Senate
Page S2671 · Official textThe Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley).
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Vol. 172, No. 97 · 119th Congress, 2nd session
Prayer
Page S2671 · Official textThe Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer: Let us pray. Eternal God, we find consolation in the knowledge that our times are in Your hands. As we gather in Your presence, we thank You for Your unfailing love, sustaining grace, and faithfulness. You have guided us through seasons of joy, sorrow, and victory. You have never forsaken us. Lord, grant wisdom to our lawmakers. May they trust You when the path ahead is unclear. Give them courage to stand firm when challenges arise and faith to believe that You are working all things together for good. Strengthen their hearts, unite them with a passion for freedom, and make them instruments of Your justice, love, and peace in our world. We pray in your glorious Name. Amen.
Pledge of Allegiance
Page S2671 · 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 S2671 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong)
Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.
Morning Business
Page S2671 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
Under the previous order, the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The Senator from Iowa.
Medicaid
Pages S2671–S2672 · Official textMr. President, during the mid to late 1990s, President Clinton and a Republican Congress worked hard to do a bipartisan reform package. It required work requirements for people who were on welfare.
It was a great success. It reduced the welfare population by about 40 percent, and a lot of people were saying having to go to work ended up being one of the best things in their life. It changed their life. So having a job gives people purpose and dignity. You guessed it; it is central to having a happy life.
Now, more recently, along the lines of what we did in the 1990s, in the Working Families Tax Cut law, signed by the President last July 4, Congress established further commonsense work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid.
Federal law already requires able-bodied adults to work if they are on food stamps and receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance.
As required in last year's tax bill, last week, following up on that statutory requirement, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--CMS for short--released regulations for these work requirements before their implementation January 1 of next year. Now, the public has a chance to comment on the interim final rule through the end of July. So before the end of July, any citizen in the United States--well, I mean, you don't even have to be a citizen. You just have to take advantage of giving your views on this interim rule. So let CMS know your view--that is everybody and anybody.
As the law requires, the Medicaid work requirements only apply to able-bodied adults, ages 19 to 64. To fulfill the requirements, a person has a lot of alternatives: getting a job for at least 20 hours a week, going to school at least 20 hours a week, or volunteering at least 20 hours a week, or receive job training for at least 20 hours a week. So there are lots of flexibilities that ought to meet the needs of people who want to keep their Medicaid Advantage. In other words, if you are capable, you can't just sit at home watching television.
Now, there have got to be some exceptions to this work requirement, so I will discuss those at this point. The elderly, people with disabilities, medically frail, pregnant women, and children are all exempt from the work requirements. That makes sense. It is a reasonable thing to do. If people aren't able to work, and they still require Medicaid, they are exempt.
There are other exemptions. If you are an able-bodied adult, but you are a caregiver or a parent with kids under 14 years of age, you are exempt from the work requirements.
Also, if you have been hospitalized or need to get mental health treatment, you are exempted. There are other reasonable hardship exceptions for communities impacted by natural disaster or that have high unemployment rates.
Now, if that sounds like there are so many exemptions that nobody will have to meet the 20-hour work requirement, there will be just many, many people that will have to work, go to school, or take care of volunteer work if you are going to get Medicaid, and it is a reasonable requirement.
The Federal Government and many States are taking a data-first approach when implementing these work requirements: the government by using data and information to verify eligibility and exemptions before requiring the individual to prove they are compliant or exempted.
The added benefit is this: For those people that have to work, go to school, work for a nonprofit, or have a real job, these work requirements can lead to improved health outcomes and a reduction of poverty.
The interim final rule takes note of research that finds that "obtaining and maintaining stable employment is associated with improved physical and mental health outcomes and greater overall well-being, while unemployment and unstable work are linked to poorer health outcomes."
In other words, working is good for your health.
New evidence also shows the work requirement will lift 1-6/10 to 2-9/ 10 million people out of poverty, and that is exactly what we found as a result of the 1990 welfare reform bills that were passed by a Republican Congress when we had a Democrat President; in other words, very bipartisan.
Commonsense Medicaid work requirements for able-bodied adults take the same approach as welfare reform did in the 1990s, and I am repeating that because it was an important move that had very positive outcome effects.
So moving people from welfare to work and self-sufficiency was our goal in the 1990s, and it is a goal that was established in the tax bill of last year in regard to Medicaid.
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
Page S2672 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The majority leader is recognized.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Page S2672 · Official textMr. President, in 4 days, authorization for our Nation's most critical intelligence-gathering tool will expire.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the U.S. Government to target the digital information of foreign actors located outside of the United States for specific national security purposes, such as counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Established in the wake of September 11 to address gaps in foreign intelligence collection, this program plays a vital role in foiling bad actors, including terrorists, cyber criminals, and drug and weapons traffickers.
Our Nation's policymakers--from the White House to the Pentagon, to Congress--rely upon intelligence acquired from section 702 on a near daily basis. Twenty-four percent of the National Security Agency's intelligence reports in 2025 contained section 702 information. So did 62 percent of projects in the CIA's daily World Intelligence Review and 63 percent of articles in the President's Daily Brief.
Just to bring this down to the concrete, more than 90 percent--90 percent--of synthetic drug disruptions enabled by the CIA in 2025 relied on section 702 information. Synthetic drug disruptions--that is operations targeting fentanyl and fentanyl analogs, poison intended for America's streets. The CIA reports that one raid alone supported by section 702 resulted in the seizure of more than 1 metric ton of fentanyl pills from a facility in Mexico.
And drug disruption is just one activity supported by 702 information.
Section 702 provided intelligence that helped prevent a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert. It enabled law enforcement to warn potential U.S. victims of ransomware attacks planned by North Korea. It helped enable the successful mission against al-Qaida's top leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 2022. It has identified threats to U.S. troops and provided information key in pursuing the release of Americans held hostage abroad.
The list goes on. Suffice it to say that section 702 plays a vital role in providing intelligence to protect our country.
We have considered multiple 702 reauthorizations since the program's inception, and each time there is a robust discussion of the program and its safeguards to ensure that civil liberties are protected in the collection of vital intelligence. Two years ago, a bipartisan coalition of Senators voted to reauthorize this program with 56 bipartisan reforms that have now been fully implemented by the Trump administration. The result is that 702 is the most overseen intelligence collection tool in the world.
Over the past several weeks, both Senate Democrats and Republicans have been working on a section 702 reauthorization in good faith. The bill released by Chairmen Cotton and Grassley last week includes additional bipartisan reforms over and above those included in the House-passed bill and over and above the robust guardrails already in place to ensure that 702 operates within the law and with respect for civil liberties.
On Friday, I would have expected those Democrats who have been working with us to vote to advance the bill. After all, some of the provisions in the bill were included at their request. But they didn't. Why? Because they disagree with a short-term personnel choice made by the President: his temporary appointment for Acting Director of National Intelligence.
Democrats have every right to disagree with the President's choice for this position, no matter how short-term the appointment is likely to be, but I invite my Democrat colleagues to think about what they are doing here in holding this vital intelligence collection program hostage because they don't like the President's temporary--temporary--DNI pick.
I have talked at some length here today about the critical role that section 702 plays on a near daily basis in protecting Americans from a range of threats. And you don't have to take my word for it. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee has also made it clear that he regards section 702 as a key intelligence source. And yet he and a number of his colleagues are holding up reauthorization because they disagree with the President's, again, temporary DNI pick.
Without Democrat cooperation, in 4 days, the section 702 program will go dark. America's enemies, however, will not--will not--go dark. They will continue working against the United States, whether that is conducting cyber attacks, planning terrorist activity, or trafficking fentanyl and other deadly drugs into our country. The only difference is that our intelligence Agencies will have a greatly reduced capacity to discover these activities.
I hope my Democrat colleagues will rethink their decision to hold the 702 program hostage before we all have cause to regret the consequences.
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 majority whip.
Working Families Tax Cut Act
Pages S2672–S2673 · Official textMr. President, the Working Families Tax Cut law has put more money in people's pockets and pocketbooks. It made a real difference when people filed their taxes this year. Refunds went up; taxes went down. Working families kept more of the money that they had earned.
Over 60 million American families have benefited from at least one of the new tax cuts that the Republicans passed this past year. Over a million Americans benefited from no tax on car loan interest--average deduction $1,800. Over 7 million Americans benefited from no tax on tips--average deduction $7,000.
Twenty-nine million Americans benefited from no tax on overtime--average deduction there $3,100.
Thirty-five million Americans benefited from the senior deduction on Social Security--average deduction there $7,500.
And that is not all, 40 million American families benefited from the child tax credit. They were able to deduct $2,200 for each of their children. The Department of Treasury confirmed that about 97 percent of Americans received a tax cut this year.
People who benefited the most were Americans earning less than $200,000 a year. Every single Democrat in this Chamber, every single one of them, voted against every one of these popular tax cuts. The Democrats, what did they vote for? They voted for raising taxes by $4 trillion. It would have been the largest tax increase in American history. That is what the Democrats stand for. Higher taxes, less money in people's pockets, more money in the coffers of the government.
Now, this is the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats want to raise your taxes; Republicans want you to keep more of your hard-earned money.
Some of the biggest benefits of the Working Families Tax Cut law are still ahead. I know many people worry about the future, especially if they have children. They want their children to get ahead, not just get by. That is why we have created Trump accounts as part of the Working Families Tax Cut law.
They are brand new, and they are investment accounts. And on July 4, Trump accounts go live. Accounts for newborn children, children born this year, start with a thousand dollars already in the account. Children own the account. Parents or trusted guardians are the custodians.
Accounts work like a traditional individual retirement account. They are built to kick-start the American dream for that next generation coming behind us.
Beginning the 4th of July, every child's Trump account will be able to accept additional contributions on top of the thousand dollars that they start with, and that can be up to $5,000 each year. Parents, family members, grandparents, churches, community groups, and even employers can contribute--and many are committed to do so. Announcements have already been made. Michael Dell the CEO of Dell Technologies, he has pledged to contribute $6 billion to Trump accounts for all American children.
In Wyoming, I am grateful that the cryptocurrency exchange Kraken has committed to make a contribution to the Trump account for every child born in Wyoming this year.
Other companies are talking about following suit around the country. Other businesses are following their lead, so are community groups; so are churches. So imagine this, years from now your son or daughter walks into the bank and they use their Trump account to put the downpayment on their first home or your son or daughter starts that small business they have been dreaming about using the Trump account or they simply let the investment continue to grow until they retire.
This is the future that Trump accounts are built to deliver to the American people. The best part is these accounts are easy to set up, easy to track, easy to use. Signing up for a Trump account is free and it is simple. Six million children have already been signed up for Trump accounts.
I have spoken with several people who have gone through the signup process; they say it took less than 5 minutes. Trump accounts put children's financial future where it should be: directly into the hands of the American people. They give that next generation something we all would like, a headstart on the future that no one can take away.
This is the essence of the Trump accounts. It is one of the important prospects for the future that we foresaw and put into the Working Families Tax Cut law that every Democrat voted against.
So independence for all these Americans begins on the 4th of July.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Working Families Tax Cut Act
Page S2673 · Official textMr. President, I listened to my colleague from Wyoming, my friend Senator Barrasso, talk about the benefits of the Trump policies when it comes to American families.
I don't know the situation in his home State of Wyoming, but let me tell you the situation in most States in the Union, including my home State. American families are struggling. They don't believe the Trump policies are giving them any relief from what they face on a day-to-day basis.
I wonder when the last time was that Members of the Senate filled up a tank of gasoline in their home States and realized that the dramatic increase in cost is working a real hardship, particularly on working families in lower and middle-income jobs. They are struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck, and now they have gasoline bills they never anticipated. There is no end in sight. And to talk about relief for American families and ignore the cost of gasoline is really to ignore the obvious.
The same thing is true when it comes to utility bills. In my State, utility bills are up 15 percent this year over last year. There are a lot of reasons for it, and they have been explained over and over on the floor. The bottom line is that there is no Trump policy addressing this issue--particularly no policy that really is moving us toward renewable and sustainable sources of energy for generations to come.
How about the price of groceries? The tariff policies of this administration have led to a protest by farmers across the United States. These tariff policies hurt their ability to compete in the world market. That is why the President recently went to the Midwest in the hopes of salvaging his reputation with farmers in rural communities.
For the Senator from Wyoming to come to the floor and talk about the benefits to American families is to ignore the increased costs of groceries that people put up with every day.
What the Senator didn't mention as well is that the big beautiful Trump budget bill also made some dramatic changes when it came to the cost of healthcare for American citizens. The idea of cutting $1 trillion out of the Medicaid Program over the next several years is not only going to create a hardship on people with illness, but it is also going to create a hardship on providers.
Already in my State, where many rural hospitals and inner-city hospitals struggle to keep their doors open, the notion of these cutbacks in Medicaid means not only fewer treatments for those who are sick and need medical care, but it also means, when it comes to these hospitals and clinics that are really a life-and-death proposition, their survival is in doubt.
Talking about the future for American families--the future starts with healthcare that is quality healthcare that you can afford.
Do you recall when the Republicans, in their big beautiful budget bill, decided that they were going to cut back the tax benefits for people to help pay for their health insurance premiums? How can that be of any lasting, positive value for families across America? It creates a real hardship that they have to deal with.
So I think coming to the floor and talking about tax policies in decades to come is interesting and worthy of note, but it certainly doesn't address the reality of what American families are facing in Illinois, Wyoming, and across the United States. That is the reality.
Iran
Pages S2673–S2674 · Official textMr. President, on a separate note, Sunday marked 100 days since President Trump launched his war on Iran. What was true at the beginning of the conflict is still true: There is no evidence that the President has a coherent plan to resolve this quagmire of his own making.
On Sunday, the President assured the Nation in an interview that he was "very close to a deal." If that sounds like a familiar refrain, it is. President Trump has been saying some variation on that sentence every week since the war began over 100 days ago.
Yet, just hours after he made those comments, Iran and Israel traded a new wave of strikes, and the Houthis--an Iranian-backed militia--fired on Israel and threatened to further restrict shipping in the Middle East.
While this latest exchange has ended, thank goodness, the larger regional instability remains. Global oil reserves continue to diminish by the hour. And in a cruel irony, it appears President Trump is inching toward a deal with Iran that is very similar to the Obama Iran nuclear agreement which Trump recklessly withdrew from during his first term in office.
Ultimately, wars cannot be won through threat or bluster. We need a real plan that brings a real end to these hostilities and to Iran's threats in the region. I am pleased my Republican colleagues are finally starting to realize that reality.
Last week, the House passed a resolution requiring that the President receive congressional approval before taking any further military action against Iran, and last month, the Senate advanced a similar measure.
Where in the world did Members of Congress and the House and Senate come up with the idea that the Congress has any authority to say anything about the declaration of war? Well, it might be the Constitution, which says in article I, section 8, that it is the authority and responsibility of Congress to declare war--a fact which this President has totally ignored when it comes to Iran.
We cannot allow the President to wage a war without checks, oversight, and accountability. Congress must step up and exercise its responsibility.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Page S2674 · Official textMr. President, on a separate note, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is set to expire on Friday. This powerful, necessary tool allows for warrantless surveillance of private phone calls, text messages, and emails of hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals outside the United States. There is no authority in this law for direct surveillance on American citizens, but Americans are being swept up in the efforts under 702 and have been for years.
Section 702 can yield valuable foreign intelligence and even prevent terrorist attacks. It is valuable, and I don't question that it should continue. But it can and has been abused in the effort to spy on foreigners. Americans have become the victims.
Those who oppose reforming FISA argue there is no time to address these abuses because our national security will be harmed if section 702 is allowed to expire even for a day. That is not true. Existing law allows section 702 collection to continue under an order from the FISA Court for another year even without congressional reauthorization.
Congress can and must take the time to get this right. We must finally fix the fundamental and indefensible flaw at the heart of FISA: warrantless surveillance of American citizens.
We should ask ourselves two questions:
Who is being entrusted with this immense power? President Trump would like this authority to be overseen by unqualified MAGA loyalists. President Trump has named Bill Pulte Acting Director of National Intelligence. Bill Pulte is in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing programs of the Federal Government. He has no--underline "no"--background in intelligence.
The Republican Senate leader came to the floor here and said: Don't worry about it; he is just temporary.
Temporarily in charge of the intelligence operations of 17 or 18 Agencies? Temporary approval of their actions by a man who has no background in intelligence? What are we saying to the men and women who have devoted their lives in defense of America to intelligence gathering? Some have risked their lives. Some have given their lives in the process.
To take Mr. Pulte, who runs the housing programs, and put him in charge makes no sense whatsoever--temporary or permanent.
Let me add as well that Mr. Pulte isn't just a housing expert; he tends to be an expert as well on revenge politics under MAGA. He has followed the President's admonition to go after the President's enemies and done it over and over again. Now we are going to put him in charge of all the intelligence Agencies of the United States? It makes no sense.
Since being confirmed to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Mr. Pulte has abused his position to push for criminal referrals against President Trump's perceived enemies, from New York attorney general Letitia James to Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
If Mr. Pulte becomes the Acting Director of National Intelligence, he will have access to thousands of Americans' private texts, phone calls, and emails. This housing expert is going to be playing with ammunition provided by the intelligence Agencies to keep Americans safe. Now it is going to be used for political purposes if we are not careful.
Then there is the Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel--a special case for sure. His Agency is one of the biggest users of information acquired through section 702.
The New York Times this morning had a lengthy article on the lengths Patel has gone to--with the FBI--to get even with the President's critics. In addition to overseeing the purge of nonpartisan career agents at the Bureau itself, Mr. Patel has also gutted internal FBI oversight of FISA by eliminating the Office in charge of auditing complaints with section 702 regulations.
Another official with an instrumental role in section 702 surveillance is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche was President Trump's personal defense attorney, and he has warped the Department of Justice into a personal sword and shield for President Trump.
The inability of Pulte, Patel, and Blanche to serve the American people rather than the personal and political interests of President Trump highlights why Congress must reform section 702.
The second question Congress must ask is whether the section 702 authorities safeguard the privacy of Americans under any administration, not just the current one.
Our Nation's Founders understood the government can't be trusted to police itself against the overreach into citizens' private lives. That is why the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances.
One of the most important checks is the Fourth Amendment, which requires the government to get a warrant from a judge before searching Americans' homes or private communications. Section 702 should not be a backdoor around this congressional limitation. That is why Senator Lee, a Republican from Utah, and I have a bipartisan proposal to require the government to obtain a judicial warrant before searching Americans' communications collected under section 702.
Our legislation would also close the so-called data broker loophole, which allows the government to purchase Americans' personal information from third-party data brokers--data that would require a warrant if sought any other way.
I urge my colleagues to ask if the current administration can be entrusted with the power of section 702 and whether every future administration can be trusted without adequate safeguards. It is clear that the answer to both questions is no.
Congress must enact commonsense guardrails that uphold the Constitution and protect the American people from abuse by this administration or any future administration.
The Republican leader came to the floor earlier today to talk about the security of the United States. I agree with him. It is a paramount task. But also adherence to our Constitution, which each and every one of us swore to uphold and defend, is part of that process.
The notion that we could put a temporary person in charge of 17 or 18 intelligence Agencies across the globe, dedicated to keeping us safe 24/7, because he is loyal to the President's politics ain't enough. You ought to be qualified before you take on a job of that magnitude. Mr. Pulte is not qualified.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy)
The Senator from Mississippi.
Medical Insurance
Pages S2674–S2675 · Official textMr. President, I rise to call attention to a serious barrier in our healthcare system, one that hinders too many Americans from accessing the medications and the treatments that they need. Across the country, patients and providers alike are increasingly frustrated by prior authorization requirements imposed by insurance companies. Too often, these requirements override the medical judgment of doctors who know their patients best.
I have had oncologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, and many other medical professionals visit my office to share their ongoing concerns and how prior authorizations are disrupting care. They are trained experts; yet their decisions are being second-guessed by insurers.
The result is deeply concerning. Many patients are denied or delayed access to the medications and services that their physicians have prescribed because they know those treatments are effective based on their many years of medical education and clinical experience.
And the delays are not minor. Patients are often forced to wait days, weeks, or even months for critical care which, in many cases, will still be denied in the end. There are simply too many unnecessary hurdles standing between a patient, the doctor, and the care that they need.
I am a proud cosponsor of the Safe Step Act, which would allow patients to access appropriate treatments more quickly by bypassing dangerous or ineffective "fail first" prior authorization requirements.
I have also cosponsored the Improving Seniors' Timely Access to Care Act, which would modernize and streamline prior authorization for Medicare Advantage patients. This timely access legislation would deliver realtime decisions for routinely approved treatments, increase transparency around CMS approvals and denials, and replace outdated paper-based systems with electronic prior authorization.
These are practical bipartisan solutions. In fact, 68 Senators have already joined me in support of this effort.
Despite this, the issue persists. We must act with urgency. Every day we delay is another day patients are left wanting for care, waiting for care that they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues and the administration to prioritize this issue and move swiftly to address it.
Every day we delay is another day that insurance companies will continue making decisions on behalf of medical professionals, which they have no business doing whatsoever.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Connecticut.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Pages S2675–S2677 · Official textMr. President, I am here to talk about the costs of war. The United States is at war at this moment.
I am here to talk about the costs of war that should include the costs of caring for our veterans because they are the ones who fight our wars and keep our Nation strong and free.
We are failing to pay the costs of war for more than 50,000 combat-injured veterans. These veterans were forced to medically retire or they are undergoing medical separation because of combat-related injuries, and now they are receiving a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their military retirement pay from their VA disability benefits. That practice is wrong. It must be ended. It should have ended long ago.
In fact, last year, when I introduced the Major Richard Star Act, which now is cosponsored by 80 Members of this body--obviously, both sides of the aisle.
And the Major Richard Star Act is named for Richard Star. Unfortunately, he has passed away, but his brother David is with us today, and I thank him, his family, the veterans service organizations that have been tireless in their advocacy for the Major Richard Star Act, in being the voice and face of advocating for our veterans. The Major Richard Star Act is our legislation to fix this injustice and finally deliver combat-injured veterans their full military benefits.
