judges that they won't answer these basic questions about who won the election or whether or not Donald Trump can run for a third term. That is the ridiculous extreme we have reached in this country. There will come a day for some of these people--and they will be put on the Federal bench by my colleagues on the Republican side--when somebody is going to assemble a video of their testimony. It will be a moment of embarrassment for them to think what they had to do to finally get approval before the Judiciary Committee. Today, the right to vote is under attack in this country. We are witnessing a brand of politics we have never seen before. The Trump administration has shown they are dead set on restricting Americans' right to vote by pushing for partisan gerrymandering, restricting mail-in voting, and demanding unreasonable voter registration requirements, such as those I just mentioned. Incidentally, the President of the United States says he wants to eliminate vote-by-mail, which many of us have used over and over again, because of the fraud involved in it. How did the President of the United States vote in this last election in Florida? He voted by mail. Go figure. This is supposed to be a corrupt form of voting in America. Yet the President, who wants to end it, uses it himself. All Americans need to have a fair say in who represents them, but in being led by a President who tried stealing an election, Republicans have lost all respect for election integrity. We are now witnessing a never-before-seen political pressure campaign to rig our elections by enabling politicians to choose their voters, not the other way around. Rather than tit-for-tat political games, the American people deserve stability at the voting booth. The Voting Rights Act used to be an overwhelming bipartisan sentiment that we are all in this together and that we don't want anyone to cheat their way into public office. In the most recent Supreme Court case of Louisiana v. Callais, the Court had an opportunity to protect this representation for all Americans, especially those who have been historically disenfranchised by gerrymandering and other discriminatory voting practices. Instead, the Court's conservative supermajority has again turned its back on the promise of an equal right to vote, further gutting the Voting Rights Act. The impact is already being felt. Across the South--primarily in the former Confederate States--you see decisions being made to eliminate African-American Representatives from congressional districts. Justice Kagan, in writing for the dissent, said the Voting Rights Act was "born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers." We cannot allow that blood to have been spilled in vain. We must fight these dangerous attempts to restrict the right to vote, and we must restore confidence in our democracy by ensuring that every eligible American has access to the ballot. That is why, in honor of my late friend and voting rights pioneer Congressman John Lewis, I have been proud to introduce a bill that bears his name. It is the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act. It has been an honor to work with Senator Warnock of Georgia, who is cosponsoring this bill with me. We are going to try to make sure it has its day in court--or its day in the Senate, as we say. We also need to advance additional tools against current voter suppression efforts. Attacks on voting rights aren't happening in a vacuum. Across this country, Republican lawmakers and litigators are using every trick in the book to rig the rules of the game. Why? They are afraid of losing in November. Purging voter rolls, closing polling places, restricting mail-in voting, and undermining the Voting Rights Act all serve one purpose--to limit access to the ballot box. America is better than that. Some Democrats will continue to stand up and push back against this effort. It is about time that this became a bipartisan effort again. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Illinois on the topic of paramount interest to this body and to the American people.
You know, future generations of Americans will read the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais with dismay and embarrassment. Right now, there are a lot of Americans reading it with not only dismay and embarrassment but with outrage and fear because, in that decision, the Court gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act--landmark legislation that ensured minority communities had the opportunity to elect a representative of their choice--in other words, the people picking their political representatives, not the political representatives picking the people, the constituents whom they will represent.
That decision was not handed down in a vacuum. It comes as President Trump and his handpicked Supreme Court majority launch a two-front attack on our elections: voting rights and the democratic structure. Trump has sought to purge voters from the rolls, has demanded voters' most sensitive data, has threatened to send ICE to the polls, has raided election offices to seize ballots, has tried to kill mail-in voting, and has claimed he will nationalize elections.
That is his word--"nationalize" elections--meaning have the Federal Government take over elections, which constitutionally are the States' responsibility under the law, under the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court lent a helping hand to President Trump, inflicting generational damage on our democracy as well. In its decision demolishing voting rights, the Supreme Court decided that it knows best when it comes to societal, political, electoral conditions on the ground. The people's elected representatives simply can't be trusted in their determination that every American ought to have a meaningful right to vote. Election rights are too important to be left to elected representatives. The Supreme Court knows best.
Justice Alito's majority opinion blithely justifies the decision on the grounds that the "Voting Rights Act led to `great strides' " in electoral opportunities, since it was enacted, such that section 2 is no longer necessary.
Of course, if you want the definition of an activist Court out of control, it is a Court that makes the judgment on what it thinks are the facts without having any factual evidence that a provision of law is no longer necessary. That provision of law was passed by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Supreme Court thinks it knows better.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to a previous ruling of this Court diminishing voting rights, the logic of tossing away section 2 because it has worked so well--that is Justice Alito's logic--"is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet." That rainstorm now has come. Before the ink was dry on the Court's decision, States were already carving up Black majority districts with reckless abandon.
So, with the President and his Court majority's hostility toward American democracy, there is only one branch of the Federal Government left standing to protect our voting rights, and it is the branch that the Constitution actually entrusts with authority over elections--the U.S. Congress. Yes, us. Now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon the Members of this institution to take action to preserve our great Republic.
As Benjamin Franklin said, it is "a republic, if you can keep it."
Now is the time that we are called upon literally to keep it. We have done it before in circumstances not dissimilar to the crisis we face today.
In 1965, when our democracy was at an inflection point, as millions of our fellow Americans were being blocked from exercising the franchise, our predecessors passed the original Voting Rights Act in the face of unprecedented political resistance. You need not be a constitutional or a historical scholar to remember the great fight that was entailed in the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which guaranteed voting rights.
Then, in 1982--much like today with the Supreme Court's gutting of section 2--Congress passed and President Reagan signed a law overruling the Court and emphasizing that Congress meant what it said: All Americans--all Americans--must have the opportunity to choose representatives as they wish.
Now, to be sure, we face a new and profoundly dangerous situation today. The sitting President of the United States is actively seeking to undermine free and fair elections in our country, and the Supreme Court has entirely abdicated its responsibility to safeguard our fundamental rights. The Supreme Court is doing his bidding. It is in his pocket. The Justices of the Supreme Court are regarded these days by a lot of Americans as nothing more than politicians in robes.
We ought to learn from the courage of civil rights leaders, legislators, and ordinary people who have come before us. Their insistence that our democracy belongs to all Americans was the force that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and its later amendments.
We, too, now must act with urgency. Healing the damage done to voting rights and rebuilding our democratic structures will take substantial reforms. We can start right now, today, with measures that should be uncontroversial.
We must pass, for example, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I am proud to be a supporter of it. I have tried to help lead it. We must significantly increase election security grant funding to ensure that local election officials can smoothly and securely administer our elections as these midterms approach--smoothly and securely administer elections.
And that kind of support is more essential than ever at a time when elections are under real threat. We must significantly work with and support State leaders who have stood up to the administration and refused to hand over voters' most sensitive information.
We must defeat the attempt to further disenfranchise voters through the so-called SAVE America Act. It seems moribund, but we need to be wary that it could be revived.
And we must ensure that this evermore Supreme Court does not have the final word on the right to vote in America. Just like in 1982, Congress has an obligation and an opportunity to pass a voting rights statute so powerful and unambiguous that not even this Court can find a way to overrule it.
We are approaching our Nation's 250th anniversary, a great milestone for a republic that Benjamin Franklin said we would have to work to keep. Now is our time to keep it.
Callais reminds us that the American experiment has been an ongoing struggle to fulfill the ideals of the Revolution for all people of the country. By and large, that history has been one of expanding rights, embracing more people with liberties and power to control their own lives and a say in the government that makes decisions about those lives. We have expanded voting rights, until now. And, right now, voting rights are in the balance.
Our history has not been linear. Every two steps forward, sometimes a step back because of reactionary backlash to advances in rights and liberties, but Americans have never stopped fighting to ensure that all this Nation's people have a say in determining how we can make our Union more perfect.
The Supreme Court's decision in Callais--dangerous and misguided as it is--will not stop us from continuing that 250-year fight. Now I ask all of my colleagues to join in this effort to preserve our democracy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague the senior Senator from Connecticut, and I too want to join him in commenting on the Callais decision. And I want to put the decision also in a context of what the Supreme Court has been doing consistently since at least Bush v. Gore, and that is, on the one hand, they have been stripping the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--the legislative body--of their legislative powers. On the other hand, they have been extending unprecedented extension of powers to the executive. It is a threat to democracy. The Supreme Court is doing real damage to everyday people in all of our country by upsetting the constitutional order of the separation of powers in coequal branches of government.
Let me talk a little bit about the Callais decision. You know, I was inspired to get involved in politics, in public service, by the civil rights movement in the sixties. In 1967, I dropped out of college. I hitchhiked to Chicago, and I began working against housing discrimination against African-American citizens on the West Side of Chicago. And it was amazing to me two things: one, how much of the discrimination they suffered was legal. A veteran who served in World War II, if he was Black, could not get a mortgage. Banks were allowed to redline districts where it meant nobody who lived in them--and they were Black neighborhoods--could even get a mortgage. It was legal.
But what I was also astonished by and aspired by, as I am to this day, was the generosity, the resilience, and the determination of people who were on the receiving end of what, in effect, was Jim Crow discrimination to forge ahead, to help each other, and to make changes.
The civil rights struggle in that decade culminated with the legal protections delivered by the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais literally turns the clock back on that hard-won progress. Already--already--in an instant, States from Louisiana to South Carolina to Tennessee have called for redistricting ahead of the midterm elections in 6 months. And hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of voters are being impacted by this decision.
In addition, in my view, being wrong on the merits and incredibly damaging, the Supreme Court's decision is the latest example of what the Court is doing that is, in fact, eroding our democracy. A trail of decisions has led us to this remarkable moment. Look at what has happened over just the last decade and a half.
In 2010, Citizens United, the Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited gargantuan sums of money in our elections. Money is speech. And, of course, what has happened is that, literally, billionaires dominate funding for elections. And it is not about what the country needs; it is about what they want.
In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court removes the Federal oversight of potentially discriminatory State voting restrictions that threatened the access to the ballot itself. Since that decision, States have added nearly 100 restrictive voting right laws.
In 2018, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to act on partisan--wildly partisan--gerrymandering.
And by the way, both parties have engaged in that. So I am condemning that radical gerrymandering, regardless of which party uses it for their own advantage.
But now, across the country, in light of this recent decision, we are literally seeing a race to the bottom where Members of Congress--pardon me--where members of State legislatures, with the assent of many Members of Congress, are choosing their voters by this radical gerrymandering on a partisan basis where the goal is to get your side elected and to do that by picking your voters. And then we are seeing the spectacle of redistricting every 2 years instead of every 10 years. It is stripping away the right of the voters to be the ones picking their leaders, as opposed to the leaders picking their voters.
And, of course, in 2024, Trump v. United States, that decision defied our 250 years of history which said that no person, including the President of the United States, was above the law.
Every single one of these decisions by the Court has made our democracy less democratic. And now this Court's decision in Callais can be added to that really damaging list.
The Court has gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as passed by Congress, making it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They have to prove "intent"--impossible burden with 535 Members and every one may have a different intent. They have to disregard, now, the actual impact of the map that is put together by partisan State legislators.
The Court decision has also given the green light for States to reduce the electoral role that minorities have played in our democracy, unraveling one of the last opportunities for minorities to elect people of their choice.
Let me go through a few of the States. In Louisiana, a third of the population is African American. Joe Biden won 40 percent of the vote there. Yet after Callais, Louisiana has proposed a map that won't even come close to one-third representation for African Americans--and by the way, that might be a Republican or a Democrat; it is the voters' choice. There will only be one Black Representative out of six House Members.
The Supreme Court knows exactly what it is doing. By blessing partisan gerrymandering while gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Roberts Court has completed the mission of the Jim Crow laws in the South: removing the ability of elected representatives to be Representative of and responsive to those they represent.
Equally concerning, partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees that the politicians will choose who wins elections--not the people of their State and their district. They are picking their voters. This is a race to the bottom that is detrimental to the country and should be rejected by both parties.
It is very concerning to me as well how the legislative branch, by its passivity, has allowed this to happen. Under the Constitution, the Congress--as I mentioned, the branch most responsive to the will of the people--is supposed to be the counterweight against the other branches of government. But as Congress has stood on the sidelines, the executive branch, aided by the Supreme Court, has unleashed the unrestrained power in our campaign financing system of billionaires to play an oversized role--a decisive role--to select their own political elite.