Our bill has, rightfully, received large swaths of bipartisan support--not only the 80 cosponsors in the Senate but 334 in the House. And there is a bipartisan discharge petition signed now by 203 Members of Congress.
Not only has this measure received bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress, but in a hearing where I questioned him, the Secretary of Defense joined in supporting us and said very simply: We support the Major Richard Star Act.
"We support the [Major] Richard Star Act," without an offset because the Major Richard Star Act has no offset.
Now, he referred to the Major Richard Star Act, not to any offset, but the 80 cosponsors are supporting a bill without any offset. There should be none. There is no reason that we should correct this injustice by taking benefits away from other veterans, which is one of the proposals that has been made; that veterans who suffer from sleep apnea or tinnitus should be forced to sacrifice their benefits.
And despite all this overwhelming support, the House leadership and the Senate leadership has blocked my attempts to advance this legislation twice. I am here for a third time. And blocked also have been my requests for a simple vote on the bill. Why?
Opponents have claimed that our Nation cannot afford this bill and demand that we offset it by cutting benefits from other disabled veterans. And they are acquiescing in spending billions of dollars a day on the President's war of choice in the Middle East.
Right now, the Armed Services Committee--literally, later today--will begin marking up a $1.5 trillion request from the White House--$1.5 trillion, not even including the reconciliation amount. That probably brings the total closer to $2 trillion?
My point is: If we can afford $2 trillion for the Department of Defense, we can afford doing the right thing for combat-injured veterans at a total cost of probably $8 billion to $10 billion over 10 years. So the yearly cost would be approximately what this Nation is spending per day on the Iran war, in the conservative estimate, and probably lowballing of this administration.
There are other excuses advanced by leadership. They have said veterans are "doubledipping." Our veterans community knows better. We all know better. They are entitled to both disability benefits and retirement pay.
The fact is, we are not talking about a new benefit. We are talking about these combat-injured veterans receiving existing benefits to which they are entitled. They have earned them. It is not an act of generosity or charity that we would correct this injustice. And the simple result and easy outcome here should be for us to approve this measure today.
Let me just say, finally: Veterans deserve action. This measure is long overdue. No more excuses, no more meaningless rhetoric, or continued cowardice. Let's have a vote.
If you won't approve it today, give us a vote. Let us express the will of the vast majority of veterans, the vast majority of the American people. Pass the Richard Star Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032.
I further ask that the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 40 trillion reasons why new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere.
We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. The interest is a trillion dollars a year. Interest rates are rising. Likely the biggest threat to our country is our national debt.
No one disputes that our veterans deserve to receive the benefits they earned through years of service to our Nation, but we should offset it. There is waste in abundance throughout our budget. There is no reason why we shouldn't cut waste to pay for this.
What I proposed is a simple amendment to this legislation that would basically get rid of money that hasn't been spent over the last 10 years in welfare for refugees. They keep allocating a couple billion dollars more every year. The fund now has $26 billion in it.
Refugees shouldn't be getting welfare. You should be coming to our country for the American dream. This is not the American dream to come here for welfare. We should not have welfare for refugees or anybody--legal or illegal--coming into this country.
In fact, it is the law of the land that if you come here legally, you are not eligible for welfare for 5 years unless you are a refugee and then we say: Oh, well, they can be on welfare, and many of them continue on welfare. In the Somali population, well over 80 percent of the Somalis are on welfare 10 years after they get here.
So what I am proposing is, if we want to do this, if we think this is fair to add the disability spending to the retirement spending and not have any kind of canceling out, pay for it. Why don't we end this refugee program? That is all I am asking.
If you want to help and provide more money for soldiers who are retired or disabled, do that, but pay for it by not giving money to refugees.
So it is easy. We should do it. But when people say around here: "Oh, we don't need to do this" and "this is too important to offset with a cut," that is why we are $40 trillion in the hole.
Interest rates over a trillion. That is paying at about 2.5 percent, on average. The latest Treasury sales of 30-year bonds was 5.2 percent. If we roll over the debt and pay all of it at 5 percent, then we are talking about $2 trillion in debt payments each year.
So, yes, we have to be responsible. Money doesn't grow on trees. We can't simply say: Well, this is for a good cause; therefore, we are just going to explode the debt.
I mean, ADM Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he said that the biggest threat to our Nation was not from without, but it was from within. It is from the debt we are accumulating.
So just saying something is a good cause is not enough. We have to pay for it. There is waste up and down and all throughout our budget. And for goodness' sake, we should use this as an opportunity to say: We have this and it is a good thing and we can go ahead and do this, but we will do it by getting rid of bad spending.
You know, we still have nearly a billion dollars that we are doling out to Afghanistan.
We wasted trillions of dollars on that war. We were there for 20 years. We have gone. And there is an allegation that money from that reconstruction fund goes to NGOs and that it still winds up in the hands of the Taliban, to this day.
There are all kinds of money throughout government. There is said to be $180 billion worth of improper payments in government.
Should we let people keep writing checks to people who are ripping off the system? Did you not see what happened in Minnesota? Nine billion dollars is being stolen. They set up a daycare, and nobody really comes. They set up a center for autism. They had a "Learing Center." They left out the "n": L-e-a-r-i-n-g. And they were taking your money.
Why shouldn't we just cut that out? Why shouldn't we quit doing that? Why shouldn't we save money if there is something better to be done with the money? But just spending money, no matter how good the cause, is not what we should do.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong)
Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand that my colleague from Kentucky is offering an amendment--or perhaps not. In any event, if there is no request to modify, I just want to say that there should be no need to modify. There should be no need for any offset. The cost of war should include the cost of caring for our veterans.
But if there is going to be an offset--and I share my colleague's concern about the national debt--it ought to be from that $1.5 trillion that has been requested by the administration for the Department of Defense, when, in fact, the Secretary of Defense--or Secretary of War--has said he supports it. It is a DOD program or Department of War program. The offset should come from the DOD. It should not come from veterans. It should not come from another government program.
We can spin a wheel or we can throw darts and say that is where the money should come from. But, logically, as a matter of principle and as a matter of what is right, it should come from the Department of Defense, which has more than adequate resources to do it.
So I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking this unanimous consent, and I am going to ask that, at the very least, we have a vote on it. I think it is only right that this body be permitted to vote, and we have been asking for a vote for more than a year.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader but no later than August 7, 2026, the Committee on Armed Services be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1032; further, that there be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Blumenthal substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes being required for passage, all without further intervening action or debate and no amendments or motions in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, when we are told that we need to spend billions of dollars on a new program and yet we are unwilling to cut any spending from anywhere else, we should say: Well, aren't there some areas that we could all agree with?
So there is an Agency called the National Science Foundation. They have an $8.6 billion budget. About $8.5 billion is spent on crazy stuff. William Proxmire first started talking about the National Science Foundation in the 1970s, when he would give a Golden Fleece Award. One of the first awards was for a project that was $50,000. This was a while ago. It was only $50,000, but they were going to study what makes people happy. Does anybody think that is a good use of your money: What makes people happy?
Why do people fall in love--another 50 grand. Now, that might be a fun or interesting article in Cosmopolitan, but when we have a $40 trillion debt, maybe we should cut some of their money.
One of my favorite studies was this: They wanted to determine whether tequila or gin made people more feisty, more cantankerous, more likely to commit violence. So they got codfish, and they guzzled--you know, they poured the tequila down the mouth of a codfish and then the gin. And I will bet you we can just poll the audience: Tequila, of course.
But that is the kind of crap your money is going to. And if we are not willing to cut any of that, even for a good cause, why are we here?
Why does it get worse every year? Because nobody cuts.
For the National Science Foundation, we doubled their budget a couple of years ago. Not more than 2 or 3 years ago, there was a study--it was about a million dollars--and they wanted to know: Are Japanese quail more sexually promiscuous when they are on cocaine? We can probably poll the audience on that one.
Another one of my favorites is--this was three-quarters of a million dollars, and they wanted to know: What did Neil Armstrong say when he landed on the Moon? So if you ever remember this from 50-some-odd years ago--the crackly sort of audio and the black-and-white video--and he says, "One small step for man." Or did he say, "One small step for a man"? So we spent 750 grand to study and listen to the old tape of Neil Armstrong to see: Did he say, "One small step for man," or "One small step for a man"?
To make matters worse, to make it even more insulting, this was $750,000 that had been designated for autism research; and instead of it going to autism research, it was secondarily contracted out to study what Neil Armstrong had to say.
Two million dollars was spent studying whether or not, if you go to the cafeteria and the person in front of you sneezes on the food, are you more or less likely to take the food that somebody just sneezed on. This is crazy. It is insulting, and it is ridiculous.
Why shouldn't we cut some of that waste and use it for this new veterans program. And this isn't a veterans program where there is or there isn't money. There is money being spent. This is to allow more money for a veterans program. This isn't to supply money to people who aren't getting any money.
I am for--we are a rich country. We should do it. But we should cut spending from where we are wasting it, and there are plenty of alternatives. If the Senator has another alternative where he would like to cut spending, I am your guy. I am for cutting spending across the board. There is waste everywhere.
But rather than come forward with programs that are feel-good and that have sympathetic people you want to help, come forward with these programs and say: But I am conservative. I worry about the debt. I worry about the trillion dollars in interest. And this is how we will pay for them.
Until that day, I will object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Objection is heard.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, we can agree or disagree with what my colleague from Kentucky has just said. It is entertaining, but it is deeply irrelevant to what I have asked to be done here. I am asking for a vote. The speech that he made could be made when we have time to vote, when this measure is put on the floor and we have a chance to express the will of this body. That is all I am asking.
We have 80 Members of the U.S. Senate cosponsoring this bill. The Secretary of Defense has endorsed it. Veterans service organizations are unanimously in favor of it.
The U.S. Congress pays for plenty of programs without demanding an offset. I am simply asking that a program for disabled veterans be treated in the same way.
Contrary to what my colleague says, this is not a VA program; it is not a veterans program. This is a Department of Defense program: retirement pay, disability benefits. Secretary Hegseth supports this bill without an offset.
But if Republicans insist on treating the Major Richard Star Act differently, then, at the very least, the money to pay for the wounds of war--the wounds of war that are occurring right now--at least 400 members of the military have been injured in some way so far in the Iran war. It should come from the Department of Defense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Tennessee.
Secure America Act
Pages S2677–S2678 · Official textMr. President, I was doing a little bit of work this past weekend when I was in Tennessee and talking with Tennesseans about what is important to them. They are very hopeful that we are going to get the price of gas and groceries down.
During the Biden years, that 9 percent inflation and elevated inflation rates every year really hurt the pocketbook. And we all want these prices to come down. And, indeed, we are working on making certain that life is more affordable. Right now, we have got a lot of people that are struggling to make ends meet. So we hear a good bit about that at home.
Another thing we hear about is public safety. People want to feel safe and secure in their homes, in their communities, in their States. They want to know that their children, as they are out and about and working, that they are going to be in a safe environment.
So, this past weekend, we had many people who mentioned the work we did last week with passing the Secure America Act. Now, the good thing about this is, it puts the American people first. It is vital legislation because it will fund ICE and Border Patrol for the rest of President Trump's term, making certain that we are going to have the funds that are necessary for Federal law enforcement to go track down criminals, stop the flow of drugs and fentanyl into our country, and to enforce immigration laws. Those are things that--wrapped into this bill--help make every single community safe.
People want to make certain that people that are in the country illegally are deported. They want to make certain that criminal illegal aliens are picked up, that they are detained, that they are going to be prosecuted for their crimes. They want these illegal alien gangs to be apprehended and removed from their communities.
So passing this bill last week was a victory for the American people. This is something they voted for: Close the border; make certain that the homeland is safe. And they like the fact that the Senate passed this legislation.
One thing that came up regularly, as I talked to Tennesseans this weekend, was, Why did every Democrat vote against this? Not one--not one--voted aye. Not one.
And I would remind them that we saw this as must-pass legislation because, for 76 days--76 days--the Democrats had thrown the Department of Homeland Security into a shutdown. That is kind of the 2026 version of "defund the police": Abolish ICE.
They have not been able to get their way; so they said: Well, we will just take away their money.
Now, I think it is important to note what they do when they act like this. Childish? Yes. Ridiculous? Absolutely. Disrespectful? Of course. They should listen to themselves and how they sound because the American people are listening, and they don't like what they are hearing.
What the Democrats did was to say: OK. We are going to put you in a shutdown because we want to abolish ICE. We want to defund law enforcement. So it doesn't matter to us that TSA, Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, FEMA, all of these are going without pay. They are going without pay.
So what we did by passing the Secure America Act is to really slam the door on these antics, and Republicans said to the Democrats: Nope. We are not going to let you get by with risking these hard-working Americans and many times putting their lives at risk.
I think it is important to note, too, while they object to immigration law being enforced, every single immigration law that is on the books has been passed by Congress, and it has been signed by a President of the United States; some Democrats and some Republicans. Every single one. That is how they became the laws.
But instead of standing with the rule of law, what the Democrats have done is to say: We are going to pick and choose some laws we like and some laws we don't like. So we are just going to ignore the laws that we don't like.
And when I talk to Tennesseans, they cannot believe that the Democrats would put our national security at risk, but that is what they have done.
You know, I have said many times--many times--the Democrats have worked overtime during the Biden years trying to find ways to make "illegal" legal because they don't like the law. So then they try to find a work-around. And then we know that what they do--circumvent the law and try to make an illegal activity legal.
Now, another area where we have seen this is in the election integrity issue. And we support fair, secure, open elections. That ought to be a bipartisan issue. We should all want that. We should all treasure one person, one vote. And election integrity should be something that is at the top of the list.
Now, part of this is making certain that we ensure that only citizens can vote. This is one of those things that is common sense. And you know what? It is the law. Only citizens can vote in U.S. elections.
Now, what has happened is some States have allowed people that are illegally in the country or people that are legally here but they are on a visa or a work permit or a student visa or they are a legal permanent resident--they are not allowed to vote in our elections. But in some States, they have been voting.
So there is a way that States can make certain that it is only a citizen that is voting, and that is to compare their voter rolls with the Department of Homeland Security's SAVE system, the SAVE database.
This registry allows Federal, State, and local government Agencies to verify the immigration status of anybody in their jurisdiction. It is useful when determining whether an individual should be registered to vote.
What we know is that 26 States check their voter rolls against the SAVE database. Now it probably will not surprise you, it is unfortunate, but the 26 States are overwhelmingly red. My State of Tennessee has led on this issue for years, and it is ranked No. 1 in this country for election integrity.
Now, thanks to President Trump, the process is easier than ever for States to use this registry. Under his leadership--and probably is no surprise--under his leadership, our State and local governments can use this for free. They do not pay any kind of fee. They can go in here, put in the name, the last four digits of the Social Security number--not all nine, just the last four--and they can see what pops up.
The good thing is that the States who are doing this--and by the way, the States that are using it have submitted more than 46 million verification requests through the database, and they are getting results from this.
Texas uses this system, and their secretary of state identified more than 2,700 potential voters that were violating the system. They ought not to be on the rolls. Ohio discovered more than 1,000 potential noncitizens on its voter rolls. More than 160 of them have cast votes in elections going back to 2018.
They are not citizens. They ought not to be voting in our elections.
Now, for the States, the SAVE database is a commonsense tool to ensure the integrity of their elections. Yet, we have got about half the States in this country--especially the blue ones--that are not taking this basic step to verification.
When you look at California and New York, between those two States, they are estimated to be home to 3.5 million illegal aliens, and we can only imagine how many noncitizens are on their voter roll because they are taking zero--zero--steps to verify these rolls.
New Jersey, another blue State, refuses to use the SAVE database. Just this week, we learned through public records requests that there have been hundreds of cases of noncitizens placed on the State's voter rolls in just the last few years. Many had no idea that they were registered to vote. Others voted in elections going as far back as the year 2000.
You know, many times, elections are decided by a few votes. Might be five or six. Might be a couple hundred. And when you look at the numbers--you look at what Texas found; you look at what Ohio found; you find out that in New Jersey, that you have got people that have been in the country illegally and have been voting since 2000.
Congress should do everything possible to encourage the States to use the SAVE database to secure our elections. The American people do not want voter fraud. They want to have confidence in our elections. It is the foundation of our system of representative government.
Now, this is why Senator Graham and I have introduced the Election Security Partnership Act. This legislation would provide increased grant funding to States that submit their voter registration lists to DHS to identify ineligible voter registrations, including for noncitizens. It would also improve election administration technology and security.
This is something everyone should do, but they are not doing it. So we are saying: All right. We will incentivize you. If you are going to get grants that deal with your elective systems, then we will give you a plus-up of 10 percent if you will do the right thing and abide by the law, if you will verify that the people in your State are voting because they are a citizen, if you will guarantee the integrity of your voting system.
You know what? We have got States--they don't want to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat; they are looking for the way to cheat. They are looking to make "illegal" legal. They are looking for ways to circumvent the law.
This is not fair. It is not right.
Every Member of Congress should support this legislation. Why would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose election integrity measures? Why would they oppose States cleaning up their voter rolls? Why would they oppose being a citizen to register to vote and then when you go to the poll show an ID? Prove that you are who you are. Treasure that right to vote. It is foundational.
We have been a free country for 250 years because we value protecting our freedom. We believe in robust, respectful, bipartisan debate, and we believe in standing with the rule of law.
I think it is troubling that we have to ask our colleagues: Why? Why? Why is it that they do not want to exercise election integrity?
Recess
Page S2678 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled recess begin immediately.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:27 p.m. recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Britt).
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)
Page S2678 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Anthony W. Mattivi, of Kansas, to be United States District Judge for the District of Kansas.
Nomination of Anthony W. Mattivi (Executive Session)
Page S2678 · Official textMadam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Anthony Wayne Mattivi to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
While it is commendable that Mr. Mattivi is a long-time public servant, I have deep reservations that he can be impartial if confirmed to the bench.
As the director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, KBI, Mr. Mattivi signed a 287(g) agreement to participate in Federal immigration enforcement and touted Kansas as being only the second State in the country to do so. Given ICE's cruel and inhumane tactics, that is nothing to brag about.
I am also concerned that Mr. Mattivi will not treat criminal defendants fairly, given that he has repeatedly characterized as soft on crime decreasing or eliminating mandatory minimums.
We have seen how outdated mandatory minimum policies stemming from the failed "War on Drugs" continue to impose lengthy, one-size-fits-all sentences for many nonviolent drug offenses. They don't deter crime; instead, they overcrowd prisons and strain budgets.
Lastly, Mr. Mattivi has demonstrated that he is too afraid to cross President Trump. When asked in written questions if he stood by his view that it was "preposterous" for President Trump to claim that he had issued a standing order to declassifying the documents he kept at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Mattivi declined to answer.
Given Mr. Mattivi's inability to demonstrate that he will be a neutral arbiter, I will oppose this nomination.
Vote on Mattivi Nomination (Executive Session)
Pages S2678–S2679 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Mattivi nomination?
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.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted "yea" and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted "yea".
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (1,019 characters)
Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer 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 Tuberville Wicker Young
Alsobrooks Baldwin 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
Bennet
Graham
Tillis
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). 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.
Recognition of the Minority Leader (Executive Session)
Page S2679 · Official textThe PRESIDING OFFICER
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Iran (Executive Session)
Page S2679 · Official textMr. President, I am sure I speak for everyone in the Senate and in the country when I say I am relieved that the two American helicopter pilots shot down over the Strait of Hormuz earlier today have been safely rescued.
The U.S. helicopter that went down over the strait is a stark reminder that every second Trump's disastrous war continues is another second that our troops remain in harm's way. Our servicemembers are the best and the greatest in the world, and they deserve better than to risk their lives in a reckless, aimless war. The only sure way to protect our troops is to end this war as soon as possible--something Donald Trump is clearly incapable of doing.
Senate Republicans need to step up, advance our War Powers Resolution to end the war, and bring our troops home.
William Pulte (Executive Session)
Page S2679 · Official textMr. President, on Mr. Pulte, there is a reason the law requires the Director of National Intelligence to have "extensive" national security experience. The role is essential to protecting the American people and has access to the most sensitive information imaginable. But Donald Trump's decision to appoint Bill Pulte as Acting DNI would elevate someone with absolutely zero experience--zero--in national security. In Trump's eyes, the only qualification someone needs to serve in any post in this administration is absolute, unwavering loyalty to him and to him alone. At a time when our Nation is at war, our troops are in danger, and massive security events like the World Cup and America's 250th anniversary are fast approaching, we need someone with extensive national security experience leading the intelligence community. We need a Director of National Intelligence who will speak truth to power, not cater to Trump's every wish. We need a Director of National Intelligence who is objective, not one who distorts the truth for political gain, as Pulte has repeatedly done. We need a Director of National Intelligence who truly has a national security background, not someone with zero experience.
Entitlement Programs (Executive Session)
Page S2679 · Official textMr. President, now, on Mike Johnson's plan to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: It is amazing. Doesn't he ever learn? Yesterday, Mike Johnson revealed to a reporter that congressional Republicans have a plan to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid if they stay in the majority. America, do you hear that? His plan is to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid if they stay in the majority. We found out this morning that--thanks to the Republican massive tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans--Social Security is in worse shape than ever, with insolvency coming faster and finances deteriorating worse than at any point in more than 30 years. And now Johnson just gave the game away. After making the largest cut to healthcare in American history and undermining Social Security, Republicans are coming back for second cuts. Republicans have had no problem adding $5 trillion to the debt to cut taxes for billionaires, but they suddenly get stingy when it comes to protecting Americans' healthcare and retirement benefits that affect the vast majority of working people. Imagine telling the American people that they can't retire or can't get their children the lifesaving care they need because billionaires like Donald Trump aren't rich enough already. Well, that is what Speaker Johnson is saying, and it is disgusting. Johnson can try to backtrack, dodge, or distort what he said all he wants, but he has reminded Americans of Republicans' true colors, and Americans don't like what they see.