But the outcome of Callais is not just about the degradation of our democracy. The Supreme Court reached its judgment based on its own individual assessment of the protections that were codified by the judgment of Congress that recognized and protected against racial discrimination in voting. Congress said those protections continue to be necessary. The Supreme Court casually blew that off and said: No, they are not necessary. Now the Supreme Court has overruled Congress on a question of policy which was within the purview of this institution to make.
Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times in recognition of the need to prevent voting discrimination in this country. And despite such clear instruction, the Court has still taken it upon itself to encroach upon Congress' prerogative by requiring victims of racially discriminatory gerrymandering to prove that States had a discriminatory motive--an impossible task to prove, even when the impact is absolutely clear.
Justice Kagan, dissenting from the Callais decision, put it plainly: [The Voting Rights Act] was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people's representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed-not the Members of this Court.
It is incumbent on us that we, as Congress, reassert our authority to make judgments about what is best in terms of access to the ballot.
My view, by the way, is that this race to the bottom is going to be a killer for our democracy, and I believe both parties should renounce radical partisan gerrymandering, and I believe both parties should support eliminating these every 2-year redistrictings that all have, as their stated goal, advantaging one party over the other.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Wyoming.
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)
Page S2362 · Official textI ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 741; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion 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; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (223 characters)
The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
Rear Adm. Douglas L. Williams
Legislative Session
Page S2362 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senate will now resume legislative session.
Morning Business
Pages S2362–S2367 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Procurement Regulations amendments and Senate Procurement Regulations, as amended, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (2,902 characters)
On December 19, 2022, the Rules Committee substantially revised the Senate Procurement Regulations to streamline the contracting process while ensuring competition and appropriate protest and contract dispute procedures. The following amendments to the 2022 version of the Senate Procurement Regulations provide further clarifications.
The Committee hereby approves the following amendments, effective on May 19, 2026:
1. Replace paragraph 1.4(a)(4) as follows:
(a)(4) Procurements approved by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as follows--
(i) Initial contract awards or purchase orders in the amount of $500,000 or less.
(ii) In-scope modifications to contracts and purchase orders previously approved by the Chair, when combined with any prior modifications, that are less than twenty (20) percent of the approved contract value. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a single modification above the approved contract value in excess of $1,000,000 requires approval by the Chair.
(iii) All other in-scope modifications to contracts and purchase orders, when combined with prior modifications, that do not exceed a total contract value of $500,000.
(iv) With reasonable prior notification to the Rules Committee--
(A) Awards of Senate IDIQ contracts without funding;
(B) The exercise of an existing priced optional task or option period in the amount of between $500,000 and $1,000,000, that was not previously approved by the Chair;
(C) Not exercising a previously approved contract option period previously approved by the Chair; or
(D) The issuance of a task, delivery order or call in the amount of between $500,000 and $1,000,000 against a GSA Schedule contract; a Senate IDIQ contract; an agency's GWAC; or any other U.S. Government contract available for Senate use that was not previously approved by the Chair.
2. Replace first sentence of paragraph 4.2 (b) as follows:
For contracts up to $500,000, the original approval authority shall issue a final determination on all unresolved disputes provided that the determination does not have the effect of increasing the contract cost beyond the approval authorities set forth in paragraphs 1.4(a)(4)(ii) or 1.4(a)(4)(iii).
3. Replace first sentence of paragraph 4.2 (c) as follows:
For contracts exceeding $500,000, the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, shall issue a final determination on all unresolved disputes provided that the determination does not have the effect of increasing the contract cost beyond the approval authorities set forth in paragraph 1.4(a)(4)(ii).
4. Amend paragraph 1.3 by adding the following new paragraph after 1.3(1):
(m) Procurements of furniture and carpets by the Sergeant at Arms shall be made pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2184 and Rules Committee regulations governing the furnishings of personal and support offices located in the Capitol.
(Adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration on December 19, 2022, as amended on May 19, 2026)
Text printed in the Record (11,784 characters)
Pursuant to jurisdiction over the payment of money from the contingent fund of the Senate, as set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6503 and Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration hereby establishes the following Senate Procurement Regulations. These Regulations govern the procurement of personal property and non-personal services with appropriated and revolving account funds in the Senate. These Regulations replace and supersede the Senate Procurement Regulations approved by the Rules Committee on December 31, 1998, as amended on September 13, 1999.
1.1 Definitions
Unless a different definition is prescribed for a specific portion of these Regulations or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following definitions apply:
"Approval authority" means a person who is authorized to approve a procurement within the limits specified in these Regulations. Approval authorities include Senators,
chairs of Senate committees, and officers of the Senate.
"Acquisition" means the acquiring by contract of supplies or services by and for the use of the Senate through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated. Acquisition begins at the point when needs are established and includes the description of requirements to satisfy needs, solicitation and selection of sources, award of contracts, contract financing, contract performance, contract administration, and those technical and management functions directly related to the process of fulfilling Senate needs by contract.
"Business day" excludes Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays.
"Chair" means the Chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
"Commercial item" means an item customarily used by the general public or for nongovernmental purposes that (1) has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; (2) has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public; or (3) has evolved from a commercial item through advances in technology or performance and that is not yet available to the general public, but will be available in the commercial marketplace in time to satisfy the delivery requirements under a Senate solicitation. The term includes services associated with supporting commercial items and services of a type offered or sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace on the basis of established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed under standard commercial terms and conditions.
"Contract" means a mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish supplies or services and the buyer to pay for such supplies or services. It includes all types of commitments that obligate the Senate to an expenditure of appropriated funds and that, except as otherwise authorized, are made in writing. In addition to bilateral instruments, contracts include (but are not limited to) awards and notices of awards; orders issued under basic ordering agreements; letter contracts; orders, such as purchase orders, under which the contract becomes effective by written acceptance or performance; and bilateral contract modifications.
"Contract modification" means any written change to the terms of the contract through one of the following types of contract actions:
(a) Bilateral. A bilateral modification (supplemental agreement) is a contract modification that is signed by the contractor and the contracting officer. Bilateral modifications are used to:
(1) Make negotiated equitable adjustments resulting from the issuance of a change order; and
(2) Reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of contracts.
(b) Unilateral. A unilateral modification is a contract modification that is signed only by the contracting officer. Unilateral modifications are used, for example, to:
(1) Make administrative changes;
(2) Issue change orders;
(3) Make changes authorized by clauses other than a changes clause; and
(4) Issue termination notices.
"Contracting officer" means a person delegated authority by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the Senate.
"Contracting officer representative" means an individual designated and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions to assist in the technical monitoring or administration of a contract. A contracting officer representative is nominated by the approval authority and appointed by a contracting officer.
"Cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contract" means contracts under which a contractor receives reimbursement of its actual costs, plus payment of a percentage of those actual costs as profit.
"Day" means, unless otherwise specified, a calendar day.
"Governmentwide acquisition contract" (GWAC) means a task-order or delivery-order contract for information technology established by one agency for governmentwide use.
"Governmentwide point of entry" (GPE) means the single point where government business opportunities, including synopses of proposed contract actions, solicitations, and associated information. can be accessed electronically by the public. The GPE is located at https://sam.gov/.
"GSA eBuy" is an electronic Request for Quotation system designed to allow ordering activities to post requirements, obtain quotes, and issue orders for services and products offered through the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) multiple award schedule and GSA technology contracts.
"Indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract" (IDIQ) means a type of contract that provides for an indefinite quantity of supply or services during a fixed period of time. These contracts are used when the Senate cannot determine the exact time, or the precise quantities of products or services that it will need. These contracts are awarded for a base year and option years and allow the Senate to place delivery orders or task orders against the base contract for individual requirements. An IDIQ contract may specify a minimum quantity that should not exceed an amount that the Senate is fairly certain to order; a maximum quantity under each task or delivery order and for all orders during specific periods of time (base year, option year, total contract period of performance); and ordering procedures that, in a multi-award IDIQ contract, provide an opportunity for all contract holders to respond to task order requests.
"Interested party" means an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of a contract or by the failure to award a contract. After the submission of proposals, an interested party must be an actual bidder or offeror with a direct economic interest.
"Lowest price technically acceptable" means a source selection process in which award is made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.
"Micro-purchase" means an acquisition the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold which is established at $10,000.
"Multiple year contract" means a contract having a term of more than one (1) year separated by option periods not to exceed one year each.
"Multi-year contract" means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services for more than one (1), but not more than five (5), program years. A multi-year contract may provide that performance under the contract during the second and subsequent years of the contract is contingent upon the appropriation of funds, and, if it does so provide, may provide for a cancellation payment to be made to the contractor if appropriations are not made. The key distinguishing difference between multi-year contracts and multiple year contracts is that multi-year contracts buy more than one (1) year's requirement of a product or service without establishing and having to exercise an option for each program year after the first.
"Option" means a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Senate may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract, or may elect to extend the term of the contract.
"Personal services contract" means a contract that, by its express terms or as administered, makes the contractor personnel appear to be, in effect, Senate employees.
"Procurement(s)". See "Acquisition."
"Procurement Procedures" mean those procedures issued by the Senate Sergeant at Arms, in consultation with the Secretary of the Senate, subject to the approval of the Chair acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, governing the acquisition of supplies or services processed by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate.
"Property" means personal property, as opposed to real property.
"Ratification" means the act of approving an unauthorized commitment by an official who has the authority to do so.
"Rules Committee" means the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
"Services" means non-personal services; personal service contracts are prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Senate. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6505.
"Shall" means the imperative.
"Small purchase" means an acquisition in an aggregate amount that exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $100,000.
"Simplified acquisition" is a contracting method for acquisitions in an aggregate amount that exceeds $100,000 but does not exceed $250,000 or, in the case of commercial items, does not exceed $7,500,000, which reduces the amount of paperwork associated with solicitation and evaluation of offers.
(a) When soliciting proposals or quotations in a simplified acquisition procurement, the contracting office may publish a single synopsis/solicitation, and shall provide a reasonable response period that may be less than thirty (30) days.
(b) When selecting a contractor in a simplified acquisition procurement, there is no requirement for a formal evaluation plan, establishing a competitive range, or conducting discussions. The contracting officer has broad discretion to establish suitable evaluation procedures, which shall be disclosed in the combined synopsis/solicitation.
(c) The contracting officer may choose the successful offeror.
(d) Documentation may be kept to a minimum. The contracting officer shall record a determination of price reasonableness, supporting documentation such as abstracts of prices and, if other than price-related factors were considered, and a narrative statement reflecting the basis for the award decision.
"Unauthorized commitment" means an agreement that is not binding upon the Senate solely because the representative who made it lacked the authority to enter into that agreement on behalf of the Senate.
"Unauthorized contract award" means a contract award without the approvals required by these Regulations, but that would otherwise have been proper if all necessary approvals were obtained prior to contract award. 1.2 Authority
(a) Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6503 and Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, approves all vouchers that will be charged to the contingent fund of the Senate. To facilitate the approval of vouchers,
all expenses to be approved by the Chair must be incurred in accordance with these Regulations.
(b) The Senate Sergeant at Arms shall be responsible for processing procurements, including procurements initiated by Senate committees of more than $100,000, through the Senate Sergeant at Arms Acquisition Office, as set forth in these Regulations.
Text printed in the Record (11,533 characters)
The Secretary of the Senate shall be responsible for procurements initiated by the Secretary of the Senate, but may utilize the Sergeant at Arms Acquisitions Office to assist with processing such procurements.
(c) All additional procedures to be issued by the Senate Sergeant at Arms, in consultation with the Secretary of the Senate, pursuant to these Regulations, must be approved by the Rules Committee before taking effect. 1.3 Exceptions
These Regulations apply to all Senate procurements except--
(a) Procurement of consultant services by the Majority and Minority Conference Committees of the Senate pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6157; by the Standing Committees of the Senate pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301; by the Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Secretary of the Senate, or Legislative Counsel of the Senate pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6501; or by the Senate Sergeant at Arms pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6599;
(b) Procurements by the Secretary of the Senate for supplies pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4102-4106, 6572; or for the operation of the Senate Gift Shop pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6576; or for substitute or temporary reporters of debates or expert transcribers pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6544;
(c) Procurements that involve funds in a Senator's official personnel and office expense account;
(d) Procurements of $100,000 or less that involve funds in a Senate committee account;
(e) Procurements of access to digital or print subscriptions to news media services;
(f) Procurements of access to digital or print subscriptions to research databases or related services;
(g) Procurements of utility services (including but not limited to internet, frame relay, cellular, telecommunication, or satellite services, and related devices bundled with such services) that are recurring in nature or are reimbursed to the Senate Sergeant at Arms from office or other official expense accounts over which they have general authority to expend funds;
(h) Procurements of utility services (including, but not limited to internet, frame relay, cellular, telecommunications, or satellite services and related devices bundled with such services) for the Senate Sergeant at Arms;
(i) Leases for Senators' home state offices space pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6317 and funded by the Senate Sergeant at Arms and signed for by a Senator directly;
(j) Reimbursement of the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, for security services for Senators' state offices located in GSA facilities;
(k) Acquisition of furniture, equipment, and office furnishings provided by GSA pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6317, in addition to any space alteration performed by the GSA; and
(l) When the exigencies of the Senate require deviation from these Regulations, as evidenced by written authorization from the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee.