Nomination of Todd Blanche (Executive Session)
Page S2679 · Official textMr. President, on the Blanche nomination, yesterday, Trump officially nominated Todd Blanche to serve as his Attorney General permanently. Letting Donald Trump make his personal lawyer Attorney General makes as little sense as letting a defendant pick his prosecutor. "Attorney General" might appear on Blanche's business card, but we all know the job description will stay the same: Trump's fixer, bagman, and hired gun. There are billboard lawyers I would trust more as Attorney General than Todd Blanche. Blanche was the mastermind behind the $2 billion MAGA slush fund to funnel America's taxpayer dollars to Donald Trump and his MAGA cronies. Blanche has had the audacity to come before the Senate and claim he was dropping the slush fund. I would say a promise from Blanche isn't worth the paper it is written on, but Blanche told the Senate:
Text printed in the Record (50 characters)
I'm not committing to putting anything in writing.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to sing the praises of his blatantly corrupt slush fund for billionaires and violent criminals. Blanche has withheld 3 million pages of the Epstein files, lied to Congress under oath about meeting Epstein survivors, and brought baseless charges against Trump's political enemies; but Senate Republicans seem more than happy to shake his hand as he picks the American people's pocket. Democrats are going to fight this confirmation with everything we have, and if Republicans have any respect for the rule of law, they will do the same. I yield the floor. 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 (Mr. Hagerty)
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Healthcare (Executive Session)
Pages S2679–S2682 · Official textMr. President, I am a physician. I used to work in a hospital for the working uninsured and the uninsured, the poorly insured, and so, as you might guess, I am very sensitive to the idea, to the understanding, to the fact that healthcare is becoming more expensive and less obtainable to the American people.
And last week, if I can put this up, I pointed out that the average American household has $10,000 in credit card debt, and these aren't people paying it off every month. These are people, like in the State of Tennessee or in the State of Louisiana, who are carrying a balance. And over the last 5 years, to show that this is becoming an increasing problem, the average--if I remember correctly--the average percent of someone's income going to credit card interest has risen from 1.9 to 3.2 percent of their income. They are not paying this off. They are carrying a balance with 22 percent interest sometimes, and they are paying more and more.
And the way this factors into healthcare is that, when someone has a multithousand-dollar deductible, even if they have insurance--they have a multithousand-dollar deductible--in order to pay for the out-of-pocket, they are putting it on their credit card, so much so that over 60 percent of personal bankruptcies relate in part to healthcare expenses, period.
Credit card debt reflecting the overall debt burden--the overall problems of affordability in our society--is huge.
Now, we have an obligation here. We in Congress, whatever our party, working with the President, we all have a mutual obligation to address this issue.
And now I would like to stress that it is not just for the patient, if you will, the family, the individual, the employee--you name how you want to put it--to address this, but it also is important for businesses.
I had a townhall a couple of months ago back home, or a roundtable, and there was a woman named Debbie in DeRidder, LA, who owns a coffee shop. She has 50 employees, and that is 50 employees for which she has to provide insurance. And so she is having a difficult time expanding her business because then she has to provide coverage to more employees, and she cannot afford to expand because of the money that she is putting toward their benefits.
Now, we need businesses to be strong. We need businesses creating more jobs, paying better wages for the people of the United States. By the way, that is not a Republican or Democrat or congressional or Executive office--that is an American priority for our fellow Americans.
So one thing that is kind of lost is the ability to hire new employees--or, I should say, more employees--and the ability to pay them more is getting swallowed up by the increased percent of compensation to an employee that is going to provide health insurance.
To give a little bit more background, whenever a person, whenever a business owner makes a decision to hire an employee, the amount they set aside for that employee is the wage, the Social Security tax they pay upon those wages on behalf of the employee, and then their benefit package. The more that benefit package costs, the less they can pay the employee.
And, right now, we are seeing the cost of health insurance climb to the extent that businesses are not able to pay more wages because they are having to put more into paying for the health insurance.
This is not new. This is getting worse. And we spoke earlier--to kind of feed back into the credit card debt--businesses are compensating by buying the cheapest policy they can. It is still more expensive but cheaper. But that cheaper policy has a deductible that is more and more. That cheaper policy may have a deductible of $5,000.
The average family carrying a $10,000 credit card debt doesn't have $5,000 to pay expenses, and that brings us back to where we started. They don't have it in their money. They don't have it in their pocket. So they are putting it on their credit card. They are carrying the debt, and more and more of their income is going toward paying interest on rolled-over credit card debt.
By the way, it is a big problem in my State of Louisiana. I think we are the No. 3 State in the Nation, in terms of families carrying credit card debt.
And if I remember correctly, 11 percent of families nationwide are going delinquent on their credit card debt, which means they are not even paying the minimal balance required.
This is an issue for Congress, whatever your party, for President Trump to engage with each other to accomplish this mission. And, by the way, we need the President, and I personally will make an appeal to President Trump.
Let's do something for the American people. And you can say it is an election year. No, say it is not an election year. This is the year in which we have got to help the American people afford their household items. It is a huge issue.
And the answer is that President Trump's intuition on this is fantastic. During the debate over extending the enhanced premium tax credits on the exchanges, President Trump said: Don't give the money to the insurance company; give the money to the family--because if you give it to the insurance company, the insurance company takes 20 percent of it for profit and overhead. And, by the way, the family is still left with a multithousand-dollar deductible. So President Trump's intuition on this is the correct intuition.
We need to make it so that, when the Federal Government is taking the money we are already using to subsidize the purchase of health insurance by employers and by the employee, the money is going to the patient, not to the insurance company. Give the patient the power, not the profit to the insurance company.
And so I emphasize: The President's intuition is correct, because that opens the door for the President and for the Congress, no matter your party, to come together to address this issue.
By the way, you could say that it is good politics. I would say: Good policy is good politics. And so it would be important for us to consider to do this.
Now, I have come up with a plan. I call it the MVP plan--MVP, Money and Value for the Patients. How do we do this? So, again, taking the President's intuition, don't give the money to the insurance companies; give it to the patient. We advance the dollars to the patient in a health savings account that they can use to pay for that out-of-pocket expense. Under this plan, a family of four would get about $2,000.
And, by the way, there is a way to pay for this. This would not add to the Nation's debt, because we already are subsidizing the purchase of health insurance by Americans. We just do it a little differently.
And in this you give $2,000 to the health savings account. Why is that important? Sixty percent of American families will not spend more than $2,000 in a calendar year on out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare.
And once you take care of that first 2k, they can take a higher deductible policy, which will lower the cost of the premium. Put together, this could save a family as much as $6,000 on healthcare, on the cost of being insured.
So $6,000 a year, $500 a month--this could help that family carry a $10,000 load right now, the part of that credit card debt coming from the need to put healthcare expenses on the card.
This would help the employer because the employer could, plausibly, get a policy which is less expensive, which keeps more money in the employer's pocket--better able to hire more people or pay more compensation.
And it doesn't increase the Nation's debt. We make it debt neutral.
And it builds upon the President's insight: You don't give the money to the insurance company; you give it to the patient. And you add value. So we bring money in with value to the patient.
In the HELP Committee right now, the committee I am privileged to be the chairman of, we have a bill--bipartisan, with Roger Marshall from Kansas and John Hickenlooper from Colorado. Our committee staff is working hard with them on this, to increase price transparency.
Now, price transparency began with legislation and Executive orders in the first Trump administration. I am familiar with that. Part of it was the No Surprises Act, which I helped author, and that began the process of price transparency.
Price transparency, just to be clear, we know what it means. Price transparency is knowing the price of something before you make the purchase, as opposed to knowing the price afterward.
I use the example--in the No Surprises Act, we made it so that, when you go in for a colonoscopy, they are obligated to tell you if it is going to cost more than anticipated. They have to tell you what that additional cost is going to be.
I chuckle because, in the bad old days, you would find out that you are obligated to pay the extra cost for a colonoscopy when you are waiting to go back for the colonoscopy, and you have been prepped--and, if you have ever had one, you know what that means--and you are sitting there with a thin sheet over you, and they say: By the way, if you want to walk out, you can. Otherwise, we are going forward. Just sign this sheet of paper.
It was not a way to acquaint people with the price beforehand, at a point in which they were prepared to walk away.
Now, under the No Surprises Act, we have to be informed. We are going to increase that--increase the power of price transparency--so that the patient would know, when she is going to go in, how much it is going to cost beforehand, as opposed to afterward.
We teamed this up. There are a lot of applications being developed right now by the private sector, taking the information we are creating to bring value to the patient. For example, I use the example of "my daughter has an earache, and I need to bring my daughter to the hospital or to an urgent care center."
You can take your phone and say: Urgent care center near me. Which one has the lowest price? Is there any difference in quality?
These apps will be able to give the patient--the mom, the dad--the information she or he needs right then as to which urgent care center is near them, is open, their cost for a routine visit or any other type of visit, and the quality of the care.
When you walk out, you can say: Pharmacies near me. Which has the best price for Bactrim DS--I forget the dose; I am a doc, but I haven't prescribed it for so long--say 250 milligrams twice a day?
And they are going to send you to the pharmacy with the best price. Now, you are paying for this from the prefunded money in the health savings account. So you are bringing money in the pocket of the patient, coupled with value proposition, price transparency, and the apps being developed in the private sector for the patient. The effect of this is to take power from the insurance company, power from the middlemen, and give it to the patients--power to the patient, not profit to the insurer.
Now, we can do this. We can do this, but it will take a commitment from Congress and from the President of the United States to do it. But first, you have to care about it. We have to care that the families back home are carrying a balance of $10,000 on their credit cards.
If we care about this, if the President of the United States cares about it--when I say "we," I mean the Senate; I mean the House of Representatives--we can come together and fix it. Let's be constructive. Let's acknowledge that this is something we have to do together, but first, we have to care about it together.
Just to point out that it is doable, earlier this year, the President signed into law a PBM reform bill that Congress had negotiated last Congress but got signed into law this Congress. President Trump is attempting to do this through TrumpRx. The MVP plan would allow--could work with TrumpRx to give the patient access to the better price.
So, ultimately, we have to care.
Ultimately, we have to make a decision as a Congress, as a government, to address the issue which is most pressing upon the American people: affordability.
There are some things we can't touch. Housing--whatever solution we put into housing will not affect next year. The price of gasoline and groceries--we cannot affect that as long as the Iranians are holding the Strait of Hormuz. That will be up to the President to come up with an end game that addresses that issue. But one thing we can do collectively is to address the cost of being insured. Some of the things we do immediately, when this happens, will begin to decrease the amount of money a family puts in their personal budget in the cost of healthcare.
Get engaged, all of us. With the President, get engaged. We will be held accountable by those families if we don't, and by golly, we should be.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.
Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor every year around this time to remark upon an event in our pathway toward revolution.
As we close in on the semiquincentennial celebration of our day of independence--July 4, 1776--I want to take this Chamber back 4 more years than that to June 9, 1772, when the first blow was struck of armed conflict between the American Colonies and Great Britain's fleet.
The story begins with the arrival on Narragansett Bay of His Majesty's officer Lieutenant William Duddingston, the captain of a revenue cutter named the Gaspee. Lieutenant Duddingston's task was to police the commerce going in and out of Narragansett Bay, and he went about his task with bumptious, arrogant zeal, which included arrogant exchanges of correspondence with the Colonial Governor and Chief Justice and unnecessary harassment and interference with colonial shipping on Narragansett Bay.
Before we get to June and the events that I am going to describe, I will take a quick sidebar to one of his first exploits in February. He had only gotten there in January. By February, Captain Duddingston of the Gaspee seized a ship called the Fortune, and he seized its cargo. He had the ship and the cargo transferred up to Boston, where His Majesty's government sold the cargo and sold the ship and transferred the funds to the exchequer of Great Britain.
What they had not appreciated was that one of the owners of the Fortune was a Rhode Islander named Nathanael Greene, who had not beforehand been much involved in the Committees of Correspondence and the spirit of rebellion. But the seizure of his vessel put him into what he called a spirit of resentment that changed the course of his life. As students of history will know, he went on to become the chief operating officer of the Revolutionary War, the top lieutenant to George Washington, the guy who made the supplies and the work--everything--happen.
He was important in that role, but he constantly begged General Washington for a real command. Ultimately, General Washington relented, though it wounded him to lose the administrative capability of General Nathanael Greene. General Greene went down to run the southern campaign of the Revolutionary War, whose motto, according to General Greene, was: We fight, we get beat, we rise up, and we fight again.
Sure enough, he did. He fought over and over and over again, never winning a battle but definitively winning the war in one of the first real examples of guerrilla-type conflict the world had seen. They were used to staged, matched armies in colorful regalia, standing at a reasonable distance from each other and firing at each other with muskets and with cannons. The entire campaign in the South was a guerrilla campaign in which they fought, they got beat, they got away, they rose up, and they fought again.
The result was that General Cornwallis, commanding the British Army, wrote to his wife:
Text printed in the Record (51 characters)
That damn Greene is more dangerous than Washington.
He was a very significant participant in the victory that America achieved and the independence that we asserted on the Fourth of July, 1776. He doesn't get the credit he deserves because he spent so much of the war facilitating the work of General Washington, but historians know what a remarkable job he did running that southern campaign. You can trace that all the way back to Lieutenant William Duddingston and the Gaspee seizing his ship the Fortune and lighting up that spirit of resentment.
So scroll forward to June 9, 1772. Lieutenant Duddingston is still helming the Gaspee, and the Gaspee is still harassing Rhode Islanders. A June day on Narragansett Bay is a beautiful thing to behold, and in the sparkling light of that wonderful day, a little ship called the Hannah, bearing cargo, was sailing on its way up to Providence, which was one of the maritime centers of the Colonies, and the Gaspee gave chase, seeking to arrest the Hannah and seize its cargo and send it off to Boston the way the Fortune's had been sent. Only Captain Lindsey of the Hannah decided: To hell with that. I am not going to surrender. I am going to run for it.
He sailed away up Narragansett Bay with the Gaspee in chase.
Along the Warwick shore, about halfway up Narragansett Bay, the Pawtuxet River comes into the bay, and, as rivers do, it carries silt and dirt from the river washing through into the bay. When the river slows down and the water goes out into the larger bay, the silt and the sand fall to the bottom, and there is a little barrier along the bottom of the bay left by the river.
Well, Captain Lindsey had sailed there quite a lot, and like any good captain, he had a pretty good idea of how deeply his vessel drew. He sailed over the sandbar off of Namquid Point and continued on his merry way in the sparkling midday of June 9, 1772. Behind him came the bigger, heavier, lumbering Gaspee, and it floundered and stuck on that sandbar. The tide was falling, so the Gaspee was going no place until the tide fell all the way to low tide and came all the way back up to the tide level at which it foundered and then raised farther enough to lift the vessel off where it was stuck.
When the Hannah got to Providence, her captain told the story of what had taken place. He described to the worthies on the Providence shore that the Gaspee--this dread vessel that had caused so much nuisance and cost to Rhode Islanders--was stuck.
That night, Rhode Islanders rode down from Providence to the Gaspee at night in longboats with muffled oars. As they approached the stuck Gaspee, Abraham Whipple, who was the local sheriff and was in the party, yelled out that he was there to arrest the captain of the vessel and arrest the vessel. Duddingston was not about to put up with that, so he called his crew up to the deck, called them to arms, and a battle ensued between the longboats surrounding the Gaspee and the Gaspee itself.
As the Rhode Islanders swarmed onto the Gaspee, among the gunshots was one that struck Captain Duddingston, so, injured, he surrendered his crew, and the Rhode Islanders captured--his rank was lieutenant; his position was captain. Captain Duddingston. Lieutenant Duddingston. They took him ashore with the crew and turned them all over to be held prisoner and detained. Then they went back out onto the bay, out to the stricken and stranded Gaspee, and they set her alight. When a ship burns, particularly a ship of that era, whose rope is covered with tar, whose rigging is canvas, whose structure is wood, with so many parts that are varnished and oiled, the combustion is rapid. And, as the Gaspee burned, the fire reached the Gaspee's powder magazine. And, when the fire reached the powder magazine, the gunpowder did what gunpowder does, and it blew the Gaspee to smithereens.
It is now about 4 in the morning on June 10, 1772. More than 4 years would go by before the Fourth of July Declaration of Independence; and, interestingly, more than a year and a half would go by until another event--that is much more prominent even though much less brave and significant--took place, and that is the so-called Boston Tea Party.
Now, I have nothing against my friends from Massachusetts, but they got drunk; they went onboard a civilian ship. They seized bales of tea, and they pushed the tea bales into Boston Harbor. Well, bully for them, but well more than a year earlier, Rhode Islanders had seized a vessel of Her Majesty's Navy; had captured the crew; and had blown the damned boat up, and I think that deserves a little credit. So I come here every year. When I go home this weekend, we will be marching in the Gaspee Days Parade that goes by Namquid Point--now called Gaspee Point--where an annual celebration takes place.
And I want to make sure that all of the pages who are here know that, when they hear about the Boston Tea Party, they should know to scroll back 18 months to a bolder, more violent, and more remarkable engagement by Rhode Island.
The aftermath was immediate. King George was furious. He demanded that everyone involved be hanged, and he sent commissioners to come and root out who the miscreants were who had participated in the raid on the Gaspee. And here is what is interesting. There are probably five long boatloads of Rhode Islanders--enough to overwhelm the crew of the Gaspee--and enormous rewards were offered for people to cooperate and testify against their comrades--against all that pressure from the King, against all that inducement of reward. In Rhode Island, no one squealed. The commissioners went home emptyhanded. The nooses hung empty. That was the second conclusion. The blowing up of the vessel was one thing. The solidarity of not yielding to testify against their fellow colonists was the other.
So I will read my poem about this event with apologies to the ride of Paul Revere.
Text printed in the Record (2,234 characters)
Listen, my colleagues, and you shall see How Rhode Islanders blew up the dread Gaspee. Great Britain was fearsome, she ruled the sea, But Rhode Islanders burned with the fire to be free. So when George sent his frigate to tax our coast, And its arrogant captain was heard to boast That he'd soon have Rhode Island under his sway, [Well] a course was set for a fateful day. Narragansett Bay sparkled bright and blue June 9 of 1772, The trading ship Hannah was making her way With cargo for Providence that fine day. King George's Gaspee pursued in chase, But the Hannah decided to give her a race. Away fled the Hannah with wind in her sails, As the Gaspee's cannon fired from its rails. Evading the Gaspee's cannon balls, The Hannah sailed for the Namquid shoals. Fast and light, Hannah crossed the shallow, But when the Gaspee attempted to follow, She ran aground on the Warwick shore, In a falling tide, and could move no more. That night dark longboats with muffled oars, Came slipping quietly down the shore, To rid our Bay of the dread Gaspee, And show old King George that Rhode Island [would be] free. The battle was fierce off Warwick Neck. When the gunsmoke cleared from the Gaspee's deck, The Rhode Islanders had her as their prize, And her crew bound up in chains and ties. When the crew was ashore, Pawtuxet's Rangers Assured they'd present us no further danger. Back to the Bay, in the dark of the night, Went the Gaspee Raiders to set her alight. The fire spread through the Raiders' prize, 'Til a blast filled the Narragansett Bay skies. The fire had reached the Gaspee's magazines, And her gunpowder blew her to smithereens. Away sped the Raiders into the dark, Leaving in the embers freedom's spark. "I want their names!" King George demanded, And ordered the Raiders be apprehended. But his call for hangings came to naught: His nooses hung empty; no charge was brought; Because never a traitorous tale was told. Rhode Island stood steady and silent and bold. The spark that was struck in the Gaspee Raid Lit a flame that still burns in our hearts today. And the lesson from then is a lesson now, That every American still will avow. "However majestic your powers be, You should heed our warning: don't tread on me."
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from Iowa.
Whistleblowers (Executive Session)
Pages S2682–S2683 · Official textMr. President, today, I come here to speak about one of my favorite topics: protecting patriotic people that we call whistleblowers, people whose goal is, in government, to make sure that laws are faithfully enforced and money spent according to the way it should be, and sometimes these whistleblowers pay a price for doing that, even losing their job and ruining themselves professionally.
I have conducted longstanding oversight to ensure the Federal Government complies with whistleblower protection laws, and some of those laws I have gotten on the books.
Unfortunately, elements of the Federal Government--whether Republican or Democrat--have made efforts to silence whistleblowers through illegal nondisclosure agreements.
Let's not forget that in addition to Federal statute, a fundamental precept of whistleblowing is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. That is why I spearheaded a very successful effort to get what is called anti-gag provisions enacted in the law. I worked a very long time to make anti-gag provisions law. The anti-gag provisions require all Federal Agency nondisclosure policy forms and agreements to notify employees of their right to blow the whistle to Congress, to inspectors general, and to the Office of Special Counsel.
The failure to comply with the law isn't only a chilling effect that discourages whistleblowers, it is also illegal.
For decades, my oversight efforts have successfully led Federal Agencies bringing their unlawful nondisclosure and similar agreements into compliance. And I will tell you this: It is amazing that after all these years, the Federal Government still--still--has problems with compliance with my anti-gag legislation.
That is why Congress must continue to do constant oversight.
So this is what brings me to the floor today. On May 26, this year, the Office of Personnel Management--OPM for short--published a notice with requests for comment in the Federal Register. That notice announced that OPM created a draft nondisclosure agreement form for use by Federal Agencies for both new and existing employees.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, this governmentwide nondisclosure agreement is needed to protect confidential information from unauthorized disclosure. In other words, this new proposed regulation is supposed to stop what we call leaks in this town. Office of Personnel Management provided examples of recent leaks to the media about law enforcement and military operations that put the lives of our Federal officers and military members at risk.
It is truly unacceptable when the unauthorized disclosure of information puts the lives of law enforcement and military personnel at risk. Full stop.
It is important to note the distinction between leaks and whistleblowers. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures are not leaks. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures aren't unauthorized disclosures. It can be a fact-specific analysis to determine which side of the line a disclosure falls on. But during that analysis, the benefit must be given to the patriotic whistleblower.
Now, turning to the text of the Office of Personnel Management draft disclosure form, it works this way: It contains an anti-gag provision but doesn't include the full text as required by law. So it should have the full text of the law that got passed. It fails, also, to include that disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel are allowed. And that is in the law as well.
Further, the anti-gag provisions are at the very beginning of the form rather than at the end like other government nondisclosure agreements, where people that are signing the agreement know what their rights are. As a general matter, I am concerned about the use of nondisclosure agreements because they can chill whistleblowers, even if that is not the intent of the nondisclosure agreement.
I demand that the anti-gag provisions be put at the end, where employees sign. At the end will provide the employee with the mental assurance that they are not giving up their whistleblower rights.
Again, the balance must always be on the benefit of the whistleblower because we shouldn't be doing anything in this government to discourage honest whistleblowing.
As I continue to analyze the draft rule this month, 2026, I wrote to the Office of Personnel Management Director making clear that they need to immediately fix these preliminary issues, have the nondisclosure just above the signature, mention the Office of Special Counsel, and also put the entire language of the legislation in the document.
If the draft nondisclosure form is implemented, Congress, of course, should follow up with oversight to ensure that it is not used inappropriately.
And this Senator intends to do that oversight for sure.
U.S. Supreme Court (Executive Session)
Pages S2683–S2684 · Official textMr. President, now on another matter, I want to address the recent threat to the Supreme Court made by Democratic Members of the Congress. Last week, a major newspaper published a piece with a simple title: "Democrats Promise to Wreck the Supreme Court." Now, if you have been around this town a while, that is not hyperbole; it is a fact. Today, I want to tell the American people what is really going on because what House Democrats are proposing to do to the Supreme Court is not reform. It is a power grab disguised as institutional concern. So let's start with the facts. House Democratic leadership has called the Supreme Court a "disgrace" and said that if Democrats take back the Congress in the midterm elections this year, "[e]verything is on the table." Why? Because House Democrats don't like the way this Court rules, and it is that plain and simple. And for those asking what House Democrats mean by "[e]verything is on the table," well, they have already told us. They are calling for four new Justices to be added to the Supreme Court. In other words, they want to pack the Court by adding new activist judges--in the case of the Supreme Court, Justices--who will rule the way that they want, not the way the Constitution demands. Court packing is not oversight. Court packing is not reform. That is a direct threat to what we ought to honor in the judicial branch of government. Packing would undo judicial independence that we expect out of our Supreme Court. House Democrats aren't alone either. Very recently, Democrats in Virginia recently threatened to pack their own State supreme court to circumvent a ruling that they didn't like. Another example is Kamala Harris. The Democratic Party 2024 Presidential nominee recently floated the idea of Democrats packing the Supreme Court as part of a--in her words--"no bad idea brainstorm." House Democrats have said that 4 new Justices are needed--expanding the Court from 9 to 13--because the number of Justices should match the number of Federal appellate circuits. That might make sense if the Supreme Court hadn't operated with nine Justices since 1869--that is for over 150 years. And it also might make sense if we hadn't had 10 Federal circuits since all the way back to 1929--obviously, nearly 100 years ago. Additional circuits haven't been a reason to add Justices for nearly a century, and it is not a reason for doing it today. The proposed rationale given by House Democrats then is a diversion. Their objective is very clear. They want to add new Justices to the Supreme Court and appoint them under a Democrat President. So why would they want to do that? Because four new Justices are the exact amount that they think they need to secure a liberal majority on the Court. And what makes House Democrats' objective even more clear is their timing. Are they asking for these new Justices to be added right now? Of course not. If they were added now, President Trump would be making those appointments. The fact that House Democrats aren't calling for new Justices today tells you everything that you need to know about the motive of Democrats packing the Supreme Court. Now, I would like to give House Democrats a history lesson. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. That attempt failed, and it failed in a Democratic-controlled Congress--overwhelmingly Democrat controlled in the 1930s. Yet here we are nearly a century later, and Democrats are back trying to pack the Court again. House Democrats knew that Court-packing was a bad idea in 1937, and, of course, they seem to have forgotten that wisdom in 2026. The American people have the right to know the truth behind all of this. House Democrats aren't upset about judicial ethics or institutional integrity. They are upset because the Supreme Court is doing its job, and that job is applying the Constitution, as written, rather than applying the Constitution as House Democrats wish that it was written. They want the Supreme Court that will deliver the outcomes that they want, not the outcomes that the Constitution commands. And since House Democrats can't get their preferred outcomes through the democratic process here in the Congress of the United States, they want to rig the Supreme Court to ensure that they never lose, and that is not how our representative form of government works. When it comes to the House Democrats' lack of concern about actual judicial oversight, there is a real-world example that proves my point. Right now, there is a sitting Federal judge embroiled in a genuine scandal. An official judicial investigation found that this judge carried on a years-long extramarital affair, which included intimate encounters in her judicial chamber during work hours and within earshot of her law clerks. When investigators, including the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit questioned her, she lied about it; and if that wasn't enough, the investigation also uncovered that the judge attended a partisan political event in violation of judicial conduct efforts. What was the result of this investigation? Nothing but a private reprimand. In fact, a slap on the wrist. She still remains on the bench. This Federal judge is an example of actual misconduct documented, investigated, and confirmed by her own judicial colleagues. Now, all this outrage about the Supreme Court being packed, what about the outrage from Democrats about this incident I just described? I haven't heard any whatsoever. While House Democrats hold themselves out as caring about judicial oversight--they do it in hearings, they do it on floor speeches, and they do it in press releases--they are very silent when it comes to a real, bona fide scandal right under their very noses. To House Democrats, judicial oversight looks like a one-way street. When they are unhappy with the Supreme Court rulings, they are willing to blow up the entire institution and rig the Court to achieve their preferred outcomes. When a district judge conducts a years-long affair in her chambers, lies to investigators, and violates the judicial canons, these Democrats don't say a single word. That is not judicial oversight. That is, very simply, politics. The Supreme Court is doing its job. It doesn't answer to the Republican Party or the Democrat Party. It answers to the Constitution. The American people know that, and the House Democrats should learn that. If House Democrats want to talk about judicial oversight, they should focus on a real scandal like the one happening right now in Georgia that I described, and they should do that instead of fabricating reasons to pack the Court. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis)
The Senator from Louisiana.
Appropriations (Executive Session)
Pages S2684–S2685 · Official textMr. President, it is the best of times, it is the worst of times, it is the age of wisdom, but it is also the age of jackassery.
Sometimes I don't recognize our world. I will give you one example, at least from my perspective. President Xi in China, President Putin in Russia, and the Ayatollah in Iran have formed a partnership. It is not an equal partnership. The managing partner is President Xi. Unless you are the reason your parents drink, I think you can see that. It is just obvious.
And their goal--President Xi and his two junior partners--is to have Russia dominate Eastern Europe, to have Iran dominate the Middle East, to have China dominate the Indo-Pacific, and have the freedom to roam throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and South America and the Arctic and space.
Now, that is the game plan. That is not a world that is safe for America. I do not want America to be the world's policeman, but I don't want Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and the Ayatollah in Iran to be either.
We have to meet this challenge. To do that, we have to spend more money on defense. I wish we didn't, but we do.
Now, there are only three ways to do that, as you know, Mr. President: Through our budget, the regular appropriation process; through what is called a supplemental bill, which deals just with defense spending; and through the process of reconciliation.
Passing a supplemental bill is not going to work for reasons--the same reasons that we are not going to be able to pass a budget, about which I will talk in a second.
We have the option of reconciliation, but time is running out. And I hear all of the happy talk--I don't mean that really in a pejorative sense, even though I realize it came out that way. But I hear all the happy talk from the House, and I have participated in that happy talk saying we need to do a third reconciliation bill. But if I am honest with myself, I know we are not.
And when the press comes to me--one came to me today--one particular reporter. He was down by the escalators kind of walking around looking like he had lost his luggage at the airport. And he came, and he said: I want to ask you a question, like I have got a quote every day. And he said: So and so says we are going to have a third reconciliation. What is your response?
My response was honest: dream weaver. I wish it would happen, but I don't think it will.
The only way to get more money to protect America is through our appropriations bill. We can also do a supplemental, which I just referred to, but if we can't pass an appropriations bill, we sure can't pass a supplemental.
I am on the Appropriations Committee. As you know, Mr. President, our budget is so big, we don't do just one bill. We do 12 mini bills. We divide it up. That is a lot of bills to pass, but we have done it before. We did it last year.
The budget that we are operating under right now was passed in a bipartisan effort, with the exception of a small piece of Homeland Security. It was passed with a bipartisan effort and voted for by both Democrats and Republicans. That is the way it is supposed to work. Other than confirming Presidential nominations, that is our most important job: to put together a budget. So we know it can be done.
Now, our fiscal year--don't ask me why--runs from September 30 to October 1. So the budget under which we are operating right now, which all Democrats--not all but most Democrats--and Republicans joined in on, is going to run out September 30. So we have been working on a new budget, which will begin October 1.
I hope I am wrong, but there is not going to be a budget. And if I am wrong, I will come to this floor and I will say: I was wrong; I apologize.
But it is clear to me, from our negotiations with my Democratic friends--and they are my friends. They are the Presiding Officer's friends too. We don't hate in this Chamber. We try to get along. But it is clear to me, from my discussions with my Democratic friends, that there is no scenario under which they are going to pass the budget.
They understand we have to spend more money on defense. President Trump has proposed a 42-percent increase in defense spending. That is pretty strong. That is as strong as horseradish. We might can do it if we work together and did it through a supplemental and regular order and a reconciliation bill. But without that--without busting it up--I think 42 percent would be, even on our best day, very, very hard to do in regular order. I think, if everybody were pulling in the same direction, we could probably do a 20- to 25-percent increase in defense spending in our regular budget. We would have to borrow the money. It breaks my heart. And I know we can work hard to find some offsets. But we just have to do it.
But here is the problem: My Democratic colleagues are not going to go along. They are not. I know they say they are, but they are not.
First, in order to do a budget, you have to know how much money you are going to spend--duh. We call that the top line. So when we go to our Democratic friends and say, "Let's negotiate a top line," they say, "We are thinking about it." And we make an offer, and they say, "We will consider it." And then we make another offer, and they say, "We will consider it." Then we make a third offer, and they say, "We are thinking about it." You know, when people act like they don't care, sometimes, it is not an act. They won't even negotiate seriously about the top line.
We are together a lot. We talk among ourselves. And I have had some of my Democratic friends tell me privately: If you want to spend 25 percent more on defense, we want 25 percent more on nondefense--welfare, social spending.
Now, they know we are not going to agree to that. You know what that tells me? They don't want a budget. And I think that if we went to our Democratic colleagues today and said, "OK, you win; we are going to spend 25 percent more on defense, and we will spend 25 percent more on nondefense; let's vote," every single Democrat would vote no. Every single Democrat will vote no in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of the Senate.
If I am wrong, I will apologize. I may be wrong, but I doubt it, because my colleague Senator Schumer, as is his right, is telling the Democrats not to agree to a budget. And Senator Schumer, as is his right, is taking his orders from the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party.
It is not all Democrats. It is not all Democrats. But, clearly, the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party is in control. And many members of Democratic leadership are scared to death of them, and they are going to do what the Graham Platner wing of the party wants. And what the Graham Platner wing of the party wants is to burn it down--burn it down. They want chaos because they think it will help them win the midterm elections. And for that reason, I don't think we are going to have a budget.
We will keep trying. Our chair is Susan Collins. Chairwoman Collins and Vice Chairwoman Patty Murray put together the budget last year. They did a great job. We know it can be done. But I think that is the game plan. And the cherry on top is going to be--you watch. We are going to get to September, and Republicans are going to say: Well, we don't have a budget because you refused to talk about it, because you want chaos, because Senator Schumer told you to create chaos, because the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party told Senator Schumer to tell you to create chaos.
And we are going to say: Let's don't shut down the government. Let's do what is called a continuing resolution. Let's maintain the status quo so we can keep the government open.
And Senator Schumer is going to shut it down as tight as Dick's hatband. That is what is going to happen. That is what is going to happen. You heard it here first.
And that is not fair to the American people. That is not fair to the American people in the world that we live in today. And that, in my opinion, is totally irresponsible--in order to win a midterm election, to create that kind of chaos in this dangerous world. That, to me, is living proof that human evolution is a slow process.
The American people deserve better. And if I am wrong, I will come to this floor and say: I was wrong. My Democratic colleagues are willing to negotiate. They don't have a predetermined game plan. They are not slaves to the loon wing of their party. They understand that the American people, both domestically and internationally, need help.
I will be the first to say I am wrong. And I may be wrong, but I doubt it. The American people deserve better. And if I am wrong, I hope they will prove me wrong.
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.
Major Richard Star Act (Executive Session)
Pages S2685–S2686 · Official textMr. President, earlier today, there was a discussion here on the Senate floor of the Major Richard Star Act, legislation that I cosponsored and strongly support. This legislation would allow medically retired veterans with combat-related disabilities to receive their full military retirement pay from the Department of Defense and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I came to the Senate floor in March to express my support for the Major Richard Star Act and to reiterate to my colleagues that I want to work together to see this bill signed into law this year. That is what I still seek to accomplish.
I have been working with my House colleague Chairman Mike Bost, the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee here in the Senate, with the legislative leadership, the majority leader's office here in the Senate on a comprehensive veterans package that would improve the delivery of healthcare, benefits and services for veterans, servicemembers, survivors, caregivers, military families, and VA staff.
Notably, this package that we are putting together that we have developed and continue to develop would include the Major Richard Star Act. Veterans who did not get a chance to complete their military career due to medical retirement should not be penalized because they received disability compensation from the VA.
This comprehensive legislative package also includes the bipartisan Veterans ACCESS Act, the Love Lives On Act, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, among a number of other bills sponsored by Republicans and by Democrats.
We are close to a final agreement to introduce this comprehensive veterans package. This is not anything out of the norm, but putting this package together, we are going to include the Major Richard Star Act for which the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction, not the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
We are doing this because we see a way forward, finally, on the Major Richard Star Act becoming law. We are close to reaching an agreement on that package. We have worked extensively over months with veterans service organizations, a wide array--dozens of them--to garner their feedback, to seek their input, to determine whether they can be supportive, and continue to review this legislation in the way we intend, including the way we intend to pay for it.
In addition to working with veterans service organizations, Chairman Bost and I have met with our Democrat and Republican colleagues in both the House and Senate on our committees, the White House's Domestic Policy Council, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to make certain we are creating legislation that is sound policy, has widespread support, and the ability to gain the necessary votes.
Let me say that again: the ability to gain the necessary votes to be passed and signed into law and, most importantly, at the same time will meet the needs of our Nation's veterans.
It is easy to come to the floor and ask for unanimous consent to make a point, but we are doing something different. It takes hard work and consensus building to pass legislation that meets the needs of veterans and has the ability to become law.
This is not just like a symbolic thing that we are with our veterans; it is how do we make something that matters so greatly to them actual law and the benefits they would receive.
I, again, express my support for the Major Richard Star Act, but that means little--my saying that means little to the veterans who are currently being denied the benefits owed them for their military service. I have served on both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees and often remark how the committees are the most bipartisan committees in Congress.
In 2020, I worked with then-ranking member Jon Tester, a Democrat, to pass the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act, and when Senator Tester became chairman, I was the ranking member, and we worked to pass the PACT Act.
We were able to work together to pass these bills because it didn't matter which party controlled the Chamber but because we knew we owed veterans the healthcare and benefits they desperately needed, earned, and deserved.
Some of my colleagues would like to see this bill and many others pass without any offset of the costs. That is not and has not been a viable a path forward under either Republican or Democratic majorities. For 5 years, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, the Major Richard Star Act has been unable to pass either the House or the Senate, in significant part, due to the inability to offset the cost of the legislation, something required by law.
We can either continue to encounter this same roadblock--we can do this over and over and over again and see the same result--or we can work together to address the concerns that have prevented this bill from passing for the last 5 years.
Lots of sponsors on the Major Richard Star Act, one of the most sponsored pieces of legislation in Congress, but for 5 years it has not become law. It is my goal to change that, and we are developing a path to do exactly that.
The legislation that I plan to introduce pays for the Major Richard Star Act and other bipartisan and bicameral priorities in their entirety. Ensuring that veterans have the care and benefits they have earned is my primary concern. While some of these benefits typically are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and not the Department of Veterans Affairs, we don't let that technicality, that technical jurisdiction, stand in the way of helping veterans.
I choose to lead on this effort because I decided to be an original cosponsor of the Major Richard Star Act, not to cosponsor it for the purpose of saying I cosponsored it but for the purpose of seeing it become law.
In the coming days, I will put forth a legislative package that accomplishes the goals of the Major Richard Star Act, and I will do so in a way that addresses the policy and cost concerns that have prevented this bill from passing the House or Senate despite widespread bipartisan support.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with me on this path forward that restores benefits to retirees with combat-related disabilities, offsets the costs of those benefits, earns the support of veterans and advocates, and can feasibly pass the Senate and the House and be signed into law by the President. That would be a great day for us as a Congress, as a legislature, to make certain we do our work. More importantly, it would be a great accomplishment for the veterans who deserve the full benefits of what they have earned.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The majority leader.
Legislative Session
Page S2686 · Official textMr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)
Page S2686 · Official textMr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 742.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report the nomination.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Justin D. Smith, of Missouri, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.
Cloture Motion (Executive Session)
Page S2686 · Official textMr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion (Executive Session)
Page S2686 · Official textWe, 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. 742, Justin D. Smith, of Missouri, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit. John Thune, Tim Sheehy, Pete Ricketts, Mike Rounds, John Barrasso, Ted Budd, Jim Banks, Rick Scott of Florida, Todd Young, David McCormick, Shelley Moore Capito, Jon A. Husted, John Boozman, Mike Crapo, Katie Boyd Britt, Eric Schmitt, John R. Curtis.
Legislative Session
Page S2686 · 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.
Remembering Jim Whittaker
Page S2686 · Official textMr. President, today I come to the floor to honor a true American legend, Jim Whittaker. Jim passed away at his home in Port Townsend on April 7, 2026, at the age of 97. A memorial in his honor will be held at the Mountaineers in Seattle on Sunday, June 14.
Jim was born and raised, along with his twin Lou, in West Seattle. A towering figure, Jim was nicknamed "Big Jim," and he more than lived up to the moniker.
Born February 10, 1929, as a young boy, the mountains called to him, and by the 1940s he was exploring with the Boy Scouts and the Mountaineers. In 1948, he and his brother began running guiding services on Mount Rainier, eventually taking over management of that operation.
In 1953, Jim answered the call to serve during the Korean war. He served at the Army's Mountain and Cold Weather command in Colorado, providing training to the 10th Mountain Division in skiing, climbing, mountain maneuvers, and bivouacs.
Following an honorable discharge, Jim began another adventure: heading the first retail store for the fledging REI Co-op. Over 25 years, he helped build REI, eventually becoming CEO and president. Under his leadership, it became a national brand focused on providing quality outdoor gear and fulfilling environmental conservation goals.
Throughout this time, Jim's passion for big mountains never faded and led to one of the greatest achievements in American mountaineering history. In 1963, Jim and his Sherpa partner Nawang Gombu summitted Mount Everest. Jim was the first American to accomplish this feat. He was awarded the Hubbard Medal by President John F. Kennedy, who became a family friend.
Building on this incredible achievement, in 1978, Jim led the American expedition to K2, largely considered one of the most difficult and dangerous peaks in the world. The expedition achieved the first ascent of K2, and Jim's leadership was crucial during harrowing times on the mountain.
The word legend can become overused and diminished--not in "Big Jim's" case. Jim's life and legacy inspired generations of Americans to pursue heights they could only previously dream of.
Beyond the mountains, Jim had a passion for sailing, conserving pristine landscapes in the Pacific Northwest, and for his family. I had the opportunity to meet Jim personally a few years ago and was honored to stand side by side with him in the fight to conserve our majestic State and protect the Wild Olympics.
His legacy will live on for generations to come in his daring adventures, his efforts to pass on protected landscapes for future generations, and through the incredible family and friends who shared in his adventures.
We should all look to the passion with which Jim lived his life day in and day out as an example to follow on our own journeys and adventures.
Secure America Act
Pages S2686–S2687 · Official textMr. President, I submit this statement on behalf of Senator Durbin, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Peters, Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and myself.
Federal law prohibits bills enacted through the budget reconciliation process from effectuating primarily substantive changes to law that are not related to fiscal policy. The budget reconciliation process is reserved for changes to the Federal budget and specifically precludes the inclusion of "extraneous" matters, including any provision whose budgetary effect is "merely incidental" to its nonbudgetary policy components. These limitations on the reconciliation process are commonly referred to as the "Byrd rule" after Senator Robert Byrd, who championed their enactment. So long as these limitations, among several others, are adhered to, a budget reconciliation bill can pass the Senate with only simple majority votes; but any language that does not comply with the Byrd rule is subject to a point of order that requires 60 votes to waive. In practice, the minority scrutinizes every provision of a reconciliation bill and challenges those it believes violate the Byrd rule in litigation before the Senate Parliamentarian, which occurs before the Senate considers the bill on the floor. In response to successful challenges, the majority often strikes or revises text ahead of floor consideration.
This statement highlights sections of S. 2, the Secure America Act, the fiscal year 2026 reconciliation bill passed by the Senate on June 5, 2026, to further demonstrate that provisions passed through the reconciliation process must be read in accordance with the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457; 122 Stat. 5044), hereinafter the TVPRA, the Flores Settlement Agreement, and other applicable laws.
On May 4, 2026, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--or HSGAC--Chair Paul released the proposed Senate HSGAC title of what became S. 2, the Secure America Act. This proposed text included language concerning screenings of unaccompanied children in Section 3(a)(6) that was identical to Section 90004(a)(6) of Public Law 119-21, the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation bill commonly known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The May 4, 2026, HSGAC title also included language to provide funding for the purposes under title IX of Public Law 119-21, therefore carrying forward section 90003 regarding detention capacity and section 90004(a)(6) of that law.