(m) Procurements of furniture and carpets by the Sergeant at Arms shall be made pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2184 and Rules Committee regulations governing the furnishings of personal and support offices located in the Capitol. 1.4 Rules Committee Approval
(a) The following procurements may be processed without the prior approval of the Chair.
(1)Procurements by Senate committees in the amount of $100,000 or less.
(2) Procurements by Senate committees that exceed $100,000, and are made through the Acquisition Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, subject to these Regulations and the Senate Sergeant at Arms Procurement Procedures.
(3) Procurements made through purchase cards (including Economic Allocation Fund purchase cards, Senate travel cards, and purchase cards), in accordance with applicable regulations approved by the Rules Committee.
(4) Procurements approved by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as follows--
(i) Initial contract awards or purchase orders in the amount of $500,000 or less.
(ii) In-scope modifications to contracts and purchase orders previously approved by the Chair, when combined with any prior modifications, that are less than twenty (20) percent of the approved contract value. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a single modification above the approved contract value in excess of $1,000,000 requires approval by the Chair.
(iii) All other in-scope modifications to contracts and purchase orders, when combined with prior modifications, that do not exceed a total contract value of $500,000.
(iv) With reasonable prior notification to the Rules Committee--
(A) Awards of Senate IDIQ contracts without funding;
(B) The exercise of an existing priced optional task or option period in the amount of between $500,000 and $l,000,000, that was not previously approved by the Chair;
(C) Not exercising a previously approved contract option period previously approved by the Chair; or
(D) The issuance of a task, delivery order or call in the amount of between $500,000 and $1,000,000 against a GSA Schedule contract; a Senate IDIQ contract; an agency's GWAC; or any other U.S. Government contract available for Senate use that was not previously approved by the Chair.
(b) All other procurements, including multi-year contracts of any amount, that are not otherwise exempt from these Regulations, must be approved in advance by the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee. 1.5 Delegation of Authority
With the approval of the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, the Secretary of the Senate and Senate Sergeant at Arms may delegate procurement authority. Such delegations shall be in writing and shall state the limits of the procurement authority to be delegated. 1.6 Required Procedures
(a) Procurements by Senate Personal Offices are exempt from these Regulations. However, for procurements exceeding $10,000, Senate Personal Offices are encouraged to seek the assistance of the Acquisition Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
(b) Procurements by Senate committees in the amount of $100,000 or less are exempt from these Regulations. However, for procurements exceeding $10,000, Senate committees are encouraged to seek the assistance of the Acquisition Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
(c) The Senate Sergeant at Arms shall issue the Sergeant at Arms Procurement Procedures, in consultation with the Secretary of the Senate, subject to the approval of the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, governing the acquisition of supplies or services processed by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as follows--
(1) Micro-purchase procedures governing procurements of $10,000 or less, in accordance with the policies set forth in paragraph 2.2(a);
(2) Small purchase procedures governing procurements that exceed $10,000 but do not exceed $100,000, in accordance with the policies set forth in paragraph 2.2(b); and
(3) Simplified acquisition procedures governing procurements that exceed $100,000 but do not exceed $250,000 or, in the case of commercial items, does not exceed $7,500,000. in accordance with the policies set forth in paragraph 2.2(c). 1.7 Waiver of These Regulations
The Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, may grant a waiver to any provision of these Regulations, as required to meet the needs of the Senate, consistent with applicable law, Standing Rules of the Senate, and Standing Orders of the Senate. 1.8 Prohibition on Splitting Procurements
Requirements shall not be Split into multiple smaller procurements in order to keep the value within any approval limits or required regulation limits set forth in these Regulations. During acquisition planning, every reasonable effort shall be made to anticipate and include within a procurement all subsequent requirements for the same products or services within the same fiscal year. 1.9 Personal Services Contracts Prohibited
Contracts for personal services are not permitted under these Regulations, unless specifically authorized by the Senate. pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 6505 or other applicable law. 1.10 Ratification of Unauthorized Contract Awards
All contracts shall be entered into with appropriate authorization. An unauthorized contract award, if otherwise proper, may be ratified in writing by an approval authority with the authority to award the contract pursuant to these Regulations. 1.11 Conflict of Interest
Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust. In dealing with contractors, Senate personnel are subject to the Senate Code of Official Conduct and applicable law, and should make every effort to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or of a conflict of interest. Their official conduct should be such that they would have no reluctance to make a full public disclosure of their actions. 1.12 Contracts with Business Concerns Substantially Owned or
Controlled by Senate Employees
Contracts between the Senate and employees of the Senate or business concerns or organizations substantially owned or controlled by Senate employees shall be avoided. Exceptions may be made only with the approval of the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, consistent with applicable laws and the Senate Code of Official Conduct. In addition, Senate employees shall not participate in any decision, recommendation, award, or other activity regarding a contract with a business concern or organization in which they have a financial interest and are prohibited from such activity if their financial interest represents a substantial portion of the holdings or assets of the Senate employee. 1.13 Protection of Sensitive Information
Personal, proprietary, or Senate procurement information are considered "sensitive"
information and shall not be released to the public. 1.14 Firms or Individuals Ineligible for Federal Contracts
The governmentwide point of entry provides access to active exclusion records for organizations and individuals indicating if they are debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for the award of contracts above the micro-purchase threshold by the Senate. Contracts above the micro-purchase threshold shall not knowingly be awarded to a firm or individual that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for award. Inquiries may be directed to the Acquisition Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. 1.15 Small Businesses
Procurement of Senate requirements from small business concerns and small business development programs is encouraged but not mandated. Small business concerns may be identified through the Dynamic Small Business Search tool, available through the Small Business Administration. 1.16 Responsible Prospective Contractors
Contracts shall be awarded only to prospective contractors that have demonstrated a satisfactory record of past performance and the capacity, capability, and financial means to complete the contract. 1.17 Prohibition on Cost-Plus-a-Percentage-of-Cost Contracts
Contracts under which a contractor receives reimbursement of its actual costs, plus payment of profit as a specified percentage of the contractor's actual cost of accomplishing the work, are prohibited. Any fee or profit to be paid to a contractor shall be negotiated separately and not be computed as a percentage of actual cost. Contracts shall avoid computations of fees or profits that may create an incentive to increase a contractor's reimbursable costs.
2.1 Competition
(a) All purchases and contracts shall be made on a competitive basis to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the best interests of the Senate.
Text printed in the Record (11,878 characters)
Procurements shall be structured to provide an equitable opportunity to all prospective, qualified contractors to the maximum extent practicable.
(b) Reasonable acquisition planning and appropriate market research shall be conducted prior to efforts to compete Senate procurements.
(c) It is the policy of the Senate that specifications should be performance-based and should not include features available from only one vendor, or requirements able to be met by only one vendor, unless those features or requirements represent a mandatory requirement of the Senate. 2.2 Micro-purchases, Small Purchases, and Simplified
Acquisition Procedures
(a) Micro-purchases
(1) For Senate procurements of $10,000 or less, the purchase card should be used to the maximum extent practicable and require no more than one quote if the purchase card holder determines that the price is reasonable and that the procurement has not been split to avoid a requirement for competition.
(b) Small Purchases
(1) Senate procurements that exceed $10,000 but do not exceed $100,000 shall be conducted as follows:
(i) The procedures may permit awards on the basis of documented comparison of at least three competitive quotations, if available, with or without advertisement on the GPE or another authorized location for posting procurement notices.
(c) Simplified Acquisition Procedures
(1) Senate procurements within the simplified acquisition threshold, that exceed $100,000 but do not exceed $250,000 or, in the case of commercial items, does not exceed $7,500,000, shall be conducted consistent with the definition of "simplified acquisition procedures" set forth in this Regulation and as follows:
(i) The procedures may require advertisement, if required by the Rules Committee, of procurement opportunities on the GPE or another authorized location for posting procurement notices (e.g. GSA eBuy), which may be in the form of a combined synopsis/solicitation or special notice, and may provide for any reasonable response time, which may be fewer than thirty (30) days.
(ii) The procedures shall provide for the use of simplified acquisition procedures for purchases of commercial items up to $7,500,000.
(iii) If a lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is used, a request for quotations can be issued in writing to a minimum of three vendors. 2.3 Procurements Exceeding the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold
(a) Senate procurements in amounts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold set forth in section 2.2, shall be conducted on the basis of full and open competition, to the extent practicable, and the Rules Committee may require that the procurement be advertised on the GPE for a period of not less than thirty (30) days, unless an exception to this requirement applies. If a lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is used, a request for quotation can be issued in writing to a minimum of three vendors.
(b) Negotiated Procurements
(1) In conducting negotiated procurements, the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may issue a request for proposal that contains necessary contractual provisions and describes the Senate's requirements and the basis upon which the successful offeror will be selected, and soliciting proposals.
(2) Alternatively, the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may publish a sources sought notice or a request for information (RFI) in order to identify firms or individuals from whom proposals may be solicited. The notice or RFI shall summarize the Senate's requirements and solicit abbreviated descriptions of contractor capabilities and experience and may include other information including sample pricing, the Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, deems necessary. The notice or RFI may advise that requests for proposals be issued only to those respondents determined to be the best qualified in accordance with the criteria set forth in the notice or RFI.
(3) Competitive Range and Discussions
(i) After receipt and evaluation of initial proposals from a Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, issued request for proposal, the Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may establish a competitive range consisting of only the highest-rated proposals, and may conduct exchanges limited to those offerors whose proposals are within the competitive range.
(ii) Offerors whose proposals are not selected for the competitive range shall be given prompt notice.
(c) Requests for Quotations (RFQ) and Invitations for Bids
(1) If the Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, concludes, during acquisition planning, that discussions with the offerors will not be required, the Senate Sergeant at Arms or Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may issue a RFQ or invitation for bids.
(d) GSA Schedules
(1) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may, without prior publication of a procurement notice, procure supplies and services from the GSA Schedules if the proposed contract or order will be issued to the schedule vendor representing the best value to the Senate, price and other factors considered.
(2) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may order products or services from the GSA Schedules, in accordance with prescribed GSA procedures which shall be considered to meet the requirements of full and open competition under these Regulations.
(3) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, shall seek competitive pricing to the degree practicable, in accordance with GSA procedures. Evidence of compliance with GSA procedures when using GSA eBuy and the basis for any best-value tradeoff determination shall be recorded in the contract file.
(e) Senate IDIQ Contracts and Agreements, and other Agency's GWACs
(1) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, may, without prior publication of a procurement notice, procure supplies and services from Senate single-award; multiple-award IDIQ contracts or blanket purchase agreements; or other agencies' GWACs in accordance with terms and conditions of those contracts.
(2) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, shall ensure that all holders of multiple-award contracts are considered for the issuance of the task order, and that competitive pricing is obtained.
(3) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, shall record the basis for any best-value tradeoff determination in the contract file.
(f) Unsuccessful Offerors
(1) The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, shall give unsuccessful offerors prompt notice that their quotations or proposals were not accepted, normally within five (5) business days of the contract award.
(2) If an unsuccessful offeror submits a request, and such request is received by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, within three (3) business days of the notice required in paragraph 2.3(f)(1), the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, shall provide a brief explanation of the basis for the award decision. To the maximum extent practicable, the brief explanation should be furnished within ten (10) business days after receipt of the written request. 2.4 Records of Contract Actions
All actions taken with respect to a contract, including final disposition, shall be documented in a contract file. To the extent that existing documents do not reflect all actions taken, a signed and dated contemporaneous memoranda or summary statement describing such contract actions shall be prepared and retained in the contract file. 2.5 Contract Clauses
The contracting officers shall ensure that all Senate contracts include all clauses necessary to comply with applicable Federal law.
3.1 General
(a) Senate procurement actions may be protested by any interested party on the
basis that the procurement action is improper or in violation of applicable federal law, Senate rule or Senate Regulation.
(b) No protest under paragraph 3.1(a) is authorized in connection with the award of a contract or the issuance of a task order, except:
(1) A protest of a contract award valued in excess of $100,000.
(2) A protest of a task order valued in excess of $10,000,000.
(c) Protests of procurement actions shall be addressed to the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, within the time limits prescribed in paragraph 3.2(b). The Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, shall respond to all protests, and take appropriate action to remedy improprieties to include termination of an awarded contract.
(d) Reimbursement of bid and proposal costs or any fees associated with a bid protest proceeding as well as payment for any products or services not provided to the Senate are not authorized. 3.2 Protest Procedures
(a) Filing a Protest
(1) An interested party protesting a Senate procurement action as permitted by section 3.1 shall submit such protest, by email to SAAA[email protected]. A copy of the protest shall be furnished to the Chair.
(2) Protests shall be concise and logically presented to facilitate review. Failure to substantially comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3.2(a)(3) may be grounds for dismissal of the protest.
(3) Protests shall include the following information:
(i) Name, address, email, and fax and telephone numbers of the protester.
(ii) Senate solicitation or contract number.
(iii) Detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for the protest, to include a description of resulting prejudice to the protester.
(iv) Copies of relevant documents.
(v) Request for a ruling by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or by the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate.
(vi) Statement as to the form of relief requested.
(vii) All information establishing that the protester is an interested party for the purpose of filing a protest.
(viii) All information establishing the timeliness of the protest.
(b) Time for Filing
(1) Protests challenging the propriety of the solicitation must be filed before the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. In the case of a negotiated procurement, alleged improprieties that do not exist in the initial solicitation but are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation, must be protested no later than the next closing date for receipt of proposals following the incorporation.
(2) In cases other than those covered in paragraph 3.2(b)(1), protests must be filed not later than ten (10) days after the basis for protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.
(3) Failure to timely file shall be grounds for dismissal of the protest.
(4) The term "filed" as used in this section means received by the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, by email, at the address identified in paragraph 3.2(a). Protests must be filed before 5:00 p.m. (ET), unless otherwise stated. Protests received after the time limits prescribed in this section, or by other than email to the identified email address for filing, will not be considered.
(5) If the end of a filing period measured in days does not fall on a business day, the next business day shall be the last day of the period.
(c) Response and Comment
(1) Upon receiving a protest, the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, shall determine whether the protester is an interested party.
(2) The Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, shall attempt to resolve protests informally.
Text printed in the Record (9,303 characters)
If this effort is unsuccessful, notice of the protest shall be made to the successful offeror if award has been made or, if no award has been made, to all offerors that appear to have a substantial and reasonable prospect of receiving an award. Informal resolution shall generally conclude fifteen (15) days from the filing of the protest.
(3) Following the unsuccessful informal resolution to the protest, the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, shall provide copies of all relevant and material information submitted by a protestor in support of the protest to the contractor if the award has been made, or, if no award has been made, to interested parties, who appear to have a substantial prospect of receiving an award, for comment, unless withholding of the information is required by applicable law or regulation or because the information is proprietary or solely personal in nature. The protester shall have the opportunity to redact all confidential and proprietary information. Allegedly proprietary or confidential information must be specifically identified as such wherever it appears. and the statement must specifically address which parties should not be given access to the information, as well as the basis for restricting the access.
(4) The Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, shall prepare a response to the protest as expeditiously as possible following the unsuccessful informal resolution to the protest. The response shall generally be finalized within thirty (30) days following the unsuccessful informal resolution to the protest. A copy of the response shall be furnished to the protestor and other interested parties that appear to have a substantial prospect of receiving an award, who shall be provided an equitable opportunity for comment, not more than fifteen (15) days following the issuance of the response noted in paragraph 3.2(c)(4).
(5) Comments must be filed before 5:00 p.m. (ET), unless otherwise stated. Failure of a protestor or any interested party to comply with the time limits set in accordance with this section may result in resolution of the protest without consideration of comments untimely filed.
(6) If the end of a filing period measured in days does not fall on a business day, the next business day shall be the last day of the period.
(d) Withholding of Award
(1) When a protest has been filed before award, the Secretary of the Senate or Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, should not make an award before the protest is resolved unless the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, determines that the item being procured is urgently needed or other compelling Circumstances exist.
(e) Time for Decision
(1) Every effort should be made to issue a decision on a protest expeditiously after receipt of all information submitted by all interested parties. The Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms shall make their best efforts to resolve protests within one hundred (100) days after the protest is filed.
(f) Appeals
(1) Any interested party that submitted comments during consideration of the protest may appeal a decision on the protest. The appeal shall contain a detailed statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is sought, specifying any errors of law, and shall be submitted to the Chair, by email to A[email protected]. A copy of the appeal shall be furnished to the Senate Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate, by email to SAAAcquisitions@,saa.senate.gov.
(2) Appeals shall be filed no later than ten (10) business days after the basis for reconsideration is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier. The term "filed" as used in this section means received by the Rules Committee, in accordance with paragraph 3.2(f)(1). Appeals must be filed before 5:00 p.m. (EST), unless otherwise stated. Failure to comply with the time limits set in accordance with this section may result in dismissal of the appeal.
(3) The Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, is the final decision authority on protests involving a Senate procurement. At their discretion, the Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, may ask the Comptroller General for an advisory opinion.
(g) Basis for Sustaining a Protest After Award
(1) A protest will not be sustained after contract award unless it is demonstrated that the protester was prejudiced; that is, that the protester would have been awarded a contract but for an impropriety or violation of law, regulation, or Senate rule, that was identified by the protest.
(h) Remedies
(1) The Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, may, in their discretion, order any appropriate remedy in the event of a successful bid protest, including:
(i) The solicitation may be modified and procurement activity resumed.
(ii) An awarded contract may be terminated and procurement activity resumed.
(iii) An awarded contract may be terminated, and award may be made to the protestor, if appropriate.
(2) Nothing in these Regulations precludes the termination or modification of the procurement if such action is deemed to be in the Senate's best interest.
4.1 General
It is inevitable that, from time to time, disagreements or disputes regarding the terms or performance of a contract will arise between the Senate and its contractors. The prompt and fair resolution of these matters is in the best interests of the Senate. Informal resolution of disagreements or disputes through negotiated agreement is preferred. 4.2 Dispute Procedures
(a) All disputes shall be submitted to SAAA[email protected].
(b) For contracts up to $500,000, the original approval authority shall issue a final determination on all unresolved disputes provided that the determination does not have the effect of increasing the contract cost beyond the approval authorities set forth in paragraphs 1.4(a)(4)(ii) or 1.4(a)(4)(iii). Approval authorities may recommend to the Chair approval of a contractor's claim exceeding their authority.
(c) For contracts exceeding $500,000, the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, shall issue a final determination on all unresolved disputes provided that the determination does not have the effect of increasing the contract
cost beyond the approval authorities set forth in paragraph 1.4(a)(4)(ii). The Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms may recommend to the Chair, approval of a contractor's claim that exceeds this authority.
(d) All final determinations from the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms may be appealed to the Chair.
(e) Approval authorities shall notify the Secretary of the Senate or the Senate Sergeant at Arms, as appropriate, whenever it appears that a significant disagreement or dispute is incapable of resolution by negotiation and that it will be necessary to invoke the formal dispute procedures.
(f) All final determinations shall include the following language:
"This determination is made in accordance with the disputes clause and shall be final unless, within thirty (30) business days from the date of its receipt, a written notice of appeal is filed with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and furnished to the approval authority. The notice of appeal, which must be signed by you as the contractor or by an attorney acting on your behalf, and which may be in letter form, shall indicate that an appeal is intended and shall refer to this document and identify the contract by number. The notice of appeal shall include a statement of the reasons why the determination decision is considered to be erroneous. The Chair of the Committee on Rules and Administration, acting on behalf of the Committee, may ask the Comptroller General for a recommendation on the appeal." 4.3 Time for Filing a Claim
Claims must be filed within ninety (90) days of the date the claim accrued. 4.4 Negotiated Resolutions
Approval authorities may negotiate resolutions involving contract modifications only to the extent such modifications are within their authority. 4.5 Appeal Authority
The Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, is the final authority for review of final decisions regarding contract disputes and shall be designated as such in all contracts when the determination has the effect of increasing the contract cost beyond the approval authorities set forth in paragraph 1.4(a)(4)(ii). The Chair, acting on behalf of the Rules Committee, may ask the Comptroller General for an advisory opinion. 4.6 Time for Appeals
(a) Appeals from a final determination must be filed with the Chair within thirty (30) business days of the appellant's receipt of the determination in order to be considered by the Chair. For the purposes of this section, "filed" means received by the Rules Committee. Appeals must be filed before 5:00 p.m. (ET), unless otherwise stated.
(b) If the end of a filing period measured in days does not fall on a business day, the next business day shall be the last day of the period.
(c) Failure to comply with the time limits set in accordance with this section may result in dismissal of the appeal.
Vote Explanation
Page S2367 · Official textMr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 125, the confirmation of the en bloc consideration of 49 nominations on the Executive Calendar pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 690. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 126, motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 735, Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 127, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 735, Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.
Tribute to Trooper Lewis Johnson
Pages S2367–S2368 · Official textMr. President, today I have the honor to recognize Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Lewis Johnson.
Montana's law enforcement officers and personnel exemplify some of the best qualities a person can demonstrate: service, courage, and resilience. Every day when our officers put on their uniforms, they put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe.
Trooper Johnson sets the highest example of this. In February of 2023, Trooper Johnson was tragically struck by a fleeing vehicle near Eureka while in pursuit. He suffered critical injuries and nearly lost his life. After spending several days on life support in intensive care, Johnson defied all odds and miraculously recovered.
In January of 2025, Colonel Kurt Sager returned Trooper Johnson's badge to him after it had been held for evidence in the case. His badge demonstrates not only his bravery, but his selflessness and his steadfast commitment to protecting his community.
Today, we recognize Trooper Johnson for his perseverance and dedication. I am immensely proud of him, and on behalf of Montana, it is my honor to thank him for his service to our great State.
Recognizing Mapleton Hometown Variety
Page S2368 · Official textMr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize an outstanding Iowa small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to honor Mapleton Hometown Variety of Monona County, IA, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.
After being honorably discharged from the Air National Guard, Jerry Koenigs returned to his hometown of Mapleton. In 1987, he acquired what was then a Ben Franklin Store from his aunt and uncle after working there for over 10 years. Just a few years later, Jerry married his wife Carol, and the couple took on the business together. In the early 2000s, the store was renamed to Mapleton Hometown Variety. The shop was established to serve the everyday needs of the Mapleton community through a welcoming, locally owned retail experience. Over the years, it has become a trusted destination for residents seeking a wide variety of products, including fabric, toys, gifts, home decor, craft supplies, greeting cards, and floral arrangements. Hometown Variety has earned a strong reputation for quality products, personalized customer service, and a shopping experience rooted in the values of small-town Iowa.
For nearly four decades, Hometown Variety has consistently provided customers with both everyday essentials and thoughtful items for special occasions. After Jerry passed away in 2020, Carol continued his legacy by cultivating a loyal customer base and welcoming atmosphere that keeps families returning year after year. Supported by a dedicated team of under 10 employees, the business reflects the reliability and strong workplace culture often found in Iowa's most enduring small businesses.
Beyond its retail offerings, Mapleton Hometown Variety reflects the strong entrepreneurial spirit that defines Iowa small businesses. Throughout its decades of operation, the business has supported community growth and local engagement through involvement in organizations such as the Mapleton Community Club, Rotary Club, and Maple Valley Development. The business was also recognized for their continued service and support at a local 4-H event.
Carol remains actively engaged in the community through donations to local events, schools, churches, and charitable causes, demonstrating a longstanding commitment to supporting families and neighbors in Mapleton. Her appreciation for the loyal customers and strong local support that have sustained Hometown Variety reflects the enduring connection between Iowa small businesses and the communities they serve.
I am pleased to recognize Carol Koenigs, along with the entire team at Mapleton Hometown Variety, for their dedication to Mapleton and Monona County. I look forward to their continued success and wish them the very best in the years ahead.
Tribute to Kathy Nichols
Page S2368 · Official textMr. President, I am honored to recognize Kathy Nichols of Hudson as May's Granite Stater of the Month for her extraordinary volunteer service to people with vision impairments.
After retiring in 2021, Kathy wanted to use her time to give back to her community. She connected with Future In Sight, a nonprofit organization that helps visually impaired Granite Staters live independently by providing transportation, assistive technology, training, and other support services. Kathy quickly signed up to volunteer, in part, to honor her late father who was blind in one eye.
Kathy has become a steadfast volunteer for the organization. She has provided nearly 300 rides for 20 clients, volunteered more than 800 hours of her time, and driven almost 9,000 miles to help members of her community maintain their independence and dignity. Through her service, Kathy has not only helped Granite Staters access appointments and daily necessities, but also reminded them that they are not alone.