The Trump administration is currently relying on provisions of Public Law 119-21, which are identical to section 3(a)(6) and referenced by section 4 in the proposed May 4, 2026, HSGAC title, to contravene legislative provisions for the identification and screening of unaccompanied children and to override a settlement agreement governing the care and custody of children detained in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--or CBP--custody. For instance, the Department of Justice cited section 90003 of Public Law 119-21 in district and appellate briefs where they assert the authority to detain families indefinitely in family residential centers. In its implementation of section 90004(a)(6) of Public Law 119-21, CBP has changed its screening of unaccompanied children. Under this new processing mechanism, CBP claims it is now permitted to ask unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries to withdraw applications for admission to the United States. Such substantive policy overrides would not comply with the Byrd rule.
Given the administration's position on the fiscal year 2025 reconciliation bill, the minority challenged section 3(a)(6) and section 4 of the May 4, 2026, HSGAC text as violating the Byrd rule because the administration would again incorrectly claim that this language constitutes congressional authorization of their new policies related to unaccompanied children and family detention. The Parliamentarian sustained the Democrats' challenges to section 3(a)(6) and section 4, as indicated by a May 14, 2026, press release published by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget. Senate Republicans then released a subsequent version of the HSGAC title, specifically the text reported out of HSGAC on May 19, 2026, and the Budget Committee on May 20, 2026, which removed the offending language regarding unaccompanied children in section 3 and the reference to Public Law 119-21 in section 4. These changes reinforce that neither congressional intent nor statutory authorization should be read into, or inferred from, either Public Law 119-21 or the Secure America Act, to change the implementation of immigration law or override settlement agreements, including the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement.
On May 4, 2026, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Grassley released the proposed Senate Judiciary Committee title of what became S. 2, the Secure America Act. This proposed text allocated funds to the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security through fiscal year 2029. It included language in section 3 to provide $2.5 billion for the purposes provided in the title as well as in part II of subtitle A of title X of Public Law 119-21.
Since its passage, the Trump administration has relied upon section 100051(8) of Public Law 119-21 to set aside legal protections enshrined in the TVPRA for unaccompanied children. The TVPRA limits voluntary withdrawal to children from contiguous countries, and it states that, absent "exceptional circumstances," children from noncontiguous countries must be transferred to Office of Refugee Resettlement custody within 72 hours of entering CBP custody and placed in full removal proceedings. In a recent letter to Senator Wyden, however, CBP Commissioner Scott wrote: "The language in Section 100051(8) of [Public Law 119-21] makes it permissible to allow certain [unaccompanied children] who are screened and determined to be eligible--including those from noncontiguous countries--the opportunity to withdraw their application for admission and voluntarily return to their country of origin, if they choose to do so." In another telling example, the administration relied on section 100051(8) in attempting to overturn a 40-year-old permanent injunction requiring that unaccompanied children receive written notice of the right to a hearing in immigration court and access to a telephone to call a responsible adult or lawyer. As with the HSGAC title, however, such substantive policy changes would not comply with the Byrd rule.
Given the Parliamentarian's determinations with respect to the HSGAC title, and in light of the positions taken by the administration that provisions of Public Law 119-21 override the TVPRA, the minority then challenged the proposed text of section 3 in the Judiciary title. That text was also amended in the subsequent version released by Senate Republicans ahead of floor consideration. In order to meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, proposed section 3--which became section 203 of S. 2, the Secure America Act--was narrowed to remove references to provisions related to the treatment of unaccompanied children. The final language allocated $2.5 billion to the purposes provided in the Judiciary title or for paragraphs (3) or (7) of section 100051 of Public Law 119-21 only. Further still, to avoid future misapplications of funds issued through the budget reconciliation process, in section 202(9) of S. 2, the Secure America Act, provisions funding certain immigration enforcement actions emphasize that such funds must be utilized "in accordance with existing laws."
These changes reinforce that provisions in either Public Law 119-21 or the Secure America Act are not intended to change the implementation of immigration law or to override settlement agreements, including the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement.
Great Apes
Pages S2687–S2688 · Official textMr. President, my predecessor Senator Patrick Leahy is known for many groundbreaking pieces of legislation over the course of his 48 years in the Senate. But he was also responsible for many initiatives that are not so well known, and I want to speak briefly about one of them.
From 1989 until his retirement in 2023, Senator Leahy served as either chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs which among other things funds U.S. assistance around the world. During those years, he built a record of strong support for programs to protect tropical forests and endangered species, which are under siege from illegal logging, mining, industrial scale agriculture, urban encroachment, and wildlife poaching and trafficking. One of those programs established by Senator Leahy was to protect our closest ancestors, the four species of great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos.
Each of these species faces the threat of extinction in the wild due to habitat loss and poaching. Some are killed for meat; others are captured and sold as pets. On the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, the only places where orangutans live, the rainforests are being cut down at a furious pace to make way for vast palm oil plantations. Habitat loss and poaching are similarly threatening the survival of the other three species of great apes in Africa.
By the end of President Trump's first term, funding to protect great apes had reached $45 million annually. The funds were administered by USAID and used by nongovernment organizations in Indonesia, Rwanda, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for anti-poaching initiatives and strengthening law enforcement in local biological reserves and along international borders; promoting sustainable land use and forest management to safeguard areas critical to great apes; and working with local villagers to develop sustainable livelihoods and reduce reliance on poaching or destructive agricultural practices. USAID also partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its Great Apes Conservation Fund, which provided grants for field projects in Africa and Indonesia.
In addition, the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs has supported programs to strengthen the capacity of local law enforcement in Africa and Asia to combat wildlife trafficking and the money laundering, corruption, and violent crime associated with it.
While these efforts have helped stem the precipitous decline in the numbers of great apes, their survival in the wild remains far from assured. Transnational criminal organizations, catering to a rapacious Asian market for wildlife parts, are reaping huge profits from the illegal wildlife trade. These organizations are often also involved in trafficking drugs, weapons, and human beings. The ever-increasing demand for timber, minerals, and food in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is destroying wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. Rainforests are being transformed into polluted wastelands from mining, massive farms of oil palm and soybeans, and grazing land for cattle. Great apes, which like many species need large areas to forage for food, are being squeezed from all directions.
Despite the administration's disastrous decision to shut down USAID and destroy the careers of thousands of talented and dedicated USAID employees, Congress has continued to provide funding to protect endangered species, including great apes. But the amount of funding has been sharply reduced, and it remains to be seen whether the State Department will manage the funds in the manner intended by Congress.
Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos are the only existing examples of our earliest apelike ancestors who first began walking upright nearly 4 million years ago. Despite having existed for millions of years and sharing 97 percent of our DNA, great apes today are entirely dependent on us for survival.
I have urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for great ape conservation while there is still time to protect them from extinction. I also urge the State Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recognize what is at stake and to resume and significantly expand their efforts to protect great ape habitat and combat poaching and trafficking.
And finally, I urge the leaders of Indonesia and the central African countries that are home to great apes to recognize their unique responsibility to ensure the survival of these animals by protecting their forest habitat; greatly strengthening enforcement of anti-trafficking laws; supporting programs to rescue, rehabilitate, and return to the wild great apes that have been trafficked; and educating their people about the need to protect great apes and the forests they depend on.
Recognizing Leah Jean Boutique
Page S2688 · 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 Leah Jean Boutique of Wright County, IA, as the Senate Small Business of the Week.
Founded in 2018 by Brittany Leah Howieson and Donna Jean Ahrends, Leah Jean Boutique was established to provide families in Clarion with a welcoming, locally owned storefront offering curated children's items. Attached to their salon, the boutique was created not only to meet the needs of local families, but also to help sustain and strengthen small-town Main Street commerce in north Iowa. Brittany and Donna, who first met when Donna taught Brittany in beauty school years earlier, later expanded their shared entrepreneurial vision into the boutique now recognized throughout the region for its personal customer service and carefully selected products.
For nearly a decade, Leah Jean Boutique has provided high-quality apparel, toys, pet products, and gifts that help customers celebrate both everyday moments and special milestones. As a woman-owned small business, Leah Jean Boutique has built its identity around a "for moms, by moms" philosophy rooted in firsthand experience and trust. Brittany and Donna personally select and test the products offered in the store, helping Iowa families navigate an increasingly overwhelming retail environment filled with countless online options and inconsistent reviews. Their emphasis on quality, reliability, and personalized attention has helped establish Leah Jean Boutique as a trusted destination for folks throughout Wright County and the surrounding communities.
Beyond its retail offerings, Leah Jean Boutique reflects the strong community-minded spirit that defines Iowa small businesses. Brittany and Donna remain actively involved in local organizations and community initiatives. This includes leadership roles within their Philanthropic Educational Organization, P.E.O., Chapter, participation on the Committee for Golden Apples for Teachers program, Brittany's service as president of the Clarion Development Alliance, and organizing family-oriented community events that support downtown Clarion and surrounding communities. Their continued investment in local engagement demonstrates a commitment not only to entrepreneurship but also to strengthening economic vitality and preserving the sense of community that keeps Iowa's small towns thriving.
I am pleased to recognize Brittany and Donna at Leah Jean Boutique for their dedication to Clarion and Wright County. I look forward to their continued success and wish them the very best in the years ahead.
Recognizing Blue Fox Theatre
Pages S2688–S2689 · Official textMr. President, Idaho's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. These small businesses not only employ our friends and neighbors but also provide invaluable goods and services that showcase Idaho's ingenuity and shared values. They are an intrinsic element of the Gem State and deserve to be celebrated.
I am proud to launch my seventh annual Support Local Gems, a successful statewide initiative, on June 12, to encourage Idahoans to support the small businesses that make our State thrive. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to honor Blue Fox Theatre in Grangeville during Support Local Gems as one of Idaho's Small Businesses of the Month for June 2026.
Cory and Haley Koole, who also operate the local Napa Auto Parts, purchased the historic Blue Fox Theatre in 2024. The pair have worked to maintain the theatre's long legacy and keep movies running while expanding the business to serve the region beyond entertainment. Supporting a wide range of community-centered events and charitable causes, including fundraisers for the local veterans center, medical benefit dinners, and memorial gatherings, the Blue Fox is well ingrained in the fabric of the Grangeville community.
Originally opened in 1930, the Blue Fox Theatre is an iconic landmark and gathering place in Grangeville for nearly a century. Its famous neon marquee won Idaho's statewide historic sign competition earlier this year, and the building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1999, emphasizing the theater's enduring role in Idaho's past and present.
The Blue Fox Theatre was built during a pivotal moment in American history, as the film industry transitioned from silent movies to "talkies" and the Nation entered the Great Depression. The original owner Al J. Wagner took a huge financial risk in building the theater in rural Idaho. That gamble paid off. Opening night was a full town event, complete with live music and front-page coverage in the local paper.
Over the decades, the Blue Fox overcame numerous challenges that forced many small-town theaters to close their doors. In the early 1940s, the building survived a fire that collapsed the roof and destroyed most of the interior. Rather than abandoning the theater, the Wagner family rebuilt it with much community support. The theatre also survived significant changes within the movie industry, competition with television and multiplex theaters, and the shift from film reels to digital projection. Through it all, the Blue Fox persevered.
Cory and Haley see the theater not only as a business but as the perfect avenue to invest in the people of north central Idaho. They prioritize community over profit, using the theater to preserve history, help neighbors, strengthen community ties, and invest locally.
Congratulations to Cory and Haley Koole and the entire Blue Fox team for being selected as an Idaho Small Business of the Month for June 2026. You are an outstanding example of what it means to be one of Idaho's Local Gems. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to your continued growth and success.
Recognizing the Candy Jar
Page S2689 · Official textMr. President, Idaho's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. These small businesses not only employ our friends and neighbors but also provide invaluable goods and services that showcase Idaho's ingenuity and shared values. They are an intrinsic element of the Gem State and deserve to be celebrated.
I am proud to launch my seventh annual Support Local Gems, a successful statewide initiative, on June 12, to encourage Idahoans to support the small businesses that make our State thrive. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to honor The Candy Jar in Blackfoot during Support Local Gems as one of Idaho's Small Businesses of the Month for June 2026.
Judy and Paul Loomis purchased a historic building in Blackfoot in early 2019 and quickly began renovations. On top of launching a successful candy shop, the couple's goal was to restore the city's downtown and prove that a small business can make a big impact. After 10 months of hard work and dedication, the Loomises opened The Candy Jar.
Located across the street from The Idaho Potato Museum, The Candy Jar immediately became popular with museum visitors. Judy and Paul put the Gem State at the forefront of their business, highlighting Idaho's and the building's rich history. In addition to the store's handmade fudge, The Candy Jar sells Idaho products like heart-shaped suckers from a local candy-maker who still uses her grandmother's recipe, hand-dipped chocolates from Weiser, and many more confections from Post Falls, Pocatello, Caldwell, and everywhere in between.
Their offerings have become a fan favorite and helped to inspire economic development throughout the city. In the 7 years since The Candy Jar opened, Blackfoot has seen new small businesses start, grow, and renovate other historic buildings.
While Judy and Paul have enjoyed watching more opportunities come to the city, their favorite part of running the store is interacting with customers. From locals who have become extended family to travelers passing through town looking for a treat, Judy and Paul find joy in helping customers find the right sweet to satisfy any craving.
Congratulations to Judy and Paul Loomis and the entire Candy Jar team for being selected as an Idaho Small Business of the Month for June 2026. You are an outstanding example of what it means to be one of Idaho's Local Gems. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to your continued growth and success.
Recognizing Junkyard Jeans
Page S2689 · Official textMr. President, Idaho's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. These small businesses not only employ our friends and neighbors but also provide invaluable goods and services that showcase Idaho's ingenuity and shared values. They are an intrinsic element of the Gem State and deserve to be celebrated.
I am proud to launch my seventh annual Support Local Gems, a successful statewide initiative, on June 12, to encourage Idahoans to support the small businesses that make our State thrive. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to honor Junkyard Jeans in Boise during Support Local Gems as one of Idaho's Small Businesses of the Month for June 2026.
Started in 1991 by Eric Schrader, Junkyard Jeans has built a reputation for exceptional craftsmanship and dedication to American-made products. What began with Eric's passion for designing and manufacturing quality denim has since grown into a unique and beloved Boise business. Today, Junkyard Jeans offers a curated selection of vintage goods, including custom chain-stitched and embroidered garments and one-of-a-kind collectible pieces.
Partnering with another Idaho business, McKinney Monograms, Eric and his team learned the art of chain-stitching and embroidery techniques used by old-school masters who worked on vintage denim. Much of Junkyard Jeans' manufacturing work is done in-house with entirely American materials, ensuring each piece in the store has a unique character.
Junkyard Jeans has also invested in the next generation, collaborating with Boise State University, BYU Idaho, and the International Business Program to start an internship program for students interested in clothing design and manufacturing. In 2013, the company participated in a traveling artisan makers project that showcased Idaho craftsmanship and custom sewing across the country.
Located in the heart of Boise, Junkyard Jeans has seen dozens of storefronts come and go. Recognizing the challenges and opportunities many Main Street retailers face, Eric has dedicated much of his 30 years in operation to working with surrounding small businesses and hosting block parties and community events to encourage residents to shop small.
Congratulations to Eric Schrader and the entire Junkyard Jeans team for being selected as an Idaho Small Business of the Month for June 2026. You are an outstanding example of what it means to be one of Idaho's Local Gems. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to your continued growth and success.
Recognizing New York Pizza Department
Pages S2689–S2690 · Official textMr. President, Idaho's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. These small businesses not only employ our friends and neighbors but also provide invaluable goods and services that showcase Idaho's ingenuity and shared values. They are an intrinsic element of the Gem State and deserve to be celebrated.
I am proud to launch my seventh annual Support Local Gems, a successful statewide initiative, on June 12, to encourage Idahoans to support the small businesses that make our State thrive. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to honor New York Pizza Department in Post Falls during Support Local Gems as one of Idaho's Small Businesses of the Month for June 2026.
Originally called Nate's New York Pizza, the business was founded in 2009 by Nate Banner with the goal of bringing authentic New York-style food to north Idaho. Applying what he learned from a New Yorker who had moved out West, Nate got to work crafting a menu based on quality and tradition.
Today, the business is known as New York Pizza Department, or NYPD as it is often referred to by Post Falls locals. The name pays tribute not only to the pizza's New York roots but also to all the first responders that serve north Idaho.
Michael Kuipers purchased the store in March of 2026 and, alongside his wife and daughter, operates the business with a passion for building connections with the community over New York-style pizza. Using the original recipes and techniques Nate passed down from New York natives, Michael has cultivated a welcoming gathering place for families, friends, and neighbors.
A major priority for Michael is their work with the Post Falls community to support local schools and teachers. From donating pizzas for events to recognizing educators who go above and beyond, New York Pizza Department is heavily involved in strengthening the growing north Idaho community. The store also puts a heavy emphasis on giving back to local first responders, including the Post Falls Police Department. For Michael, these efforts are not only rewarding but a helpful way to build meaningful connections beyond delicious pizza.
Congratulations to Michael and the entire New York Pizza Department team for being selected as an Idaho Small Business of the Month for June 2026. You are an outstanding example of what it means to be one of Idaho's Local Gems. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to your continued growth and success.
Recognizing Ram's Head Cafe and Lodge
Page S2690 · Official textMr. President, Idaho's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. These small businesses not only employ our friends and neighbors but also provide invaluable goods and services that showcase Idaho's ingenuity and shared values. They are an intrinsic element of the Gem State and deserve to be celebrated.
I am proud to launch my seventh annual Support Local Gems, a successful statewide initiative, on June 12, to encourage Idahoans to support the small businesses that make our State thrive. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to honor Ram's Head Cafe and Lodge in Salmon during Support Local Gems as one of Idaho's Small Businesses of the Month for June 2026.
Established in 1965 by Ozzie and Lois Schmidt, Ram's Head began as a small cafe and gas station serving recreationalists in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Positioned along the banks of the Salmon River, it was the perfect spot for Idahoans enjoying our public lands. Over time, the company changed ownership, expanded the cafe, and added hotel units, but eventually fell vacant for 15 years.
In 2017, Chris and Brianna Reece took on the task of getting Ram's Head up and running again. By the fall of 2018, the pair had refurbished the building and hosted the grand opening of the new Ram's Head Cafe and Lodge.
Now operating primarily as a hunting and fishing lodge, Chris and Brianna provide quality service and food to the surrounding downriver community, Lemhi County residents, and summer recreationalists traveling through Idaho. Through partnerships with local hunting and fishing outfitters, Ram's Head has grown to offer the best experience for locals, travelers, and adventure seekers of any kind in the Salmon-Challis National Forest.
Chris and Brianna are also active members of the Salmon Chamber of Commerce and support efforts like the Idaho Conservation Officers Association and Salmon River Days. The pair attributes their ability to renovate and reopen Ram's Head in under 2 years to strong community support and plan to continue giving back to their community as businessowners and through personal endeavors.
Congratulations to Chris and Brianna Reece and the entire Ram's Head team for being selected as an Idaho Small Business of the Month for June 2026. You are an outstanding example of what it means to be one of Idaho's Local Gems. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to your continued growth and success.
Recognizing Weiser Classic Candy
Page S2690 · Official textMr. President, Idaho's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our communities. These small businesses not only employ our friends and neighbors but also provide invaluable goods and services that showcase Idaho's ingenuity and shared values. They are an intrinsic element of the Gem State and deserve to be celebrated.
I am proud to launch my seventh annual Support Local Gems, a successful statewide initiative, on June 12, to encourage Idahoans to support the small businesses that make our State thrive. As a member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to honor Weiser Classic Candy during Support Local Gems as one of Idaho's Small Businesses of the Month for June 2026.
Founded in 1986 by Fawn Olsen, a local celebrity known for her fudge, Weiser Classic Candy has become an Idaho staple. The fudge is famous for good reason. Fawn, the original owner, worked with food scientists from the University of Idaho to develop and perfect her own line of recipes for the confections still sold today in the Weiser storefront.
Patrick Nauman, who now owns Weiser Classic Candy, fondly remembers walking through Fawn's Classic Candies and dreaming of one day running his own candy shop. In 2007, those dreams came true when Patrick moved back home to Weiser and bought the store from Fawn.
Quickly after taking the reins, Patrick launched a website and implemented ideas that have helped expand the company from seven stores to now having their candies available in more than 200 across all 50 States. To ensure the business's Idaho roots remained front and center, Patrick hosted a community naming contest to rebrand Fawn's Classic Candies to Weiser Classic Candy.
Staying true to his hometown and the Gem State, Patrick prioritizes Idaho ingredients. In each treat, customers are tasting milk from Darigold, cream from Reed's Dairy, apples from Symms Fruit Ranch, huckleberries from north Idaho, and sugar from Amalgamated Sugar. These Idaho products were placed in the spotlight earlier this year when Weiser Classic Candy was invited to send chocolates to the commissioning of the new USS Idaho. Thanks to their hard work, each crew member, their families, and attendees received Weiser's famous fudge.
Patrick recognizes the significant impact a corner candy shop can have on a community. As part of his efforts to help other small business owners succeed, Patrick started the Weiser Classic Candy Entrepreneurial Scholarship. The initiative, which encourages the next generation to take the leap into entrepreneurship, has given out more than $20,000 in scholarships to high school students interested in attending programs that support small business development.
Congratulations to Patrick Nauman and the entire Weiser Classic Candy team for being selected as an Idaho Small Business of the Month for June 2026. You are an outstanding example of what it means to be one of Idaho's Local Gems. You make our great State proud, and I look forward to your continued growth and success.
Tribute to Nazamovia Adams-Phillips
Pages S2690–S2691 · Official textMr. President, today it is my honor to recognize Nazamovia Adams-Phillips, known to many as Naz.
When Naz was deciding on a career, she knew she wanted to be a nurse: someone who cares for those who need it, nurtures the sick on their journey to better health, and helps people get more time to spend with their loved ones.
For 40 years, Naz led a distinguished career as a nurse. And as an African-American woman, she is a pioneer, paving the way for other female nurses that look like her.