Kathy has also built new friendships through her volunteering. After she was paired with Jan Schlecht through Future In Sight, the two developed a close friendship built over countless conversations during rides to appointments, errands, and everyday activities. Through shared conversions and experiences, Kathy and Jan formed a bond which reflects the meaningful relationships that can grow through service and community.
Kathy's volunteerism has shown the profound difference one person can make through kindness, empathy, and commitment to others. She exemplifies the compassion, generosity, and community spirit that make New Hampshire such a special place to call home, which is why I am proud to name her May's Granite Stater of the Month.
Recognizing the Prince William County Crisis Receiving Center
Page S2368 · Official textMr. President, I rise today to recognize the Prince William County Crisis Receiving Center Complex.
The crisis receiving center complex, CRC, and colocated community services outpatient and community-based programs opened in October 2025. The CRC supports adults and youth who are experiencing behavioral health crises and helps to reduce reliance on inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
Referred to as the model for mental health services, the CRC is operated by Connections Health Solutions under contract with Prince William Community Services. The center utilizes a 23-hour observation model and includes an on-site crisis stabilization unit for individuals--adults and youth--requiring more intensive, short-term care. This colocation of crisis, outpatient, and community-based services in one location offers capabilities which support people when intervention is most vital, including collaboration around connections for ongoing service needs, medical assessments, withdrawal management, and the ability to safely serve individuals under temporary detention orders. It operates 24/7, every day of the year, providing responsive care and interventions.
The CRC was designed with the purpose of helping people in crisis in their most difficult and vulnerable moments and to guide them toward healing; and it is working. According to the CRC, since the complex opened, emergency department wait times in the region have decreased by 66 percent; police officer hours spent on mental health calls decreased by 900 hours after the first month; out of area transport for temporary detention orders decreased from 43 percent to 8 percent; and State hospital admissions from Prince William County have declined significantly.
I am grateful for the vision of the board of county supervisors in Prince William County. I am also grateful for those who work in the CRC and provide timely, compassionate, evidence-based behavioral health support to people in mental health crisis. I applaud their dedication to the health and well-being of their fellow Virginians.
Recognizing Alpha Delta Pi Sorority
Pages S2368–S2369 · Official textMr. President, today I ask the Senate to recognize and celebrate the 175th Anniversary of the Alpha Delta Pi Sorority.
For 175 years, Alpha Delta Pi has been a wellspring of sisterhood, service, character, and knowledge for young women across the country. Growing from a handful of members in 1851 to its more than 290,000 lifetime initiates today, Alpha Delta Pi has shaped generations of women who have gone on to lead in every corner of American life.
Florida holds a particularly special place in the story of Alpha Delta Pi. Today, the organization has 11 active chapters across our State, with 1,775 active members, 1,458 of whom call Florida home. Notably, the Gamma Iota Chapter from the University of Florida has alumni serving as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.
This resolution acknowledges the contributions that Alpha Delta Pi has made to the United States. The women of Alpha Delta Pi do not simply wear letters; they "Live For Each Other."
I congratulate Alpha Delta Pi on this remarkable milestone and look forward to many more years of sisterhood. To every sister, past, present, and future: Thank you for the lifelong sisterhood you represent.
Tribute to Margaret Doud
Page S2369 · Official textMr. President, I rise today to honor Margaret Doud, the longtime, highly regarded mayor of Mackinac Island. Mayor Doud has made an immeasurable impact on Mackinac Island as she has faithfully led the city over the past 51 years, and it is a privilege to recognize her here today as we celebrate her 52nd term, and her status as the longest serving mayor in the United States.
Mayor Doud is a native of Mackinac Island, a small island in the Straits of Mackinac home to roughly 500 full-time residents. A former teacher and current owner of the iconic Windermere Hotel, she almost did not run for office when she was first approached, believing she would not get elected. The following year in 1975, she won her first election--and 51 more since then. On Mackinac Island, mayors only serve 1-year terms, which means she has had to run for reelection for all her years of service. Her ability to have won reelection for the past 51 years--receiving 100 percent of the votes just this year--is a testament to the trust she has earned from her community.
While Mackinac Island may only have 500-full time residents, it is also one of the busiest and most visited destinations in the State of Michigan. Every summer, over 1 million visitors come to island to visit its historic sites, enjoy beautiful views, and shop at the many small businesses. Through it all, Mayor Doud has been steadfast in her commitment to making the island a safe, thriving area for both residents and visitors alike. Her fierce dedication to her community, whether it be its tourism industry, its small businesses, or its unique car-free status, is more than deserving of recognition.
I cannot understate the impact that Mayor Doud has had on Mackinac Island and the State of Michigan over the last 51 years. As the mayor of Mackinac Island, her compassion, dedication, and strategic vision have led to its great success, and I know she will continue to serve her community in the highest regard. For this reason, I am honored today to recognize the great achievements of Mayor Doud. Please join me in celebrating her long, storied career leading Mackinac Island.
Recognizing the International Hearing Society's
Page S2369 · Official textMr. President, I rise today to honor the International Hearing Society as they celebrate 75 years of advocacy, education, and support for hearing aid specialists in Michigan and around the world.
Since its founding in 1951, IHS has grown to become the leading organization representing the interests of hearing aid specialists, spanning a vast network of healthcare professionals, advocates, and policymakers. Through this work, the organization aims to live up to its mission of "advancing global hearing healthcare by strengthening professionals through education, advocacy, and ethical patient care." It is a privilege to recognize such an important Michigan institution as they celebrate this anniversary.
For over seven decades, IHS has grown to meet the needs of its expanding membership of healthcare providers through the sharing of best practices that ensures a stable continuity of care. The organization demonstrates its commitment to education and quality care by offering industry-standard specialist accreditations, competence certifications, and a multitude of expertly crafted online courses for aspiring specialists. Not only do these opportunities provide critical support for providers, but they also expand hearing healthcare accessibility for patients and improve quality of service systemwide.
IHS also maintains a robust network of advocates at the State, Federal, and international level, ensuring that hearing health providers can communicate their needs and expertise to lawmakers. The organization has continuously supported legislation intended to expand access to hearing aid specialists for millions of Americans, particularly veterans and those from rural and disadvantaged backgrounds. Their work has led to a meaningful expansion of hearing-related care and quality of service in the United States, and the country is better for it.
Given their 75 years of service, I ask you to join me in recognizing International Hearing Society as they celebrate this momentous occasion. I am grateful for the valuable work they have done to improve hearing care for countless Michiganders and fellow Americans, and I wish them all the best as they continue to support specialists and patients alike for years to come.
100th Anniversary of Temple Knesset Israel
Page S2369 · Official textMr. President, today I rise to honor and celebrate Temple Knesset Israel in Los Angeles for its milestone 100th anniversary.
Founded in 1926, Temple Knesset Israel has been a beacon of light for its community; a congregation that has shown an ability to grow in the modern world and build strong foundations for future generations. One of the oldest congregations in Los Angeles, Temple Knesset Israel has focused on giving its members spiritual connection and cultural awareness.
Fostering strong ties to its visitors, the temple has been a cornerstone of empowering all religions and ethnicities. A place where everyone is welcome, Temple Knesset Israel has been a powerful force of good.
The temple has always been a welcoming home for those in need. Comprised of congregants from many ethnic groups, Temple Knesset Israel is proud to be a congregation focused on inclusivity and community. Its continued efforts to educate its members and bring together those of all walks of life has made the congregation a critical part of the Los Angeles community.
Temple Knesset Israel's spiritual leaders Rabbi Robert Elias and Cantor Lee Greenberg have been pillars of spiritual guidance and continuity throughout the years. Maintaining stability in trying times, these leaders have been a centerpiece for calm and perseverance.
I ask all members to join me in acknowledging the importance of Temple Knesset Israel. Its impact on the Los Angeles region cannot be overstated, and for 100 years, it has worked to bring together the Jewish community with immensely positive impact.
Message from the House
Page S2369 · Official textAt 6:14 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
Text printed in the Record (178 characters)
H.R. 7567. An act to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2031, and for other purposes.
Measures Discharged
Page S2369 · Official textThe following joint resolution was discharged from the Committee on Foreign Relations and placed on the calendar:
Text printed in the Record (190 characters)
S.J. Res. 185. Joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Executive and Other Communications
Pages S2369–S2372 · Official textThe following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:
Text printed in the Record (11,970 characters)
EC-3471. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-23307" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-3478)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3472. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes; Amendment 39-23305" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-0022)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3473. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-23249" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-0732)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3474. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-23308" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-3479)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3475. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4213" ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31658)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3476. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4214" ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31659)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3477. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 591" ((RIN2120-AA63) (Docket No. 31660)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3478. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Inc. Airplanes; Amendment 39-23296" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2025-1732)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3479. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A. Airplanes; Amendment 39-23300" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-2728)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3480. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; DG Aviation GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by DG Flugzeugbau GmbH) Gliders; Amendment 39-23298" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-2727)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3481. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company LLC Airplanes; Amendment 39-23293" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2025-0485)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3482. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendment of Class D and Class E2 Airspace of Binghamton, New York" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2026-1024)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3483. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Establishment of Class E Airspace; Birch Creek Airport, Birch Creek, Alaska" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2025-5140)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3484. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-23299" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2025-2547)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3485. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-23303" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-5039)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3486. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-23304" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-0008)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3487. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Baykar Piaggio Aerospace S.p.A (Type Certificate Previously Held by Piaggio Aviation S.p.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39-23294" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2026-0019)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3488. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes; Amendment 39-23297" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2025-2553)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3489. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4212" ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31657)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3490. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4211" ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31656)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3491. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendment of Class B Airspace Description; Denver International Airport; Colorado" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. 25-ANM-169)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3492. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Revocation of Restricted Area R-6316 in Eagle Pass, Texas" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2026-2509)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3493. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Revocation of Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Federal Airway V-320 in the Vicinity of Mount Pleasant, Michigan" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2025-4609)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3494. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled "Modification of Class E Airspace; Denver International Airport, Denver, Colorado; Correction" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2025-5384)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3495. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendment of Class E Airspace; Covington, Kentucky" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2026-0534)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3496. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Cincinnati, Ohio" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No.
Text printed in the Record (11,824 characters)
FAA-2026-3634)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3497. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wall Municipal Airport, Wall, South Dakota" ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2023-2225)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3498. A communication from the Manager of Legal Litigation and Support, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-23309" ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2025-5038)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3499. A communication from the Attorney for Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Affairs Division, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Safety Standard for Crib Mattresses" (Docket No. CPSC-2020-0023) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 20, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3500. A communication from the Senior Counsel, Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Removing Redundant, Obsolete, and Inefficient Provisions From the Regulations Governing Restrictions on Lobbying" (RIN0605-AA73) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3501. A communication from the Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Rescinding Portions of Department of Commerce Title VI Regulations To Conform More Closely With the Statutory Text and To Implement Executive Order 14281" (RIN0605-AA70) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3502. A communication from the Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Removing Outdated Language From Regulatory Definitions of `United States' " (RIN0605-AA76) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3503. A communication from the Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Eliminating Outdated Regulation Related to Reports on Exports of Technology" (RIN0605-AA88) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3504. A communication from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendments to the Federal Railroad Administration's Procedures for Service of Documents in Railroad Safety Enforcement Proceedings" (RIN2130-AC93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3505. A communication from the Supervisory Program Analyst, Media Bureau, Federal Communication Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendment of section 73,202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Enterprise, Utah); FM Application for Minor Modification for Station KXUT, Page, Arizona; FM Application for Minor Modification for Station KXQX, Tusayan, Arizona" ((DA 26-395) (MB Docket No. 25-243)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3506. A communication from the Paralegal of the Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Pipeline Safety: Standards Update-ASTM A53/A53M" (RIN2137-AG27) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3507. A communication from the Paralegal of the Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Pipeline Safety: Standards Update-ASTM A372/A372M" (RIN2137-AG28) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3508. A communication from the Paralegal of the Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Pipeline Safety: Electronic Retention of Part 194 Response Plans" (RIN2137-AG23) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3509. A communication from the Paralegal of the Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Pipeline Safety: Standards Update-NFPA 58" (RIN2137-AG26) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3510. A communication from the Supervisory Program Analyst, Media Bureau, Federal Communication Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Amendment of Parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 of the Commission's Rules to Update Rules Applicable to Broadcast Stations" ((FCC 26-14) (MB Docket No. 24-626)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 30, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3511. A communication from the Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's fiscal year 2025 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3512. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)" (RIN0970-AD20) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3513. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance" (RIN0945-AA30) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3514. A communication from the Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's Congressional Justification of Budget Estimates Report for fiscal year 2027; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3515. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a nomination for a position covered by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 for the position of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
EC-3516. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Oxirane, 2-phenyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono(hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate), octyl ether, sodium salt (1:2) in Pesticide Formulations; Exemption from the Requirement for a Tolerance" (FRL No. 13301-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-3517. A communication from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Pummelos Grown in Florida; Increased Assessment Rate" (Docket No. AMS-SC-24-0071) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-3518. A communication from the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office of the Comptroller's 2025 Annual Report on Preservation and Promotion of Minority-Owned National Banks and Federal Savings Associations; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-3519. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Administration Civil Rights Adjudications Under Section 741" (7 CFR Part 15f) received during in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-3520. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Administration Civil Rights Adjudications Under Section 741" (7 CFR Part 15f) received during in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-3521. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Indiana NOX Emissions Monitoring" (FRL No. 12258-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3522. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS; Michigan State Board Requirements" (FRL No. 13010-04-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3523. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Moderate Attainment Plan Elements for the Chicago and Metro East Areas for the 2015 Ozone Standard" (FRL No. 13163-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3524.