Naz was born in Oxford, MS, in 1936. Her family later moved to Jackson, MI, where she attended Jackson High School and Jackson Community College. She studied at the Mercy School of Nursing of Detroit--Jackson Unit, where she was the program's first African-American graduate.
Naz then worked at Mercy Medical Center in Ohio, where she was the second African-American nurse hired. During her tenure at the hospital, Naz served across multiple departments, including the operating room, recovery room, medical/surgical, and IV services. At the hospital, she dedicated herself to caring for patients and was a leader among her colleagues. Soon, she became the director of utilization review and quality assurance, establishing her as the first African-American department director.
Naz's service extends to her faith and her family. Naz was also the first African American to chair the Mercy Medical Center's Mission and Philosophy Committee, meaning she also became the first African American to speak in the hospital chapel. Outside the hospital, Naz has been a steadfast member and leader at the Bethel CME Church for over 65 years.
Naz is also a devoted wife and mother to 7 children, including my dear friend Ernest. She also proudly cares for her 11 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren. She has served as a guiding light within her community, especially to her family and friends. In all she does, Naz is strong-willed, dedicated, loyal, giving, and deeply God-fearing.
This year, as we recognize Naz's 90th birthday, we also honor her decades of service to the people of Michigan, Ohio, and the entire Nation. It is my honor to recognize Naz and her lifelong dedication to saving lives and taking action to make her community better.
Messages from the House
Page S2691 · Official textAt 2:15 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 bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
Text printed in the Record (3,042 characters)
H.R. 428. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to enhance the authority under which Federal agencies may pay cash awards to employees for making cost saving and improper payment disclosures, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1744. An act to extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom through December 31, 2028.
H.R. 2505. An act to require the development of strategies and options to prevent the export to Iran of certain technologies related to unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3429. An act to establish an inter-parliamentary dialogue to facilitate closer cooperation between the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea on shared interests and values.
H.R. 5248. An act to ensure the alignment of economic and foreign policies, to position the Department of State to reflect that economic security is national security, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6028. An act to modify the appointment and removal process for certain legislative branch officers, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6230. An act to designate certain individuals as specially designated global terrorists.
H.R. 6297. An act to require the Department of State to consult with Congress on antisemitism in Europe.
H.R. 6338. An act to require the imposition of sanctions with respect to foreign persons and foreign vessels that engage in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6916. An act to amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit Federal Funds from being provided to individuals convicted of certain Federal felonies, and for other purposes.
H.R. 7037. An act to promote United States and allied energy and mineral security and for other purposes.
H.R. 7668. An act to require a report on Russian and Chinese intelligence assets in Georgia, and for other purposes.
H.R. 8107. An act to require the establishment of a list identifying program areas and administrative practices presenting the greatest risk to the integrity of Federal funds administered by States and local governments.
H.R. 8428. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish an anti-fraud and improper payment training program for Federal program administrators, to provide for the availability of such training to State and local entities administering Federally funded programs, and for other purposes.
H.R. 8463. An act to establish governmentwide requirements for pre-payment fraud prevention actions, to provide the U.S. Treasury appropriate data resources, to facilitate participation in governmentwide anti-fraud data sharing, and for other purposes.
H.R. 8466. An act to require certain agencies to develop plans for internal control in the event of an emergency or crisis, and for other purposes.
H.R. 8665. An act to require the implementation of a strategy to encourage foreign partners to participate in the foreign military sales and direct commercial sales processes on a multinational basis, and for other purposes.
____
At 5:43 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, without amendment:
Text printed in the Record (83 characters)
S. 2. An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33.
Measures Referred
Page S2691 · Official textThe following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
Text printed in the Record (3,372 characters)
H.R. 428. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to enhance the authority under which Federal agencies may pay cash awards to employees for making cost saving and improper payment disclosures, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 1744. An act to extend and authorize annual appropriations for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom through December 31, 2028; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 2505. An act to require the development of strategies and options to prevent the export to Iran of certain technologies related to unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
H.R. 3429. An act to establish an inter-parliamentary dialogue to facilitate closer cooperation between the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea on shared interests and values; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 5248. An act to ensure the alignment of economic and foreign policies, to position the Department of State to reflect that economic security is national security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 6230. An act to designate certain individuals as specially designated global terrorists; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 6297. An act to require the Department of State to consult with Congress on antisemitism in Europe; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 6338. An act to require the imposition of sanctions with respect to foreign persons and foreign vessels that engage in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 6916. An act to amend title 31, United States Code, to prohibit Federal Funds from being provided to individuals convicted of certain felonies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 7037. An act to promote United States and allied energy and mineral security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 7668. An act to require a report on Russian and Chinese intelligence assets in Georgia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 8107. An act to require the establishment of a list identifying program areas and administrative practices presenting the greatest risk to the integrity of Federal funds administered by States and local governments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 8428. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish an antifraud and improper payment training program for Federal program administrators, to provide for the availability of such training to State and local entities administering Federally funded programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 8466. An act to require certain agencies to develop plans for internal control in the event of an emergency or crisis, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 8665. An act to require the implementation of a strategy to encourage foreign partners to participate in the foreign military sales and direct commercial sales processes on a multinational basis, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Measures Discharged
Page S2691 · Official textThe following joint resolution was discharged from the Committee on the Judiciary, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed on the calendar:
Text printed in the Record (395 characters)
S.J. Res. 192. 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".
Petitions and Memorials
Pages S2691–S2698 · Official textThe following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
Text printed in the Record (9,416 characters)
POM-38. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho supporting the Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies actions to move forward and
approve the DeLamar mining project in a timely and cost-effective manner; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Whereas, the Idaho Legislature recognizes the profound role mining has played in the settlement of Idaho, its contemporary role, and the role it will play in our future; and
Whereas, Idaho, the 43rd state in the Union, was named the Gem State because of the immense role played by mining in the settlement of Idaho; and
Whereas, responsible resource development is of the utmost importance for our state and country right now; and
Whereas, gold is a critical mineral, necessary for electronics, machinery, dentistry, medicine, aerospace, and coinage, among other uses; and
Whereas, silver is a critical mineral, necessary for energy, transportation, technology, infrastructure, medicine, and consumer products; and
Whereas, mining activity for critical minerals, including gold and silver, has taken place at the DeLamar Mine in Owyhee County, Idaho, since 1863; and
Whereas, the mining company Integra Resources is seeking to reinvigorate the DeLamar Project to unearth critical resources, thereby increasing our domestic supply of those resources; and
Whereas, Integra Resources takes pride in providing high-paying job opportunities for Idaho workers, building collaborative relationships, and investing in the long-term resiliency of Idaho's rural communities; and
Whereas, Integra Resources is committed to three core values: integrity, care, and innovation; and
Whereas, Integra Resources is committed to the highest reclamation standards and supporting a return to productive multiple-use of the landscape once mining operations cease; and
Whereas, Integra Resources is committed to being good stewards of the environment and a dedicated member of the community where it operates; and
Whereas, as an example of Integra Resources' dedication to being an engaged member of the community, it has reached an agreement with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation that establishes a transformative and collaborative long-term partnership for the development of the DeLamar Project that recognizes tribal sovereignty and supports the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes as drivers of responsible economic development in the region while protecting Shoshone-Paiute values, interests, and culture; and
Whereas, Integra Resources continues to demonstrate this dedication by establishing other collaborative relationships within the local community and financially investing in Owyhee County, and, by extension, Idaho's future, by offering donations, scholarships, and in-kind support; and
Whereas, through high-paying jobs, tax revenues, donations, community sponsorships, and other direct and indirect economic impacts, Integra Resources is essential to the region's economic stability and keeping Idahoans working in Idaho; and
Whereas, once permitted, Integra Resources' DeLamar Project will significantly benefit Idaho's economy, especially in regard to Owyhee County, its local businesses, and the surrounding communities, through quality family-wage job creation, potential to generate over $570 million in federal and state taxes at spot metal prices of $4,200/oz for gold and $60/oz for silver, and increased revenue for local businesses through the utilization of local vendors; and
Whereas, modern regulations require that companies like Integra Resources set aside adequate financial assurances to cover the cost of environmental restoration, ensuring that reclamation is completed. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Idaho Legislature supports actions by the Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies, in partnership with agencies of the great State of Idaho and Owyhee County, to move forward and approve Integra Resources' DeLamar Project in a timely and cost-effective manner so that the site may be developed; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature urges the appropriate federal agencies to commit adequate experienced and knowledgeable personnel and sufficient financial resources to complete the National Environmental Policy Act analysis and issue the applicable permits; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature believes in Integra Resources' commitment to mining in a way that serves as a model for modern mining practices; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, the Secretary of the United Stated Department of the Interior, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commanding General of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
____
POM-39. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho requesting that the President of the United States and the United States Congress protect Idaho's agricultural and livestock industries; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Whereas, the State of Idaho has abundant wildlife and open space and relies on the agricultural and livestock industries, which, in turn, rely on Idaho's open space. However, these industries are often negatively impacted by depredating wildlife such as wolves and grizzly bears; and
Whereas, owners and operators of livestock operations within the State of Idaho often have federal livestock grazing permits to graze livestock on land managed by the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management; and
Whereas, Idaho residents and policymakers have been struggling for years to address the negative impact depredating wildlife has on the agricultural and livestock industries; and
Whereas, even though Idaho law supports hunters helping control wolf populations, livestock is still being slaughtered by depredating wildlife, primarily by wolves and grizzly bears; and
Whereas, livestock depredation directly and significantly harms the owners' livelihoods, the local community's morale, and the regional economy; and
Whereas, to help offset the loss of the livestock, the state has created the Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board and the Idaho Depredating Wildlife Appeals Board, both of which oversee claims of depredation and distribute compensation; and
Whereas, it has come to the attention of the Idaho Legislature that owners and operators of livestock operations are not reporting claims of depredation to the state depredation boards for fear of federal retaliation in the form of materially modifying or revoking their federal grazing permits; and
Whereas, the nation is reliant on the agricultural and livestock industries, and the livelihoods of the owners and operators of such industries are persistently threatened by depredating wildlife, which state law attempts to redress but cannot when our citizens fear federal retaliation; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, That the Legislature hereby calls on the Trump administration and Congress to protect Idaho's agricultural and livestock industries by mandating that claims of depredation are not a basis for materially modifying or revoking federal grazing permits and directing the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to promulgate rules protecting grazing permittees from the federal government modifying or revoking grazing privileges based on claims of wildlife depredation; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, and the United States Secretary of the Interior.
POM-40. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho commending the Idaho congressional delegation for opposing efforts to sell or transfer Idaho's cherished public lands; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Whereas, Idaho's public lands contain unique landscapes, including the timberlands of north Idaho, the canyon rivers of central Idaho, the range-lands that provide livestock forage across southern Idaho, and the habitat that provides hunting and angling opportunities across the state for all Idahoans; and
Whereas, public lands, and access to those lands, are a cornerstone of Idaho's identity, and once sold these lands will be lost forever; and
Whereas, these lands are more than empty spaces, they offer a level of freedom that defines what it means to be an Idahoan and our way of life; and
Whereas, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution preserves and protects U.S.
Text printed in the Record (10,463 characters)
citizens' right to bear arms, and Idahoans frequently exercise this right on public lands wIthin the state as those lands provide the freedom and space to do so; and
Whereas, section 23, article I of the Idaho Constitution guarantees the right to hunt, fish, and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, thereby recognizing such right as a valued part of Idaho's heritage that shall forever be preserved for the people and ensuring that the right is protected and preserved through any law, rule, or proclamation; and
Whereas, our public lands remain a shared resource, accessible to all Idahoans, not just the wealthy or well-connected; and
Whereas, public lands serve as lifelines for Idaho's small businesses, communities, and families; and
Whereas, the vital contributions of the grazing, timber, mining, and outdoor recreation industries, which collectively generate more than $15 billion annually for Idaho's economy, must be safeguarded; and
Whereas, selling or transferring these lands would not only jeopardize access and tradition, but also place unsustainable and unpredictable financial burdens on states, local governments, and Idaho's taxpayers; and
Whereas, shared stewardship and collaborative land management practices that include local, state, federal, and tribal governments keep public lands in public hands while giving the State of Idaho and local stakeholders more input and decision-making power for critical public land management decisions; and
Whereas, removing the threat of mass disposal of public lands will allow decision makers and stakeholders to focus on solutions for improved management, increased funding for counties with public lands, wildfire response, shared stewardship agreements, and mutually beneficial land exchanges; and
Whereas, the commitment to keeping public lands public reflects a principled, conservative approach to stewardship and fiscal responsibility; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, That the Legislature commends the Idaho congressional delegation for opposing efforts to sell or transfer Idaho's cherished public lands; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the Idaho congressional delegation to continue fighting for Idahoans by, among other related activities, introducing or cosponsoring legislation such as the Public Lands in Public Hands Act; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress and to the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.
____
POM-41. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho requesting that the United States Congress to take immediate federal action to restore clarity, consistency, and stability to the governance of intercollegiate athletics; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Whereas, President Donald J. Trump issued the Saving College Sports Executive Order on July 24, 2025, stating that "college sports are a uniquely American institution that provide life-changing educational and leadership-development opportunities." Further, "college athletics also provide substantial support to local economies and form an indelible part of family activities, pastimes, and culture in many communities"; and
Whereas, the executive order states that the future of collegiate sports is "under unprecedented threat", as "waves of recent litigation against collegiate athletics governing rules have eliminated limits on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports. While changes providing some increased benefits andflexibility to student-athletes were overdue and should be maintained, the inability to maintain reasonable rules and guardrails is a mortal threat to most college sports"; and
Whereas, the Boise State Broncos have contributed to Idaho's economic vitality with an annual cumulative economic impact of $350 million, including significant visitor spending and job creation across the statewide economy; and
Whereas, Boise State University athletics has established a sustained record of competitive excellence at the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) level since 1996, with an overall winning percentage among the top five football programs nationally, reflecting national prominence and excellence; and
Whereas, Boise State's football program currently holds the longest active streak of consecutive winning seasons in the FBS, demonstrating consistent high performance and program stability and creating deserved national recognition for the state of Idaho; and
Whereas, Boise State University athletics has demonstrated sustained competitive excellence in women's sports and in Olympic sports, including winning 63 women's team conference championships and producing multiple Olympians, providing meaningful athletic and educational opportunities, advancing leadership development, and reinforcing the values of discipline, teamwork, and achievement for student-athletes in Idaho; and
Whereas, Boise State's student-athletes have demonstrated academic success, recently achieving a record cumulative grade point average and the highest graduation success rate in department history, illustrating the broad educational benefits of collegiate athletics; and
Whereas, for every $1.00 invested in Boise State University athletics, the State of Idaho receives an estimated $2.00 in return through added economic activity, tax revenues, and public sector savings, underscoring the department's high return on public and private investment; and
Whereas, Boise State University athletics home competitions drew more than 485,000 attendees during fiscal year 2025, leading attendance among its conference peers and enhancing tourism, hospitality, and small business revenues throughout Idaho; and
Whereas, Boise State University athletics consistently generates national media exposure, including hundreds of millions of social media impressions and millions of viewers on television, which raises Idaho's profile and enhances the state's brand; and
Whereas, the success and visibility of Boise State University athletics, especially its iconic football program with its unique blue turf and national reputation, serve as an important cultural and community symbol, commonly described as the "front porch of Idaho," uniting residents, students, and alumni across the state; and
Whereas, Power Two and Power Four conference institutions are making significant decisions without Boise State University and its peers having equal input on outcomes. Those decisions have a tremendous impact on Boise State University and others regardless of whether they are in the best interests of the institution; and
Whereas, in the evolving collegiate athletics landscape shaped by name, image, and likeness (NIL), revenue sharing, and shifting conference dynamics, there is a compelling need for federal policy and funding frameworks to ensure fair competition, sustainable athletic programs, and continued economic and community benefits for states like Idaho; and
Whereas, the President's Saving College Sports Executive Order correctly states that "a national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating beyond repair and to protect non-revenue sports, including many women's sports, that comprise the backbone of Intercollegiate athletics, drive American superiority at the Olympics and other international competitions, and catalyze hundreds of thousands of student-athletes to fuel American success in myriad ways." Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, That the Legislature calls on the Senate to and House of Representatives of the United States to take immediate federal action to restore clarity, consistency, and stability to the governance of Intercollegiate athletics, recognizing that inaction maintains the status quo for regulatory uncertainty, competitive imbalance, and financial risk for public unIversities and the states they serve; and be it further
Resolved, That Congress is specifically urged to enact targeted, limited legislation that: (i) Establishes a single, uniform national framework for NIL and revenue sharing that preempts conflicting state laws and allows universities to operate under clear, predictable rules rather than through an ever-expanding patchwork of mandates and litigation; (ii) Defines student-athlete employment status and eligibility; (iii) Preserves women's sports and Olympic sports by ensuring that federal action does not unintentionally force universities to eliminate programs, reduce opportunities, or divert resources from educational priorities; (iv) Restores certainty and predictabIlity for universities, student-athletes, and local economies; (v) Provides a pathway for FBS institutions to build their athletic brands and expand economic activity in their communities; and (vi) Provides a level playing field for institutions to compete at the highest level, driven not by conference affiliation, but by objective metrics such as competitive success, brand awareness, and financial support for athletic programs; and be it further
Resolved, That the Idaho Legislature calls on Congress to act without delay because the absence of federal action will result in program reductions, escalating costs, and competitive disparities that threaten the future of collegiate athletics, and now is the critical moment for Congress to preserve athletic opportunity, protect taxpayers investments, and sustain the economic and civic benefits of college sports for future generations; and be it further
Resolved That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress and to the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.
POM-42.
Text printed in the Record (11,879 characters)
A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho calling on Idaho's congressional delegation to lead the United States Congress in balancing the federal budget and reigning in the national debt, including proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that shall be ratified by the states requiring a balanced federal budget; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Whereas, the United States was founded on principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and accountability to the people; and
Whereas, the federal government has experienced persistent budget deficits and a growing national debt for many years, raising ongoing concerns regarding long-term fiscal sustainability; and
Whereas, the United States Congress has allowed the federal government to accumulate a national debt exceeding $38 trillion as of 2026, representing a significant burden on current and future generations of Americans; and
Whereas, proposals for a balanced federal budget have been considered for decades as one potential mechanism to promote fiscal discipline and constrain deficit spending; and
Whereas, public discussion regarding a federal balanced budget amendment has remained active nationwide, and such proposals continue to receive support from a substantial portion of the American public; and
Whereas, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides that "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution" and subsequently shall be ratified by the states; and
Whereas, the United States has amended the Constitution of the United States 27 times through this proper and tested method contained in Article V; and
Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Idaho recognizes that amendments affecting federal fiscal policy and budgetary structure are appropriately addressed at the federal level through a deliberative and nationally uniform process; and
Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Idaho recognizes the many other states seeking to appeal to congress for this cause and the pervasive efforts of local, multi-state, and national groups to solve this issue for generations; and
Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Idaho seeks to lead, with Idaho's federal delegation, in resolving this issue in an effort to save generations of Idahoans and Americans to come from the crippling debt and failures of the past; and
Whereas, United States Senator Mike Crapo has served the people of Idaho in Congress for 33 years since 1993 and serves as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance during the 119th Congress, and has served as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance; and
Whereas, Jim Risch has represented Idaho as a United States Senator for 17 years since 2009, has served on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where he has exercised oversight of federal spending; and
Whereas, Mike Simpson has served Idaho's Second Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives for 27 years since 1999 and has served on the House Committee on Appropriations since 2005, participating directly in the development and oversight of federal discretionary spending bills and shaping national budget priorities, playing a central role in determining federal funding levels and had responsibility over the stewardship of taxpayer dollars; and
Whereas, Russ Fulcher has served Idaho's First Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives for seven years since 2019 and has served on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, addressing matters related to commerce and economic development, and has advocated for fiscal discipline, regulatory reform, and policies intended to promote economic growth and reduce federal spending; and
Whereas, United States Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch have demonstrated sustained leadership in prior efforts to advance a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, most recently in 2023, reflecting their continued commitment to fiscal responsibility and positioning them to once again lead Congress in restoring long-term budgetary discipline: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature of the State of Idaho calls on Idaho's federal delegation to lead the Congress of the United States in balancing the federal budget and reigning in the national debt, including proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that shall be ratified by the states requiring a balanced federal budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the Idaho Legislature encourages the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho to engage in discussion and deliberation on this issue within the Congress of the United States; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, to the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, and to the legislatures of the other 49 states.
____
POM-43. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho urging the President of the United States and the United States Congress take immediate action to raise the tier-2 duty on imported sugar to restore its intended protective function and to prioritize American farmers, workers, and rural communities; to the Committee on Finance.
Whereas, Idaho is the second-largest producer of sugar beets in the United States, with approximately 170,000 acres of sugar beet farmland under production, generating more than $1 billion annually and supporting over farm families; and
Whereas, sugar beets are the heartbeat of Idaho's rural communities, sustaining farm families, processors, and local economies that depend on a strong agricultural base; and
Whereas, Idaho's sugar processing industry employs approximately 2,000 people, providing well-paying jobs in rural Idago; and
Whereas, the U.S. sugar market is experiencing a historic oversupply, largely driven by foreign imports that are benefiting from government subsidies and the dumping of sugar at prices below the cost of production, thereby eroding domestic sugar beet prices and forcing farmers to harvest at a loss; and
Whereas, sugar beet market prices have declined by more than 42% over the past two years, placing sever financial strain on dmomestic producers; and
Whereas, since the 2018 Farm Bill's enactment, on-farm production costs have increased by more than 30%, while interest costs have surged by 73% since 2020, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of operating a farm; and
Whereas, since 2000, the U.S. sugar beet industry has been forced to close eleven sugar beet processing factories, resulting in lost processing capacity, lost jobs, and long-term economic harm to rural communities; and
Whereas, President Trump's America First agenda prioritizes protecting American farmers and workers, confronting unfair foreign trade practices, and strengthening domestic supply chains critical to the nation's economy; and
Whereas, the tier-2 over-quota duty on imported sugar is intended to function as a prohibitive safeguard against excessive foreign imports, ensuring fair trade practices and protecting domestic sugar beet growers and workers from unfairly traded sugar; and
Whereas, the tier-2 duty has not been adjusted since 2000, reducing its effectiveness in preventing foreign sugar from entering the U.S. market at prices that undermine domestic production.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature urges immediate action to raise the tier-2 duty on imported sugar to restore its intended protective function and to prioritize American farmers, workers, and rural communities.