Text printed in the Record (3,540 characters)
A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Clean Data Determination for the Cleveland, Ohio Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard" (FRL No. 13213-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3525. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Approval and Promulgation of Delegation of Authority for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Washington; Northwest Clean Air Agency" (FRL No. 13223-01-R10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 13, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3526. A communication from the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Turkiye" (RIN1685-AA42) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2026; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-3527. A communication from the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's fiscal year 2025 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) received in the Office of the President pro tempore; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3528. A communication from the Chief of Staff, National Science Foundation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "Portfolio Analysis of NSF Skilled Technical Workforce Investments: February 2026"; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3529. A communication from the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "Report to Congress on the Notifications of Thefts, Losses, or Release of Biological Select Agents and Toxins for Calendar Year 2023"; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-3530. A communication from the Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations" (RIN1090-AB18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2026; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-3531. A communication from the Chair of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "Fiscal Year 2025 Recommended Best Practices Report for Environmental Reviews and Authorizations"; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3532. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Rescinding Requirements Regarding Required Contract Provisions for Federal-Aid Construction Contracts (Other Than Appalachian Contracts)" (RIN2125-AG19) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 14, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Reports of Committees
Page S2372 · Official textThe following reports of committees were submitted:
Text printed in the Record (1,352 characters)
By Mr. GRASSLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:
S. 736. A bill to increase the penalty for prohibited provision of a phone in a correctional facility, and for other purposes.
By Mr. GRASSLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with amendments:
S. 825. A bill to require the Attorney General to propose a program for making treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder available to public safety officers, and for other purposes.
By Mr. GRASSLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 3041. A bill to allow the U.S. Marshals Service to assist in certain Tribal criminal matters, and for other purposes.
S. 3897. A bill to revise administrative procedures relating to public safety officers' death benefits, and for other purposes.
By Mr. GRASSLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without amendment:
S. 3966. A bill to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual clauses that restrict disclosure of sexual abuse of minors, and for other purposes.
By Mr. GRASSLEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 4394. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the COPS program with respect to training command-level personnel, and for other purposes.
Introduction of Bills and Joint Resolutions
Pages S2372–S2373 · Official textThe following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
Text printed in the Record (6,058 characters)
By Mr. RICKETTS:
S. 4560. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to publish, on an annual basis, an assessment of United States dependency on the exportation of agricultural commodities to adversarial countries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and Ms. Lummis):
S. 4561. A bill to modernize and streamline the permitting process for broadband infrastructure on Federal land, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. Tillis):
S. 4562. A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on animal cruelty, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 4563. A bill to amend the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to require a deadline for publication of information contained in reports on findings of investigations relating to imports that impair national security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. Kim):
S. 4564. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to assess cybersecurity risks of certain software and hardware used in certain maritime facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. SCOTT of Florida:
S. 4565. A bill to ensure the security and integrity of United States critical infrastructure by establishing an interagency task force and requiring a comprehensive report on the targeting of United States critical infrastructure by People's Republic of China state-sponsored cyber actors, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. Hirono):
S. 4566. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require coverage under State plans under the Medicaid program for annual lung cancer screening with no cost sharing for individuals for whom screening is recommended by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, to expand coverage under Medicaid of counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LUJAN (for himself, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Blumenthal,
Mr. Kaine, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Van Hollen,
Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Smith, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Booker,
Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed, and Ms. Baldwin):
S. 4567. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide enhanced student loan relief to educators, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Ms. Lummis,
Ms. Murkowski, and Ms. Collins):
S. 4568. A bill to amend the definition of professional student in the Higher Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. GALLEGO (for himself and Mr. Justice):
S. 4569. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for the domestic production of printed circuit boards; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Mr. Ricketts):
S. 4570. A bill to incentivize, streamline, and sustain United States foreign government partner procurement of United States-origin cyber and digital technologies; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. Schatz):
S. 4571. A bill to require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a tropospheric ozone research program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Booker, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Van Hollen, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Fetterman,
and Mr. Markey):
S. 4572. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit Amtrak from including mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts of carriage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. Moreno):
S. 4573. A bill to designate the Great Lakes Commission as a Regional Great Lakes Partnership, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr.
Blumenthal, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Booker, and Mrs.
Shaheen):
S. 4574. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, regarding restrictions on the use of funds and facilities of the Department of Defense for abortion care; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BENNET:
S. 4575. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide funding for innovations in community policing, mental health care, and community safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. ROSEN (for herself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Risch, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Young, Ms. Slotkin, and
Mr. Schatz):
S. 4576. A bill to strengthen Federal efforts to counter antisemitism in the United States and protect the Jewish community; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Mr. Cruz):
S. 4577. A bill to reassess the United States-Tanzania bilateral relationship, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Gallego, Mr.
Kelly, Mr. Booker, Mr. Markey, Ms. Duckworth, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Kim, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Warner, Ms. Smith, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Durbin, and Mrs. Shaheen):
S.J. Res. 192. A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Medicare Program; Implementation of Prior Authorization for Select Services for the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction (WISeR) Model"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
Page S2373 · Official textThe following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
Text printed in the Record (2,222 characters)
By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Ms. Rosen, Mr.
Lankford, Mr. Graham, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Capito, Mrs.
Moody, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Warnock, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Duckworth,
Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Fetterman, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kelly,
Ms. Slotkin, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Kaine):
S. Res. 738. A resolution recognizing the significance of Jewish American Heritage Month and calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Schumer, Ms. Alsobrooks, Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Baldwin,
Mr. Banks, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn,
Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. Booker, Mr.
Boozman, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Budd, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Mr.
Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Daines, Ms.
Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Fetterman, Mrs.
Fischer, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hawley,
Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Hirono, Mr.
Hoeven, Mr. Husted, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Justice, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kim,
Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Lujan, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Markey, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Moody,
Mr. Moran, Mr. Moreno, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Paul, Mr. Peters, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Risch, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds,
Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Scott of
Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen,
Mr. Sheehy, Ms. Slotkin, Ms. Smith, Mr. Sullivan, Mr.
Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner,
Mr. Warnock, Ms. Warren, Mr. Welch, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Young):
S. Res. 739. A resolution honoring the life and legacy of John Seymour, the late Senator for the State of California; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. PETERS (for himself, Ms. Ernst, Mr. King, and
Mr. Curtis):
S. Res. 740. A resolution expressing support for the designation of May 2026 as "Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month"; considered and agreed to.
Additional Cosponsors
Pages S2373–S2375 · Official textAt the request of Mrs. Hyde-Smith, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 470, a bill to amend the CARES Act to remove a requirement on lessors to provide notice to vacate, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Armstrong, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 630, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the Quapaw Nation and certain members of the Quapaw Nation in accordance with the recommendation of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Bennet, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) was added as a cosponsor of S. 734, a bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Edward J. Dwight, Jr., the first African American astronaut candidate in the United States. At the request of Mr. Peters, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. McCormick) was added as a cosponsor of S. 823, a bill to create intergovernmental coordination between State, local, Tribal, and territorial jurisdictions, and the Federal Government to combat United States reliance on the People's Republic of China and other covered countries for critical minerals and rare earth metals, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Sheehy, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 902, a bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to establish a standard for the response time to wildfire incidents, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Ricketts, the name of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 912, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to publish, on an annual basis, an assessment of United States dependency on critical agricultural products or inputs from the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1130, a bill to require the Secretary of Energy to provide technology grants to strengthen domestic mining education, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Hassan, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1164, a bill to allow additional individuals to enroll in standalone dental plans offered through Federal Exchanges. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1500, a bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage from imposing cost-sharing requirements with respect to diagnostic and supplemental breast examinations. At the request of Mr. Daines, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Armstrong) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1547, a bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to reauthorize the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Baldwin, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1677, a bill to provide health insurance benefits for outpatient and inpatient items and services related to the diagnosis and treatment of a congenital anomaly or birth defect. At the request of Mr. Boozman, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1918, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a refundable tax credit against income tax for the purchase of qualified access technology for the blind. At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2096, a bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the Transition Assistance Program and Solid Start Program to address mental health issues, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Padilla, the names of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) were added as cosponsors of S. 2265, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles, California, and the 2034 Olympics and Paralympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the request of Mr. Boozman, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2309, a bill to direct a physician or nurse practitioner employed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certify the death of a veteran not later than 48 hours after such physician or nurse practitioner learns of such death, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2398, a bill to reauthorize the Kay Hagan Tick Act, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Coons, the name of the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3188, a bill to establish a Biopharmaceutical Center of Excellence, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Baldwin, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3427, a bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to establish the Domestic Organic Investment Program, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Sheehy, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. McCormick) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) were added as cosponsors of S. 3456, a bill to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for a free annual National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass for law enforcement officers and firefighters. At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3581, a bill to prohibit the payment of certain legal settlements to any individual convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with breaching the Capitol on January 6, 2021. At the request of Mr. Padilla, the name of the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3582, a bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Peters, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3810, a bill to amend the Plant Protection Act to establish a fund for spotted wing drosophila research and mitigation. At the request of Mr. Lujan, the name of the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3892, a bill to prohibit retail food stores from price gouging and engaging in surveillance-based price setting practices, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3934, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand the availability of medical nutrition therapy services under the Medicare program. At the request of Ms. Cortez Masto, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3941, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore treatment of State and local bonds which are guaranteed by a Federal home loan bank as not federally guaranteed for purposes of determining their tax-exempt status. At the request of Mr. Markey, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4038, a bill to exempt small business concerns from duties imposed by the President under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and to prevent price gouging with respect to goods subject to such duties. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the names of the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) were added as cosponsors of S. 4189, a bill to reduce the price of insulin and provide for patient protections with respect to the cost of insulin. At the request of Mr. Cassidy, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4251, a bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish a voluntary Mined in America Certification Program, to use Federal programs and authorities to promote the replacement of mining hardware related to foreign adversaries with compute infrastructure manufactured in the United States or friendly nations, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4379, a bill to require the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense to jointly submit a report on efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation to violate the religious freedoms of the people of Ukraine, to require the President to impose all applicable sanctions with respect to foreign persons determined to have engaged in such efforts, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. McCormick, the names of the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) were added as cosponsors of S. 4395, a bill to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Markey, the names of the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester) and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) were added as cosponsors of S. 4411, a bill to clarify eligibility for small business loans, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Moreno, the name of the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4429, a bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture, sale, resale, or introduction into interstate commerce in the United States of connected vehicles and related software and hardware associated with foreign adversaries. At the request of Ms. Ernst, the names of the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) were added as cosponsors of S. 4505, a bill to require the United States Postal Service to designate ZIP Codes for certain communities. At the request of Mr. Sanders, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4551, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to establish a minimum salary threshold for bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees exempt from Federal overtime compensation requirements, and automatically update such threshold each year, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Kaine, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 185, a joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
Pages S2375–S2379 · Official textThere being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (11,644 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Increasing Access to Lung Cancer Screening Act".
SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ANNUAL LUNG CANCER SCREENING
WITH NO COST SHARING FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking "and" before "(D)";
(2) by striking "and" before "(E)";
(3) by striking "and" before "(F)"; and
(4) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: "; and (G) an annual lung cancer screening for individuals who are eligible under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan and for whom such screening is recommended under guidelines published by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (provided that such guidelines do not decrease the recommended frequency of lung cancer screenings for such individuals or narrow the population recommended for lung cancer screening published by the United States Preventive Services Task Force on March 9, 2021), without regard to prior authorization".
(b) No Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of section 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o) are each amended--
(A) in subparagraph (I), by striking "or" at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (J), by striking "; and" and inserting ", or" at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
"(K) lung cancer screening for which payment may be made under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan pursuant section to 1905(a)(4)(G); and".
(2) Application to alternative cost sharing.--Section 1916A(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o-1(b)(3)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(xv) Lung cancer screening for which payment may be made under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan pursuant to section 1905(a)(4)(G).".
(c) Application to Medicaid Managed Care Organizations.--Section 1932(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"(9) Lung cancer screening.--Each contract with a medicaid managed care organization under section 1903(m) shall require the organization to provide coverage for lung cancer screening for which payment may be made under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan pursuant to section 1905(a)(4)(G) without regard to prior authorization.".
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2028.
(2) Exception if state legislation required.--In the case of a State plan for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of its failure to meet such additional requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.
SEC. 3. EXPANDING COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID OF COUNSELING AND
PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR CESSATION OF TOBACCO USE TO
ALL MEDICAID INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)(D)--
(A) by striking "by pregnant women"; and
(B) by inserting "without regard to prior authorization" after "(as defined in subsection (bb))"; and
(2) in subsection (bb)--
(A) by striking "by pregnant women" each place it appears;
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking "tobacco use who" and inserting "tobacco use (including the use of e-cigarettes or vape pens) by individuals who"; and
(C) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking "with respect to pregnant women".
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1927(d)(2)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(d)(2)(F)) is amended by striking ", in the case of pregnant women".
(2) Section 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o), as amended by section 2(b)(1), is further amended in each of subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ", and counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use by pregnant women (as defined in section 1905(bb)) and covered outpatient drugs (as defined in subsection (k)(2) of section 1927 and including nonprescription drugs described in subsection (d)(2) of such section) that are prescribed for purposes of promoting, and when used to promote, tobacco cessation by pregnant women in accordance with the Guideline referred to in section 1905(bb)(2)(A)";
(B) in subparagraph (J), by striking "or" at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (K), by striking "; and" at the end and inserting ", or"; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
"(L) counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use (as defined in section 1905(bb)) and covered outpatient drugs (as defined in subsection (k)(2) of section 1927 and including nonprescription drugs described in subsection (d)(2) of such section) that are prescribed for purposes of promoting, and when used to promote, tobacco cessation in accordance with the Guideline referred to in section 1905(bb)(2)(A); and".
(3) Section 1916A(b)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o-1(b)(3)(B)), as amended by section 2(b)(2), is further amended--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ", and counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use by pregnant women (as defined in section 1905(bb))"; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(xvi) Counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use (as defined in section 1905(bb)).".
(c) Application to Medicaid Managed Care Organizations.--Section 1932(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)), as amended by section 2(c), is further amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"(10) Cessation of tobacco use.--Each contract with a medicaid managed care organization under section 1903(m) shall require the organization to provide coverage for counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use without regard to prior authorization.".
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2028.
(2) Exception if state legislation required.--In the case of a State plan for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of its failure to meet such additional requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.
SEC. 4. COVERAGE UNDER MEDICARE AND PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
OF ANNUAL LUNG CANCER SCREENING WITHOUT
UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Medicare.--
(1) In general.--Section 1834 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(bb) Special Rule for Annual Lung Cancer Screening.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, in the case of an annual lung cancer screening for which benefits are provided under this part for any individual for whom such screening is recommended in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary, such benefits shall be provided without application of any prior authorization.".
(2) Application under medicare advantage.--Section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(vii) Prohibition of application of certain requirements for annual lung cancer screening.--In the case of an annual lung cancer screening for which benefits are provided under part B for any individual for whom such screening is recommended in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary for purposes of section 1834(bb), an MA plan may not impose any prior authorization with respect to the coverage of such screening under such plan.".
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply with respect to services furnished on or after January 1, 2028.
(b) Individual and Group Health Insurance Markets.--
(1) In general.--Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(d) Prohibition of Application of Certain Requirements for Annual Lung Cancer Screening.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not require any prior authorization with respect to the benefits under such plan or coverage for an annual lung cancer screening for any individual for whom such screening is recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.".
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2028.
SEC. 5. LUNG CANCER SCREENING EDUCATION AND OUTREACH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the "Secretary"), in consultation with patient and lung cancer advocacy groups, shall conduct an education and outreach campaign for purposes of informing individuals and health care providers of--
(1) the importance of lung cancer screenings; and
(2) the categories of individuals who should receive such screenings.
(b) Manner of Outreach.--The Secretary may carry out the campaign described in subsection (a) directly, by contract, through the issuance of grants, or otherwise. In carrying out such campaign, the Secretary shall ensure that the campaign is targeted to reach individuals at high risk of lung cancer.
(c) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2028 through 2032 for purposes of carrying out this section.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the demographics of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer and individuals screened for such cancer. Such report shall identify--
(1) any segments of the population diagnosed with lung cancer but not captured in current screening eligibility guidelines (such as firefighters, veterans, and women under 50 years of age); and
(2) recommendations for how the Federal Government can improve screening for such cancer among such segments.
Introductory Statement on S. 4566
Pages S2377–S2379 · Official textThere being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (11,644 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Increasing Access to Lung Cancer Screening Act".
SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ANNUAL LUNG CANCER SCREENING
WITH NO COST SHARING FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking "and" before "(D)";
(2) by striking "and" before "(E)";
(3) by striking "and" before "(F)"; and
(4) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: "; and (G) an annual lung cancer screening for individuals who are eligible under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan and for whom such screening is recommended under guidelines published by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (provided that such guidelines do not decrease the recommended frequency of lung cancer screenings for such individuals or narrow the population recommended for lung cancer screening published by the United States Preventive Services Task Force on March 9, 2021), without regard to prior authorization".
(b) No Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of section 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o) are each amended--
(A) in subparagraph (I), by striking "or" at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (J), by striking "; and" and inserting ", or" at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
"(K) lung cancer screening for which payment may be made under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan pursuant section to 1905(a)(4)(G); and".
(2) Application to alternative cost sharing.--Section 1916A(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o-1(b)(3)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(xv) Lung cancer screening for which payment may be made under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan pursuant to section 1905(a)(4)(G).".
(c) Application to Medicaid Managed Care Organizations.--Section 1932(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"(9) Lung cancer screening.--Each contract with a medicaid managed care organization under section 1903(m) shall require the organization to provide coverage for lung cancer screening for which payment may be made under the State plan or under a waiver of such plan pursuant to section 1905(a)(4)(G) without regard to prior authorization.".
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2028.
(2) Exception if state legislation required.--In the case of a State plan for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of its failure to meet such additional requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.
SEC. 3. EXPANDING COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID OF COUNSELING AND
PHARMACOTHERAPY FOR CESSATION OF TOBACCO USE TO
ALL MEDICAID INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)(D)--
(A) by striking "by pregnant women"; and
(B) by inserting "without regard to prior authorization" after "(as defined in subsection (bb))"; and
(2) in subsection (bb)--
(A) by striking "by pregnant women" each place it appears;
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking "tobacco use who" and inserting "tobacco use (including the use of e-cigarettes or vape pens) by individuals who"; and
(C) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking "with respect to pregnant women".
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1927(d)(2)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(d)(2)(F)) is amended by striking ", in the case of pregnant women".
(2) Section 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o), as amended by section 2(b)(1), is further amended in each of subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ", and counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use by pregnant women (as defined in section 1905(bb)) and covered outpatient drugs (as defined in subsection (k)(2) of section 1927 and including nonprescription drugs described in subsection (d)(2) of such section) that are prescribed for purposes of promoting, and when used to promote, tobacco cessation by pregnant women in accordance with the Guideline referred to in section 1905(bb)(2)(A)";
(B) in subparagraph (J), by striking "or" at the end;
(C) in subparagraph (K), by striking "; and" at the end and inserting ", or"; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
"(L) counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use (as defined in section 1905(bb)) and covered outpatient drugs (as defined in subsection (k)(2) of section 1927 and including nonprescription drugs described in subsection (d)(2) of such section) that are prescribed for purposes of promoting, and when used to promote, tobacco cessation in accordance with the Guideline referred to in section 1905(bb)(2)(A); and".
(3) Section 1916A(b)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o-1(b)(3)(B)), as amended by section 2(b)(2), is further amended--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ", and counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use by pregnant women (as defined in section 1905(bb))"; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(xvi) Counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use (as defined in section 1905(bb)).".
(c) Application to Medicaid Managed Care Organizations.--Section 1932(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)), as amended by section 2(c), is further amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
"(10) Cessation of tobacco use.--Each contract with a medicaid managed care organization under section 1903(m) shall require the organization to provide coverage for counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use without regard to prior authorization.".
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2028.
(2) Exception if state legislation required.--In the case of a State plan for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of its failure to meet such additional requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.
SEC. 4. COVERAGE UNDER MEDICARE AND PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
OF ANNUAL LUNG CANCER SCREENING WITHOUT
UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Medicare.--
(1) In general.--Section 1834 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(bb) Special Rule for Annual Lung Cancer Screening.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, in the case of an annual lung cancer screening for which benefits are provided under this part for any individual for whom such screening is recommended in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary, such benefits shall be provided without application of any prior authorization.".
(2) Application under medicare advantage.--Section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(vii) Prohibition of application of certain requirements for annual lung cancer screening.--In the case of an annual lung cancer screening for which benefits are provided under part B for any individual for whom such screening is recommended in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary for purposes of section 1834(bb), an MA plan may not impose any prior authorization with respect to the coverage of such screening under such plan.".
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply with respect to services furnished on or after January 1, 2028.
(b) Individual and Group Health Insurance Markets.--
(1) In general.--Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(d) Prohibition of Application of Certain Requirements for Annual Lung Cancer Screening.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not require any prior authorization with respect to the benefits under such plan or coverage for an annual lung cancer screening for any individual for whom such screening is recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.".
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2028.
SEC. 5. LUNG CANCER SCREENING EDUCATION AND OUTREACH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the "Secretary"), in consultation with patient and lung cancer advocacy groups, shall conduct an education and outreach campaign for purposes of informing individuals and health care providers of--
(1) the importance of lung cancer screenings; and
(2) the categories of individuals who should receive such screenings.
(b) Manner of Outreach.--The Secretary may carry out the campaign described in subsection (a) directly, by contract, through the issuance of grants, or otherwise. In carrying out such campaign, the Secretary shall ensure that the campaign is targeted to reach individuals at high risk of lung cancer.
(c) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2028 through 2032 for purposes of carrying out this section.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the demographics of individuals diagnosed with lung cancer and individuals screened for such cancer. Such report shall identify--
(1) any segments of the population diagnosed with lung cancer but not captured in current screening eligibility guidelines (such as firefighters, veterans, and women under 50 years of age); and
(2) recommendations for how the Federal Government can improve screening for such cancer among such segments.