Be it further resolved, that the Legislature respectfully calls on Congress and the Trump Administration to put American interests first by preventing policies that enrich foreign governments at the expense of American farmers and workers and to take decisive action to address the devastating effects of oversupply caused by unfairly traded imports.
Be it further resolved, that the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States, the United States Trade Representative Ambassador, the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, and the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture.
____
POM-44. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho requesting that Idaho's federal delegation actively uphold the principles of federalism and to be proponents of appropriate action, including, if necessary, championing a constitutional amendment that affirms the primary role and the authority of states to govern their election processes and establishes the ability of the states to enact policies regarding campaign finance, election security and transparency, and outside influence in a manner that is consistent with established constitutional principles and that prioritizes state sovereignty; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Whereas, Section 2, Article I of the Constitution of the State of Idaho declares that "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary"; and
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States affirms that any powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people, reinforcing the principle of federalism; and
Whereas, the states have long served as laboratories of a republic, uniquely positioned to establish election laws and policies that reflect the needs, values, and interests of their citizens; and
Whereas, a robust system of state-led election governance strengthens self-government, promotes accountability, and preserves the integrity of the electoral process by ensuring that the people of each state determine how best to protect their representation, secure their ballots, and maintain participation in democratic processes; and
Whereas, the framers of the Constitution of the United States recognized the primary role of the states in structuring election laws and mechanisms, understanding that a one-size-fits-all federal approach is neither necessary nor desirable; and
Whereas, the people of Idaho have a vested interest in ensuring that their electoral processes remain transparent, secure, responsive to Idaho priorities, and free from disproportionate federal influence or mandates imposed by entities or individuals that may not reflect the will or security needs of Idaho voters; and
Whereas, the principle of self-governance requires that states retain the ability to establish laws governing elections, including the influence of money and outside forces, consistent with their unique circumstances and policy considerations; and
Whereas, the constitutional amendment process provides an avenue for reaffirming the role of the states in overseeing elections and ensuring that their authority in this realm is preserved.
Text printed in the Record (11,835 characters)
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the members of the Second Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature hereby calls upon the members representing Idaho in the Congress of the United States to actively uphold the principles of federalism and to be proponents of appropriate action, including, if necessary, championing a constitutional amendment that affirms the primary role and the authority of states to govern their election processes and establishes the ability of the states to enact policies regarding campaign finance, election security and transparency, and outside influence in a manner that is consistent with established constitutional principles and that prioritizes state sovereignty. Be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress and to the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.
____
POM-45. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Alaska urging the President of the United States, federal agencies, and the United States Congress to support the continued national prohibition on Russian seafood imports and to maintain and strengthen federal measures that ensure fair trade, protect Alaksa's seafood industry, and promote sustainable and ethical seafood production; to the Committee on Finance.
Whereas the state's seafood industry contributes over $5,000,000,000 annually to the economy of the state, $160,000,000 in state, municipal, and federal taxes, and $15,000,000,000 in total United States economic activity; and
Whereas the state's seafood industry produces over 60 percent of the wild seafood commercially harvested in the United States; and
Whereas the state's seafood industry brought in an annual average of $1,500,000,000 in ex-vessel value in 2023 and 2024 and employed over 19,000 commercial fishermen, 58 percent of whom were state residents; and
Whereas the state's seafood industry is also the state's largest manufacturing sector, accounting for 62 percent of all state residents employed in manufacturing, which is over 21,000 workers; and
Whereas the state's seafood industry faces an existential and global threat in the form of unfair trade and market practices by Russian seafood producers that drive down the cost of seafood around the world and prevent seafood companies in the state from competing on fair terms; and
Whereas Russia exported 70,000 metric tons of Russian-origin cod, pollock, and salmon into the United States in 2022, at a value of over $452,000,000; and
Whereas the price of Russian seafood is artificially low because of factors that include state-subsidized construction of fishing vessels and processing plants, exploitation of workers, and lax environmental protections; and
Whereas Russian seafood competes directly with the state's seafood in global markets, driving down prices and preventing companies in the state from competing on fair terms; and
Whereas the dumping of Russian seafood into global markets after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine contributed to a crisis in the state's seafood industry; and
Whereas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has found that declines in the state's seafood industry in 2022 and 2023 resulted in more than 38,000 job losses nationwide and a loss of $4,300,000,000 in total United States output; and
Whereas the state's seafood industry abides by strict state and national laws and prioritizes the ethical treatment and fair compensation of workers; and
Whereas Russia has banned the importation of the state's seafood products since 2014, depriving the state's seafood sector of a historically importan export market; and
Whereas the United States is the largest market for the state's seafood products, accounting for approximately one-third of total annual sales of the state's seafood; and
Whereas the removal of Russian products from the United States domestic market ensures fairness for domestic seafood producers, makes quality seafood available to American consumers, and enables consumers to replace Russian seafood products with seafood from the state; and
Whereas enforcement of prohibitions to this point has relied primarily on importer self-declaration, and strengthening enforcement by requiring catch certificates for foreign-caught seafood is a priority to ensure the objectives of current prohibitions are fully realized; and
Whereas, on April 15, 2021, Executive Order 14024 established a national emergency to address threats posed by Russia, and, on March 11, 2022, Executive Order 14068 prohibited the importation of Russian seafood products into the United States; and
Whereas, on December 22, 2023, Executive Order 14114 broadened the scope of federal action, prohibiting the importation of all seafood harvested by Russia, regardless of whether the seafood was substantially transformed in a third country; and
Whereas Executive Order 14024 was extended for an additional year on April 10, 2025, and is scheduled to expire April 15, 2026;
Be it resolved, that the Alaska State Legislature strongly supports the further extension and enforcement of Executive Orders 14024, 14068, and 14114, which prohibit the importation of Russian seafood products into the United States; and be it further
Resolved that the Alaska State Legislature urges President Trump, federal agencies, the Alaska Congressional delegation, and the entirety of the United States Congress to consider additional measures necessary for prohibiting the importation of Russian seafood into the United States and to maintain and strengthen measures that ensure fair trade, protect the state's seafood industry, and promote sustainable and ethical seafood production.
Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; the Honorable JD Vance, Vice President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Mike Johnson, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable John Thune, Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Howard Lutnick, United States Secretary of Commerce; the Honorable Jamieson Greer, United States Trade Representative; and the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Nicholas Begich, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.
____
POM-46. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona applying to the United States Congress to call a convention for proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms of office of members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Whereas, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides the states with the authority to call a convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be ratified by the legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the several states on application by at least two-thirds of the states; and
Whereas, this power provides the States with the leverage needed to force Congress to act when it otherwise does not want to; and
Whereas, the citizens of the State of Arizona and twenty-two other states, having passed statutes or state constitutional amendments placing term limits on members of Congress, were overruled by the United States Supreme Court; and
Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Arizona hereby Joins with other states in Instructing Congress to draft a term limits amendment and send it to the States for ratification, failing which the States will act on their own; and
Whereas, the Arizona Legislature, a body of citizen legislators, desires to restore rotation in office for members serving in the Congress of the United States. Therefore
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:
1. That, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States, the Legislature of the State of Arizona formally applies to the Congress of the United States to call a convention of the states limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a Member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a Member of the United States Senate.
2. That this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application on the same subjects.
3. That this application shall be considered as covering the same subject matter as the applications from other states to Congress to call a convention to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and this application shall be aggregated with same for the purpose of attaining the two-thirds of states necessary to require Congress to call a limited convention on this subject, but shall not be h aggregated with any other applications on any other subject.
4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit a copy of this Resolution to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker, Clerk and Judiciary Committee Chairman of the United States House of Representatives, each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona and the presiding officers of each house of the several state legislatures, requesting their cooperation.
____
POM-47. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Nebraska urging the United States Congress to swiftly enact legislation to provide for veterans' access to treatments for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder that include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and legislation
fostering research and development of additional therapies; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Whereas, national veteran suicide crises data indicates that as many as twenty-two veterans commit suicide every day; and
Whereas, traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder can be causes of suicide; and
Whereas, data collected between 2000 to 2019 by the Department of Defense of Active, Guard, and Reserve members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines indicate that for all severities of traumatic brain injuries, a total of 413,858 service members suffer from traumatic brain injuries; and
Whereas, the number of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder varies by service era but ranges from approximately eleven percent to approximately thirty percent; and
Whereas, one of the many societal costs of traumatic brain injuries among the veteran population in Nebraska are the large fiscal impacts; and
Whereas, traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder both involve physical injury to brain tissue; and
Whereas, a tragically high number of veterans with traumatic brain injury and chronic pain have become victims of the opioid use disorder epidemic; and
Whereas, current standards of care approved for veterans with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder focus on medication and counseling; and
Whereas, additional treatments, vocational counseling, and rehabilitation therapies exist that have been clinically proven to mitigate symptoms and improve recovery when used alone or integrated with counseling.
Text printed in the Record (9,593 characters)
Additional therapies to treat traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder include physical therapy, occupational therapy, cognitive therapy, speech therapy, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy; and
Whereas, hyperbaric oxygen therapy couples hyperbaric oxygen chamber treatment, which promotes oxygen for healing and restoring injured brain tissue, together with counseling; and
Whereas, access to a variety of treatments improves a veteran's opportunities for healing and recovery; and
Whereas, the Veterans National Traumatic Injury Treatment Act, 2023 H.R. 3649, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a pilot program to furnish hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, By the members of the One Hundred Ninth Legislature of Nebraska, Second Session:
1. That the Legislature strongly urges members of the United States Congress to swiftly enact legislation to provide for veterans' access to treatments for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder that include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, such as the Veterans National Traumatic Injury Treatment Act, and any other legislation improving or authorizing access to other important therapies and counseling, and legislation fostering research and development of additional therapies.
2. That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the President and the Secretary of the United States Senate, and each member of the Nebraska Congressional delegation.
____
POM-48. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Nebraska urging the President of the United States and United States Congress enact legislation to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Whereas, the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President to address the failure of states to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities; and
Whereas, in 1990, the act was amended and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA; and
Whereas, this law remains the cornerstone of federal statutory mandates governing special education; and
Whereas, the purpose of the 1975 Act, as stated by Congress, was to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them, within specified time periods, a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist states and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities; and
Whereas, the 1975 Act authorized a maximum state funding entitlement of forty percent, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, and for each fiscal year thereafter, of the average per-pupil expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and
Whereas, since 1975, including in the most recent amendments to the IDEA, Congress has maintained the funding authorization at forty percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in public elementary schools and secondary schools in the United States; and
Whereas, the federal government has never paid the authorized share of the IDEA mandate, forcing the states and local educational agencies to cover the remaining costs of the provision of special education services; and
Whereas, the Nebraska student population requiring special education and related services continues to grow each year; and
Whereas, state legislatures, schools, and disability and parent groups have been trying for years to bring IDEA appropriations up to the full funding of forty percent of average per-pupil expenditures; and
Whereas, because the promised federal funding level is not being met, the burden has fallen on states and local school districts, which leads to cuts in other state and educational programs and necessitates state and local tax increases: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Members of the One Hundred Ninth Legislature of Nebraska, Second Session:
1. That the Legislature respectfully urges Congress and the President of the United States to enact legislation to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
2. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Vice President of the United States, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each member of Nebraska's congressional delegation.
____
POM-49. A joint resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee urging the United States Congress to pass the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Whereas, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38) has been introduced in the 119th U.S. Congress with more than 120 co-sponsors; and
Whereas, this bipartisan legislation would provide nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry license holders and for residents of Constitutional Carry states; and
Whereas, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act allows an individual with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state and also allows a resident of a Constitutional Carry state to carry in other states; and
Whereas, as the sponsors of the legislation have noted, the fundamental right to bear arms and defend oneself should not be determined by the state in which one lives, nor do an American citizen's Second Amendment rights disappear when he or she crosses a state line; and
Whereas, to protect these fundamental rights, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act will protect law-abiding citizens' rights to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil lawsuits; and
Whereas, currently, all fifty states issue concealed carry permits, forty-nine states allow nonresident carry, and twenty-nine states have Constitutional Carry; thus, it makes common sense for Congress to ensure that each state's concealed carry permit or license is valid in every other and state; and
Whereas, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is supported by many major pro-Second Amendment organizations; and
Whereas, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2017 with bipartisan support; and
Whereas, President Donald Trump has committed to signing national concealed carry reciprocity legislation into law; now, therefore; be it
Resolved by the Senate of the One Hundred Fourteenth General Assembly of the state of Tennessee, the House of Representatives concurring, That this General Assembly expresses its support for the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act pending in the 119th U.S. Congress and urge passage of this landmark legislation that will protect the Second Amendment rights of Tennessee's law-abiding citizens; and be it further
Resolved, That a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, and each member of Tennessee's delegation to the U.S. Congress.
____
POM-50. A joint resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee urging the United States Congress to enact legislation and policies to bring home the USS Intrepid sailors entombed in Libya; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Whereas, on September 4, 1804, thirteen United States sailors on board the USS Intrepid were killed when their explosive-packed ship blew up prematurely during an attack on the harbor of Tripoli, Libya, during the first Barbary War; and
Whereas, the sailors' remains were discovered onshore the next day, abused by the enemy and partially devoured by a pack of stray dogs before U.S. Navy prisoners in Tripoli were allowed to bury the men; and
Whereas, more than two centuries later, those American heroes lie buried in a hostile land, and their tombs have often been desecrated and vandalized; and
Whereas, the remains of five of the sailors are located in Protestant Cemetery in Tripoli, Libya, and the remains of eight of the
sailors are located near the walls of the Tripoli Castle in Tripoli, Libya; and
Whereas, the federal government should take whatever steps are necessary to exhume the remains of these American heroes, transport such remains to an appropriate forensics laboratory for identification, if possible, and subsequently for interment with full military funeral and burial in an appropriate veterans cemetery or Arlington National Cemetery at the Tomb of the Unknowns; now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, the Senate concurring, that we hereby urge the United States Congress to enact legislation and policies to bring home the USS Intrepid sailors entombed in Libya.
Be it further Resolved, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the President and Secretary of the United States Senate, and each member of the Tennessee Congressional delegation.
____
POM-51.
Text printed in the Record (10,420 characters)
A joint resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee urging the President of the United States, United States Congress, and federal government to streamline the legal immigration process by eliminating unnecessary delays, reducing bureaucratic obstacles, and lowering excessive fees for lawful applicants, while maintaining rigorous security standards; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Whereas, the United States of America has always welcomed those who lawfully seek to contribute to our nation by respecting its laws, embracing its values, and pursuing the American Dream through legal means; and
Whereas, enforcing our nation's immigration laws is essential to safeguarding the national security, economic strength, and public safety of the United States; and
Whereas, a lawful and orderly legal immigration system that is efficient, cost-effective, and secure is a critical tool in maintaining lawful immigration and upholding the integrity of our borders; and
Whereas, the current legal immigration process is often hampered by unnecessary bureaucracy, lengthy delays, and excessive costs, which place an undue burden on those who seek to immigrate lawfully; and
Whereas, streamlining the legal immigration process will reinforce national security by channeling lawful immigration through an accountable, transparent system and by reducing the strain on border enforcement resources caused by illegal entry; and
Whereas, it is the duty of the federal government to place the interests of American citizens first by enforcing immigration laws consistently and ensuring that those who respect our legal process are not disadvantaged by government inefficiency; now, therefore;
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, the Senate concurring, that we urge the federal government to streamline the legal immigration process by eliminating unnecessary delays, reducing bureaucratic obstacles, and lowering excessive fees for lawful applicants, while maintaining rigorous security standards.
Be it further resolved, that we call upon the President of the United States and Congress to enact immigration reforms that reinforce the rule of law, protect American workers and taxpayers, and prioritize the safety, security, and economic interests of the United States and its citizens.
Be it further resolved, that certified copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump; the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives; the President and Secretary of the United States Senate; and each member of Tennessee's Congressional delegation.
POM-52. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress to ensure timely and full funding aligned with the National Defense Authorization Act in order to support the readiness, stability, and well-being of United States military personnel and their families; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Whereas, the state of Louisiana plays a vital role in national defense through its military installations, defense-related industries, and strategic infrastructure supporting air, land, and maritime operations; and
Whereas, Louisiana is home to thousands of United States military personnel, including active duty service members, reservists, and National Guard members, as well as the families who support them; and
Whereas, the National Defense Authorization Act establishes the policy framework and authorizes funding necessary to maintain military readiness and to provide essential support to military personnel and their families; and
Whereas, delays in the enactment of full-year federal appropriations and the repeated reliance on continuing resolutions have created uncertainty in defense funding, limiting the ability of the Department of Defense to implement authorized programs, initiate new projects, and effectively plan for long-term readiness; and
Whereas, such funding uncertainty can delay military construction, disrupt training and operations, and strain essential services that support military personnel and their families, including housing, health care, childcare, and spousal employment opportunities; and
Whereas, consistent and reliable funding is critical to maintaining recruitment, retention, morale, and the overall effectiveness of the United States Armed Forces; and
Whereas, Louisiana has a long-standing commitment to supporting military personnel and recognizes their indispensable contributions to national security and to emergency and disaster response efforts within the state. Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes the Congress of the United States to ensure the timely passage of appropriations measures that fully fund and align with the National Defense Authorization Act. Be it further
Resolved, That the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes the Congress of the United States to prioritize policies and funding that directly support military personnel and their families, including those related to compensation, housing, health care, childcare, and overall quality of life. Be it further
Resolved, That the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes the Congress of the United States to expand access to comprehensive fertility care for military personnel and their families, including coverage for in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies, particularly for those experiencing service-related infertility. Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and the clerk of the United States House of Representatives and to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United States Congress.
POM-53. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana urging the United States Congress and to urge the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to authorize states to implement a presumption of Medicaid eligibility during redetermination for elderly and disabled beneficiaries and to allow exemption from annual redetermination requirements consistent with reforms enacted by the state of Florida; to the Committee on Finance.
Whereas, the Medicaid program provides critical health coverage to elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals who rely on consistent access to care; and
Whereas, under federal Medicaid law, states must periodically redetermine eligibility for beneficiaries, which can create administrative burdens for state agencies and unnecessary disruptions in coverage for vulnerable populations; and
Whereas, interruptions in Medicaid eligibility often occur due to procedural issues rather than actual ineligibility, resulting in delays in care, increased administrative costs, and adverse health outcomes; and
Whereas, Florida enacted legislation in 2025 providing that individuals aged sixty-five or older or those determined to be disabled who were initially determined eligible for Medicaid shall be presumed eligible for continued coverage during the redetermination process unless there is a material change in disability or economic status; and
Whereas, under that policy, beneficiaries or their caregivers are required to notify the appropriate state agency of any material change in circumstances affecting eligibility, and the state may conduct a redetermination when such changes occur; and
Whereas, the Florida law further directs the state to seek federal authorization to exempt certain Medicaid-eligible disabled individuals from annual eligibility redetermination requirements in order to reduce administrative burdens and ensure continuity of care; and
Whereas, this approach maintains program integrity while improving administrative efficiency and protecting access to health care for vulnerable populations; and
Whereas, Florida's legislation recognizes that individuals who have already been determined eligible for Medicaid services should maintain coverage during the redetermination process absent a material change in their disability or financial circumstances; and
Whereas, the legislation also requires the responsible state agency to notify beneficiaries before conducting redeterminations and to provide the results of those redeterminations upon completion; and
Whereas, these reforms seek federal authorization to exempt Medicaid-eligible disabled individuals from annual redeterminations to simplify eligibility maintenance and improve program administration; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes the Congress of the United States and urges the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to authorize states to implement Medicaid eligibility redetermination reforms consistent with those adopted by the state of Florida.; and be it further
Resolved, That Congress and CMS are urged to authorize states to:
(1) Establish a presumption of continued Medicaid eligibility for individuals aged 10 sixty-five or older or determined to be disabled during the redetermination process unless there is a material change in disability or economic status.
(2) Require beneficiaries or their caregivers to report material changes in circumstances that may affect eligibility.
(3) Permit state Medicaid agencies to conduct redeterminations when such material changes occur.
(4) Allow states to seek federal authorization to exempt certain Medicaid-eligible disabled individuals from annual redetermination requirements, in order to simplify eligibility maintenance and improve continuity of care; and be it further
Resolved, That the Louisiana Legislature supports federal action that provides states greater flexibility to streamline Medicaid eligibility processes, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, and ensure continuity of care for elderly and disabled beneficiaries; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate, the clerk of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United States Congress, the secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Introduction of Bills and Joint Resolutions
Page S2698 · 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 (5,242 characters)
By Ms. SLOTKIN:
S. 4710. A bill to prohibit the entry into the United States of connected vehicles associated with foreign adversaries; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mr. Rounds):
S. 4711. A bill to establish a United States-Ukraine Strategic Defense Innovation Working Group, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 4712. A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community with law enforcement authority, and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
By Mr. SCHIFF:
S. 4713. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent payouts for insurrectionists; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. RICKETTS (for himself, Mr. Heinrich, Mrs.
Fischer, Mr. Bennet, and Mr. Lujan):
S. 4714. A bill to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 to authorize payments under the emergency conservation system for updating of fencing to new or emerging technology; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. SCHIFF (for himself and Mr. Padilla):
S. 4715. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to establish fitness to operate standards and decommissioning escrow accounts for offshore oil and gas operators, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. SCOTT of Florida:
S. 4716. A bill to amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require States to provide data on fraud in the supplemental nutrition assistance program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 4717. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institutes of Health to develop a national strategy to address young adult cancers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. Ossoff, and Mrs.