Senate Resolution 738--Recognizing the Significance of Jewish American Heritage Month and Calling on Elected Officials and Civil Society Leaders to Counter Antisemitism
Pages S2379–S2380 · Official textHERITAGE MONTH AND CALLING ON ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CIVIL SOCIETY LEADERS TO COUNTER ANTISEMITISM Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Graham, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Warnock, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Fetterman, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Slotkin, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Kaine) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
Text printed in the Record (10,102 characters)
Whereas "Jewish American Heritage Month" has its origins in 1980, when Congress enacted the Joint Resolution entitled "Joint Resolution to authorize and request the President to issue a proclamation designating April 21 through April 28, 1980, as `Jewish Heritage Week' ", approved April 24, 1980 (Public Law 96-237; 94 Stat. 338);
Whereas, on April 24, 1980, President Jimmy Carter issued the proclamation for "Jewish Heritage Week", and in that proclamation, President Carter spoke about the bountiful contributions made by the Jewish people to the culture and history of the United States;
Whereas Congress has played a central role in recognizing "Jewish American Heritage Month" since the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions in 2005 and 2006, respectively, urging the President to proclaim the national observation of a month recognizing the Jewish-American community;
Whereas, since 2006, Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all issued proclamations for "Jewish American Heritage Month", which celebrates Jewish Americans and encourages all people of the United States to learn more about Jewish heritage and the contributions of Jewish people throughout the history of the United States;
Whereas the people of the United States celebrate the rich history of Jewish people in the United States and the more than 350-year history of Jewish contributions to society in the American Colonies and United States;
Whereas the United States has long served as a haven for Jewish people escaping oppression in search of liberty, justice, and tolerance;
Whereas the Jewish-American community dates back to 1654, when a group of 23 Jewish people, fleeing persecution at the hands of the Portuguese Inquisition, fled Brazil and found refuge in what is now New York City;
Whereas several prominent Jewish Americans heroically supported the American Revolution and Jewish community leaders advocated for freedom of religion for all Americans upon the founding of the Nation;
Whereas, in 1790, President George Washington expressed his support for religious freedom for Jewish Americans in a letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, affirming that the newly founded United States would give "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," and offered his wishes that "the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants";
Whereas Jewish Americans have established deep roots in communities across the United States and served their neighbors and the United States as loyal and patriotic citizens, always grateful for the safe harbor that the United States has provided for them;
Whereas the Jewish-American community has grown to over 6,000,000 people, representing approximately 2 percent of the population of the United States in 2024;
Whereas Jewish Americans have served in government, won Nobel prizes, led universities and corporations, advanced medicine and philanthropy, created and performed in enduring works of performing and visual art, written great novels, become emblems of justice as members of the Supreme Court, and so much more;
Whereas, since the founding of the United States, more than 1,000,000 Jewish-American men and women are estimated to have served in the United States Armed Forces, participating in every major American conflict;
Whereas at least 18 Jewish-American members of the Armed Forces have received the Medal of Honor, the United States highest award for military valor in combat, of which 4 were presented posthumously;
Whereas, according to his Medal of Honor citation, on June 30, 1862, during the Civil War, United States Army Private Benjamin B. Levy, "a drummer boy, took the gun of a sick comrade, went into the fight, and when the color bearers were shot down, carried the Union colors and saved them from capture";
Whereas, according to his posthumous Medal of Honor citation, on October 26, 1918, during World War I in France, United States Army Sergeant William Sawelson heard "a wounded man in a shell hole . . . calling for water," and "left shelter and crawled through heavy machinegun fire to where the man lay, giving him what water he had in his canteen," and after returning to obtain more water, "was killed by a machinegun bullet";
Whereas, according to his posthumous Medal of Honor citation, on July 7, 1944, in the Battle of Saipan during World War II, United States Army Captain Ben L. Salomon was serving as a surgeon when Japanese troops "started overrunning his hospital," and he "stood a rearguard position in which he had no hope of personal survival, allowing the safe evacuation of the wounded . . . before being killed himself";
Whereas, according to his posthumous Medal of Honor citation, between July 23, 1950, and April 20, 1953, during the Korean War, United States Army Corporal Tibor Rubin, a Holocaust survivor who immigrated to the United States, was "severely wounded . . . and subsequently captured by Chinese forces" but "chose to remain in Chinese prison despite offers of an early release" and, instead, "risked his own safety . . . to find food for other soldiers and provide medical care to the sick and wounded prisoners";
Whereas, according to his posthumous Medal of Honor citation, on July 12, 2018, in Afghanistan, United States Army Sergeant First Class Christopher A. Celiz "voluntarily exposed himself to intense enemy machine-gun and small-arms fire . . . thereby allowing U.S. and partnered forces to regain the initiative, maneuver to a secure location, and begin treatment of a critically wounded partnered force member," whose life was saved and, after being hit by enemy fire, he "motioned to the aircraft to depart rather than remain behind" to evacuate him, sacrificing his own life "to protect his team";
Whereas the bravery and valiance of Jewish-American servicemembers, including those that made the ultimate sacrifice, illustrate the profound contributions that the Jewish-American community has made to defending the United States Constitution, freedom, and the American way of life;
Whereas, since Hamas' deadly attack on Israel, on October 7, 2023, antisemitism in the United States has reached record highs with incidents targeting Jews and those who are perceived as Jewish;
Whereas, on May 21, 2025, 2 Israeli Embassy staff members, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, were fatally shot outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, and the suspect shouted, "Free Palestine";
Whereas, on June 1, 2025, in Boulder, Colorado, several individuals took part in a peaceful walk organized by "Run for Their Lives", showing support for the hostages still held captive by Hamas;
Whereas, during this walk, an individual shouted "Free Palestine" and threw 2 lit Molotov cocktails into the crowd, resulting in multiple injuries, including severe burns, and the death of Karen Diamond, an 82-year-old woman from Boulder, Colorado;
Whereas, according to American Jewish Committee, 91 percent of American Jews say they feel less safe as a Jewish person in the United States due to violent attacks on American Jews in the past year;
Whereas, according to the Jewish Federations of North America, 50 percent of Jewish institutions with a physical presence, such as synagogues, community centers, and day schools, lack the resources to adequately protect themselves against these rising threats;
Whereas, according to the American Jewish Committee, 73 percent of Jewish adults report experiencing antisemitism online, including on social media;
Whereas, according to Hillel International, 85 percent of Jewish college students have
experienced or witnessed some form of antisemitism since the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks;
Whereas, in 2025, the Anti-Defamation League recorded 6,274 antisemitic incidents in the United States, which equals an average of 17 incidents per day and represents the third-highest year for antisemitic incidents since the Anti-Defamation League began tracking this data in 1979, with incidents remaining 70 percent higher than in 2022 and nearly double pre-October 7 record highs;
Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation has aggregated 2024 hate crime data showing that reported single-bias anti-Jewish hate crime incidents reached a new all-time high, comprising roughly 70 percent of all reported religion-based hate crime incidents in the United States;
Whereas one of the most effective ways to combat antisemitism and hate is through increasing education and awareness about the contributions Jewish Americans have made to the United States through the arts, entertainment, science and technology, the military, the government, business, culinary traditions, and other fields; and
Whereas, as the strength of a society can be measured by how that society protects its minority populations and celebrates their contributions, it is altogether fitting for the United States to once again mark the month of May as "Jewish American Heritage Month": Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the significance of Jewish American Heritage Month as a time to celebrate the contributions of Jewish Americans to the society and culture of the United States;
(2) calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and counter all acts of antisemitism;
(3) calls on elected officials and State and local leaders to educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish-American community and uplift Jewish stories and voices;
(4) takes all possible steps to ensure the safety, security, and dignity of American Jews in all aspects of their lives, including at the workplace, college and university campuses, synagogues, and home;
(5) honors the contributions of Jewish-American members of the Armed Forces who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to protect freedom; and
(6) commits to protecting religious freedom in America by ensuring all Americans, including Jewish Americans, can worship without fear of violence or persecution.
Senate Resolution 739--Honoring the Life and Legacy of John Seymour, the Late Senator for the State of California
Page S2380 · Official textSENATE RESOLUTION 739--HONORING THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF JOHN SEYMOUR, THE LATE SENATOR FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Thune, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Alsobrooks, Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Banks, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Budd, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Fetterman, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Husted, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Justice, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kim, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Markey, Mr. Marshall, Mr. McConnell, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Moran, Mr. Moreno, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Paul, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Risch, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Sheehy, Ms. Slotkin, Ms. Smith, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Warnock, Ms. Warren, Mr. Welch, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
Text printed in the Record (3,157 characters)
Whereas John Seymour was born on December 3, 1937, in Chicago, Illinois;
Whereas John Seymour enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, serving his country in uniform from 1955 to 1959;
Whereas John Seymour attended public school in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania, and graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1962;
Whereas, as a southern California businessman, John Seymour greatly contributed to Orange County's vibrant real estate and housing marketplace, serving as president of the California Association of Realtors in 1980;
Whereas, in 1974, John Seymour was first elected to the Anaheim City Council, representing the city of Anaheim as a council member from 1974 to 1978, and later serving as the Mayor of Anaheim from 1978 to 1982;
Whereas, as Mayor of Anaheim, John Seymour led efforts to secure the relocation of the Los Angeles Rams to Orange County in 1980, championing his community in the process;
Whereas, as Mayor of Anaheim, John Seymour further led initiatives to establish greater trust and public accountability between Anaheim law enforcement and the wider community;
Whereas John Seymour, during his time as a State Senator in the California legislature, as well as in the United States Senate, demonstrated leadership and commitment to causes dearly held by California residents, including special education, women's rights, and environmental stewardship;
Whereas John Seymour was appointed to the United States Senate in 1991 by California Governor Pete Wilson and served in the Senate until 1992;
Whereas, working alongside Senator Alan Cranston, John Seymour helped pass into law a landmark transportation bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 109 Stat. 1914), securing billions of dollars in funding to benefit the State of California;
Whereas John Seymour led congressional efforts to preserve California's natural beauty, protect its ecosystems, wildlife, and national parks, and stimulate California's industries;
Whereas John Seymour served with distinction, developing a reputation for candor, bipartisanship, and putting people and communities first;
Whereas John Seymour, in his advocacy as a public servant and private citizen, devoted particular attention to supporting affordable housing initiatives in southern California through steadfast engagement with nonprofit organizations;
Whereas John Seymour was a beloved son, husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather; and
Whereas the State of California and the United States have lost a compassionate lawmaker and dedicated public servant: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Senate--
(A) has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of John Seymour, the late United States Senator for the State of California; and
(B) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives and transmit an enrolled copy thereof to the family of John Seymour; and
(2) when the Senate adjourns today, it stands adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late John Seymour.
Senate Resolution 740--Expressing Support for the Designation of May 2026 as "Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month"
Pages S2380–S2381 · Official textSENATE RESOLUTION 740--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF MAY 2026 AS "MOTORCYCLE SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH" Mr. PETERS (for himself, Ms. Ernst, Mr. King, and Mr. Curtis) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
Text printed in the Record (2,197 characters)
Whereas, according to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycling is a great tradition enjoyed by an estimated 30,000,000 individuals annually in the United States, representing approximately 9 percent of the population;
Whereas motorcycles are a valuable component of the transportation mix;
Whereas motorcycles are fuel-efficient and decrease congestion while having little impact on the transportation infrastructure of the United States;
Whereas the motorcycling community promotes rider safety education, licensing, and motorcycle awareness;
Whereas the motorcycling community is committed to decreasing motorcycle crashes through training and safety education, personal responsibility, and increased public awareness;
Whereas, according to the Motorcycle Industry Council, approximately 87 percent of motorcycles are operated on highways in conjunction with other vehicles;
Whereas motorcyclist fatalities occur more frequently than passenger vehicle motorist fatalities;
Whereas, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (referred to in this preamble as "NHTSA"), 46 percent of 2-vehicle crashes involving a motorcycle and another type of vehicle that result in a motorcyclist fatality involve a vehicle turning left into the path of a motorcycle;
Whereas motorcycle awareness is critical to ensuring all road users watch out for motorcycles, in order to decrease motorcycle crashes; and
Whereas NHTSA promotes Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month to encourage riders to be properly licensed, receive training, and wear personal protective equipment, and to remind all riders and motorists to always share the road: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the designation of May 2026 as "Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month";
(2) recognizes the contribution of motorcycles to the transportation mix;
(3) encourages motorcycle awareness by all road users;
(4) recognizes that motorcyclists have a right to the road and that all motorists should safely share the roadways;
(5) encourages rider safety education, training, and proper gear for safe motorcycle operation; and
(6) supports the goals of Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month.
Authority for Committees to Meet
Page S2381 · Official textMr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed and open session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 2 p.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing.
Text printed in the Record (55 characters)
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 8 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.
Privileges of the Floor
Page S2381 · Official textMr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow Patrick McCormick be granted floor privileges for duration of his legislative fellowship with my office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Appointment
Page S2381 · Official textThe presiding officer. The Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, upon the recommendation of the Democratic Leader, pursuant to Public Law 105-292, as amended by Public Law 106-55, Public Law 107-228, and Public Law 112-75, appoints the following individuals to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: Rachel K. Laser of the District of Columbia (reappointment) and Gunisha Kaur of New York.
Honoring the Life and Legacy of John Seymour, the Late Senator for the State of California
Page S2381 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 739, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (118 characters)
A resolution (S. Res. 739) honoring the life and legacy of John Seymour, the late Senator for the State of California.
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 motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 739) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
Expressing Support for the Designation of May 2026 as "Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month"
Page S2381 · Official textEXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF MAY 2026 AS "MOTORCYCLE SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH"
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 740, which was submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (117 characters)
A resolution (S. Res. 740) expressing support for the designation of May 2026 as "Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month".
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 that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 740) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to. (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
Orders for Wednesday, May 20, 2026
Page S2381 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 20; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 11:15 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session and execute the order in relation to the Rikhye nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Adjournment Until 10 A.m. Tomorrow
Page S2381 · Official textMr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 739.
There being no objection, as a further mark of respect to the late Senator John Seymour, former Senator from California, the Senate, at 7:03 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 10 a.m.
Confirmations
Page S2381 · Official textExecutive nominations confirmed by the Senate May 19, 2026:
Text printed in the Record (335 characters)
Sheria Akins Clarke, of South Carolina, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina.
The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
Rear Adm. Douglas L. Williams