Gillibrand):
S. 4718. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the treatment of nondisclosure agreements with respect to privatized military housing and to expand protection from retaliation against tenants of such housing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Van Hollen,
and Mr. Schiff):
S. 4719. A bill to require additional disclosures with respect to nominees to serve as chiefs of mission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Wicker):
S. 4720. A bill to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to consider nations with open registries in the Secretary's identification of nations engaging in or endorsing illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. MERKLEY:
S. 4721. A bill to prevent certain executive actions and repeal certain executive documents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. PADILLA:
S. 4722. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the "Armando Rogriguez Post Office"; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Coons):
S. 4723. A bill to establish a program to provide assistance to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies in Latin America and the Caribbean to prosecute Chinese organized criminal groups and Chinese government-linked organizations engaged in criminal activity; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Markey, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 4724. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem certain substances to be unsafe for use as food contact substances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Sanders, and Mr. Merkley):
S. 4725. A bill to amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to provide for high-priority research and extension grants for natural climate solutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, and
Mrs. Shaheen):
S. 4726. A bill to promote efforts to bring about stability and security in Sudan, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Wyden,
Mr. Booker, and Mr. Welch):
S. 4727. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out a study on the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence data centers and associated energy infrastructure, to require the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to convene a consortium on such environmental impacts, and to require the Administrator to develop a reporting system for the reporting of the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions
Page S2698 · Official textThe following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
Text printed in the Record (1,540 characters)
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. Blackburn):
S. Res. 761. A resolution designating June 23, 2026, as "Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coons,
and Mr. Hickenlooper):
S. Res. 762. A resolution supporting the designation of the second Friday in June as "National Service and Conservation Corps Day"; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Lummis,
Mrs. Hyde-Smith, and Mrs. Britt):
S. Res. 763. A resolution recognizing the strategic importance of the Arctic region and supporting continued congressional engagement with Arctic allies and partners; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr.
Bennet, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Cassidy, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Booker, and Ms.
Hassan):
S. Res. 764. A resolution congratulating the students, parents, teachers, and leaders of charter schools across the United States for making ongoing contributions to education and supporting the ideals and goals of the 27th Annual National Charter Schools Week, to be held May 10 through May 16, 2026; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Rounds):
S. Res. 765. A resolution expressing support for the designation of July 2026 as "National Sarcoma Awareness Month"; considered and agreed to.
Additional Cosponsors
Pages S2698–S2701 · Official textAt the request of Mr. Padilla, the names of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) were added as cosponsors of S. 391, a bill to clarify the rights of certain persons who are held or detained at a port of entry or at any facility overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 409, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for current year inclusion of net CFC tested income, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 410, a bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for surviving spouses, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Cortez Masto, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 545, a bill to prohibit certain uses of xylazine, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Cortez Masto, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 768, a bill to establish a grant program to provide assistance to local law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Moody, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 978, a bill to amend the National Housing Act to establish a mortgage insurance program for first responders, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Crapo, the names of the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts) were added as cosponsors of S. 1163, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs. At the request of Mr. Banks, the names of the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) were added as cosponsors of S. 1225, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for certain freedom of association protections, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Britt, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1544, a bill to prohibit the Federal Insurance Office of the Department of the Treasury and other financial regulators from collecting data directly from an insurance company. At the request of Mr. Merkley, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 1651, a bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to ensure equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions to the mechanisms that preserve and advance universal service, to reduce the financial burden on consumers, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Moran, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1712, a bill to authorize peace officer standards and training agencies to access criminal history records, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Moody, the name of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1782, a bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability in cases of organ transplants. At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1814, a bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for a code of conduct for justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) 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. Booker, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2149, a bill to expand access to health insurance coverage for immigrants and their families by removing legal and policy barriers to health insurance coverage, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2179, a bill to prohibit the use of M-44 devices, commonly known as "cyanide bombs", on public land, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Padilla, the names of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) 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. Booker, the name of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2324, a bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to establish a private right of action for injuries caused by pesticides, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2337, a bill to establish a grant program to provide child care services for the minor children of law enforcement officers to accommodate the shift work and nontraditional work hours of such officers, and to enhance recruitment and retention of such officers. At the request of Mr. Sheehy, the name of the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2875, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the treatment of health reimbursement arrangements integrated with individual market coverage. At the request of Ms. Murkowski, the name of the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2903, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require a group health plan or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan to provide an exceptions process for any medication step therapy protocol, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3267, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage of blood-based dementia screening tests. At the request of Mr. Sheehy, the name of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3314, a bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to expand a directive of the Veterans Health Administration regarding informed consent to apply to certain types of medications. At the request of Mr. Heinrich, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Armstrong) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3358, a bill to assist Indian Tribes in protecting Native American seeds, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3897, a bill to revise administrative procedures relating to public safety officers' death benefits, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Cruz, the name of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4009, a bill to provide for the imposition of sanctions with respect to forced organ harvesting within the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the names of the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith) and the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) 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 Mrs. Capito, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4221, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the modification of the definition of adjusted taxable income for purposes of the limitation on business interest. At the request of Mr. Padilla, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Curtis) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4271, a bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide rest and recuperation leave for employees engaged in wildland firefighting, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Budd, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4345, a bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to collect data and report to Congress on the cost to the Medicaid program from hospital and emergency room visits related to marijuana use. At the request of Mr. Banks, the name of the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4348, a bill to repeal the 90/10 rule as it pertains to proprietary schools under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. At the request of Mr. McCormick, the names of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 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. Moreno, the names of the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Curtis) were added as cosponsors 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 Mr. Booker, the names of the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) were added as cosponsors of S. 4443, a bill to increase cooperation with countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region in order to strengthen energy security and defense capabilities, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Moody, the name of the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4446, a bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to prevent the importation of illicit pill press machines with the intent to counterfeit substances, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Booker, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4454, a bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to remove the exclusion of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from the definition of consumer product in order to permit the issuance for safety standards for such articles by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4467, a bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act with respect to nursing facility requirements, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Van Hollen, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) were added as cosponsors of S. 4492, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide matching payments for ABLE account contributions by certain individuals, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Van Hollen, the names of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) were added as cosponsors of S. 4493, a bill to clarify the use of direct deposit for contributions to ABLE programs. At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S.
4552, a bill to address maternal mental health conditions and substance use disorders, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Britt, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4555, a bill to prohibit covered digital advertising platforms from displaying targeted advertisements directed to a minor that promote sports gambling platforms. At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Curtis) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4561, a bill to modernize and streamline the permitting process for broadband infrastructure on Federal land, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Scott of Florida, the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) was added as a cosponsor of 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. At the request of Mr. Young, the names of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy) were added as cosponsors of S. 4629, a bill to prohibit the provision of Federal funds to State and local governments and school districts for payment of obligations, to prohibit the Federal Reserve banks, the Department of the Treasury, and other Federal agencies from financially assisting State and local governments and school districts that have defaulted on their obligations, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4635, a bill to promote the economic security and safety of survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Rosen, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4675, a bill to improve benefits for veterans who may have been exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Lee, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4708, a bill to improve the security of the Arctic, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) was added as a cosponsor of 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". At the request of Mr. Booker, the names of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 126, a resolution calling on the United Nations Security Council to enforce the existing arms embargo on Darfur and extend it to cover all of Sudan. At the request of Mr. Blumenthal, the name of the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Alsobrooks) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 752, a resolution expressing support for the designation of the month of May 2026 as "Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Degeneration Awareness Month".
Senate Resolution 761--Designating June 23, 2026, as "Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day"
Page S2701 · Official textSENATE RESOLUTION 761--DESIGNATING JUNE 23, 2026, AS "SOCIAL MEDIA HARMS VICTIM REMEMBRANCE DAY" Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. Blackburn) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
Text printed in the Record (3,519 characters)
Whereas the internet has revolutionized the ability to exchange information, improved the accessibility of education, reduced the costs of healthcare through telehealth, and stimulated the national economy by providing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in gross product each year;
Whereas social media has become central to modern communication, bringing together people from across the globe;
Whereas teenagers spend almost 9 hours on screens per day, on average;
Whereas over 90 percent of teenagers use social media;
Whereas 51 percent of teenagers spend nearly 5 hours on social media each day;
Whereas nearly half of teens report being online almost constantly;
Whereas parents identify social media as the leading reason it is harder to be a teen today than in the past;
Whereas social media presents significant risks, especially to adolescents, including the perpetuation and promotion of harmful and dangerous behaviors and connections;
Whereas countless individuals and families have suffered harms, including death, because of experiences on social media platforms, including cyberbullying, harassment, exposure to sex trafficking, and exploitation;
Whereas social media has been linked to an increase in illicit drug poisoning and overdose related deaths;
Whereas social media use has been linked to self-harming behavior and suicidal ideation in youth;
Whereas suicide has become one of the leading causes of death in children aged 15 to 19;
Whereas it is vital to recognize and honor the experiences of those who have been harmed by social media, including the victims, survivors, and their families;
Whereas commemorating Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day provides an opportunity to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of social media and to advocate for measures to effectively mitigate these harms; and
Whereas establishing a designated day of remembrance fosters empathy, solidarity, and support for those who have endured social media-related trauma and encourages efforts to promote digital well-being and online safety: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates June 23, 2026, as "Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day" to honor the individuals who have lost their lives and have suffered harm because of social media;
(2) reaffirms its commitment to protecting individuals from harm in digital spaces and promoting a culture of respect, empathy, and responsibility online by acknowledging the significance of Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day;
(3) urges individuals, communities, organizations, and social media platforms to observe Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day through activities such as remembrance ceremonies, educational events, and advocacy efforts aimed at raising awareness about social media harms and supporting victims and survivors;
(4) calls upon relevant government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and stakeholders to collaborate in developing and implementing initiatives to address social media harms effectively, including enhancing digital literacy, promoting online safety measures, and supporting the rights of victims; and
(5) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission to promote awareness of Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day and encourage actions to prevent social media-related harm.
Senate Resolution 762--Supporting the Designation of the Second Friday in June as "National Service and Conservation Corps Day"
Pages S2701–S2702 · Official textMr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Hickenlooper) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
Text printed in the Record (5,616 characters)
Whereas there exists a network of National Service Programs (in this preamble referred to as "Service and Conservation Corps") that receives funding pursuant to subtitle C of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.);
Whereas such network includes more than 140 Service and Conservation Corps across the country;
Whereas these Service and Conservation Corps annually provide education, workforce development, and support services to approximately 22,000 young adults and post-9/11 veterans;
Whereas today's Service and Conservation Corps are locally-based organizations that engage young adults (generally ages 16 to 25) and veterans (up to age 35) in service projects that address recreation, conservation, disaster response, and community needs;
Whereas these Service and Conservation Corps are direct descendants of the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Great Depression-era Federal work-relief program that mobilized 3,000,000 young men to dramatically improve the public lands of the United States;
Whereas Civilian Conservation Corps participants received food, shelter, education, and a $30-a-month stipend;
Whereas, from 1933 to 1942, the Civilian Conservation Corps planted 3,000,000,000 trees and helped build trails, roads, campgrounds, and other park infrastructure still in use today;
Whereas the United States will commemorate the 250th anniversary of its founding in 2026, a milestone that highlights the enduring importance of civic engagement, public service, and stewardship of the natural and cultural resources of the United States;
Whereas most modern Service and Conservation Corps are nonprofits or are operated by units of State or local government;
Whereas, through public-private partnerships, Service and Conservation Corps work with a range of organizations, government agencies, and institutions to engage Service and Conservation Corps members (referred to in this preamble as "Corps members") in meaningful projects that address local and national issues;
Whereas, through a term of service that could last from a few months to a year, Corps members experience the "Corps Model", where they gain work experience and develop in-demand skills;
Whereas Corps members are compensated with a stipend or living allowance and often receive an education award or scholarship upon completing their service;
Whereas, additionally, Service and Conservation Corps provide Corps members with educational programming, mentoring, and access to career and personal counseling, and some Service and Conservation Corps operate or partner with charter schools to help Corps members earn their high school diploma or GED certificate;
Whereas Corps members contribute to the preservation of historic sites, cultural resources, and public lands that reflect the 250-year history of the United States;
Whereas Corps members complete thousands of community improvement, resilience, and resource conservation projects every year, strengthening the communities of the United States as it approaches its 250th anniversary;
Whereas the 250th anniversary of the United States provides an opportunity to recognize and invest in programs that prepare young people in the United States to lead the country into its next century of growth, resilience, and innovation;
Whereas Corps members typically serve on crews alongside other young adults or in "individual placement" or internship positions that provide additional capacity to Federal, State, and local resource management agencies;
Whereas Service and Conservation Corps have longstanding partnerships with Federal, State, and local community development and resource management agencies to engage Corps members in meaningful and necessary projects across the United States;
Whereas Service and Conservation Corps projects include--
(1) the enhancement of neighborhoods and community public spaces, including urban gardens;
(2) the preservation and protection of public lands, shorelines, waterways, habitats, and wildlife;
(3) the preservation of historic structures;
(4) the provision of access to, and enhancement of, recreation on public lands and waters;
(5) the enhancement of resilience to natural disasters;
(6) the mitigation of, response to, and recovery from natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfire;
(7) the improvement of energy efficiency and resource conservation; and
(8) the building and maintenance of alternative transportation and sustainable infrastructure;
Whereas the United States needs to respond to decades of deferred maintenance of public lands and waters and make its communities more resilient;
Whereas the United States also has millions of young people facing unemployment and barriers to opportunity; and
Whereas the existing network of more than 140 Service and Conservation Corps is ready to meet the needs of these young people in the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate --
(1) supports the designation of a National Service and Conservation Corps Day;
(2) congratulates the existing network of more than 140 Service and Conservation Corps on its contributions to the United States;
(3) urges the citizens of the United States to recognize the importance of national service;
(4) supports the continuation and expansion of the national network of Service and Conservation Corps under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(5) recognizes the role of Service and Conservation Corps in honoring the 250-year legacy of civic engagement and public service in the United States.
Senate Resolution 763--Recognizing the Strategic Importance of the Arctic Region and Supporting Continued Congressional Engagement with Arctic Allies and Partners
Page S2702 · Official textSENATE RESOLUTION 763--RECOGNIZING THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE ARCTIC REGION AND SUPPORTING CONTINUED CONGRESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT WITH ARCTIC ALLIES AND PARTNERS Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Lummis, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, and Mrs. Britt) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
Text printed in the Record (3,365 characters)
Whereas the United States is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska;
Whereas the United States maintains a number of key interests in the Arctic region, from homeland defense and national security matters to economic, environmental, and scientific affairs;
Whereas the Arctic region is governed through a framework of international law, norms, and institutions, including the Arctic Council, which promote peaceful cooperation, sustainable development, environmental responsibility, and respect for Indigenous peoples;
Whereas the accession of new Arctic allies the Kingdom of Sweden and Finland to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reinforces the region's strategic importance to the United States and its allies;
Whereas cooperation among Arctic nations and partners has historically contributed to stability, transparency, and confidence-building in the region;
Whereas Indigenous peoples are vital to Arctic governance and decision-making and possess traditional knowledge essential to sustaining the region's future;
Whereas the Arctic faces significant opportunities and challenges related to critical infrastructure, telecommunications, maritime shipping, scientific research, energy systems, and regional connectivity, requiring sustained investment and collaboration with allies and partners;
Whereas increasing strategic competition with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation in the Arctic region underscores the importance of maintaining a stable, secure, and rules-based order to help maintain peace and stability throughout the region;
Whereas the coordination of the United States Armed Forces and Federal agencies with allied partners in the High North reinforces United States homeland defense;
Whereas, on May 22, 2026, at the NATO Foreign Ministerial in Sweden, the Arctic allies, consisting of Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United States, issued a joint statement in support of increased cooperation "to achieve our common goal of a safe, prosperous and peaceful Arctic"; and
Whereas Congress plays a critical role in shaping Arctic policy and engaging with international partners to advance shared priorities in the region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) reaffirms the strategic importance of the Arctic region to the national security and economic interests of the United States and its allies and partners;
(2) recognizes the need for continued cooperation with Arctic allies and partners to promote peace, stability, and sustainable development in the region;
(3) supports efforts to strengthen Arctic security, infrastructure, maritime capabilities, scientific research, domain awareness, telecommunications resilience, and regional preparedness;
(4) underscores the importance of working alongside allies and partners in multilateral fora, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to defend United States national security interests and uphold our shared values;
(5) affirms the importance of meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples in Arctic governance and policy development; and
(6) encourages continued congressional engagement with Arctic allies and partners on shared Arctic priorities, including through intergovernmental exchanges, delegations, and cooperative initiatives.
Senate Resolution 764--Congratulating the Students, Parents, Teachers, and Leaders of Charter Schools Across the United States for Making Ongoing Contributions to Education and Supporting The...
Pages S2702–S2703 · Official textAND LEADERS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES FOR MAKING ONGOING CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION AND SUPPORTING THE IDEALS AND GOALS OF THE 27TH ANNUAL NATIONAL CHARTER SCHOOLS WEEK, TO BE HELD MAY 10 THROUGH MAY 16, 2026 Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Booker, and Ms. Hassan) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
Text printed in the Record (4,411 characters)
Whereas charter schools are public schools that do not charge tuition and enroll any student who wants to attend, often through a random lottery when the demand for enrollment is outmatched by the supply of available charter school seats;
Whereas high-performing public charter schools deliver a high-quality public education and challenge all students to reach their potential for academic success;
Whereas high-quality public charter schools promote innovation and excellence in public education;
Whereas public charter schools throughout the United States provide millions of families with diverse and innovative educational options for the children of those families;
Whereas high-performing public charter schools and charter management organizations are increasing student achievement and attendance rates at institutions of higher education;
Whereas public charter schools are authorized by a designated entity and--
(1) respond to the needs of communities, families, and students in the United States; and
(2) promote the principles of quality, accountability, choice, high-performance, and innovation;
Whereas, in exchange for flexibility and autonomy, public charter schools are held accountable by the authorizers of the public charter schools for improving student achievement and for sound financial and operational management;
Whereas public charter schools are required to meet the student achievement accountability requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) in the same manner as traditional public schools;
Whereas public charter schools often set high expectations for students to ensure that the public charter schools are of high quality and truly accountable to the public;
Whereas 45 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have public charter schools;
Whereas, as of the 2021 to 2022 school year, approximately 8,000 public charter schools served approximately 3,700,000 children in the United States;
Whereas enrollment in public charter schools grew from 660,000 students in 2002, to 3,700,000 students in 2021, a more than five-fold increase in 20 years;
Whereas, in the United States--
(1) in 270 school districts, more than 10 percent of public school students are enrolled in public charter schools; and
(2) in not fewer than 26 school districts, not less than 30 percent of public school students are enrolled in public charter schools;
Whereas high-quality public charter schools improve the achievement of students enrolled in the charter schools and collaborate with traditional public schools to improve public education for all students;
Whereas public charter schools--
(1) give parents the freedom to choose public schools;
(2) routinely measure parental satisfaction levels; and
(3) must prove the ongoing success of the charter schools to parents, policymakers, and the communities served by the charter schools or risk closure;
Whereas a 2023 report from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University found significant improvements for students from low-income backgrounds in public charter schools, and when compared to peers in traditional public schools, as each year those students completed the equivalent of 16 more days of learning in reading and 6 more days of learning in math; and
Whereas the 27th Annual National Charter Schools Week is scheduled to be celebrated the week of May 10 through May 16, 2026: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the students, families, teachers, leaders, and staff of public charter schools across the United States for--
(A) making ongoing contributions to public education;
(B) making impressive strides in closing the academic achievement gap in schools in the United States, particularly in schools with some of the most disadvantaged students in both rural and urban communities; and
(C) improving and strengthening the public school system throughout the United States;
(2) supports the ideals and goals of the 27th Annual National Charter Schools Week, a week-long celebration to be held May 10 through May 16, 2026, in communities throughout the United States; and
(3) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities during National Charter Schools Week to demonstrate support for high-quality public charter schools.
Senate Resolution 765--Expressing Support for the Designation of July 2026 as "National Sarcoma Awareness Month"
Page S2703 · Official textSENATE RESOLUTION 765--EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF JULY 2026 AS "NATIONAL SARCOMA AWARENESS MONTH" Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Rounds) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
Text printed in the Record (1,191 characters)
Whereas sarcoma is a rare cancer of the bones or connective tissues, such as nerves, muscles, joints, fat, and blood vessels, that can arise nearly anywhere in the body;
Whereas, in the United States--
(1) about 18,000 individuals are diagnosed with sarcoma each year;
(2) approximately 7,600 individuals die from sarcoma each year; and
(3) over 236,000 individuals struggle with sarcoma at any given time;
Whereas, each year, about 1 percent of cancers diagnosed in adults and around 21 percent of cancers diagnosed in children are sarcoma;
Whereas more than 100 subtypes of sarcoma have been identified;
Whereas the potential causes of sarcoma are not well understood;
Whereas treatment for sarcoma can include surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy;
Whereas sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; and
Whereas July 2026 would be an appropriate month to designate as National Sarcoma Awareness Month--
(1) to raise awareness about sarcoma; and
(2) to encourage more individuals in the United States to get properly diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation of July 2026 as "National Sarcoma Awareness Month".
Text of Amendments
Pages S2703–S2705 · Official textSA 5819. Mr. CASSIDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3315, to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to coordinate to improve cybersecurity in the health care and public health sectors, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Text printed in the Record (10,985 characters)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026".
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term "Agency" means the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
(2) Business associate.--The term "business associate" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(3) Covered entity.--The term "covered entity" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term "cybersecurity incident" has the meaning given the term "incident" in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code.
(5) Cybersecurity state coordinator.--The term "Cybersecurity State Coordinator" means a Cybersecurity State Coordinator appointed under section 2217(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665c(a)).
(6) Director.--The term "Director" means the Director of the Agency.
(7) Healthcare and public health sector.--The term "Healthcare and Public Health Sector" means the Healthcare and Public Health sector, as identified in National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience).
(8) Information sharing and analysis organization.--The term "Information Sharing and Analysis Organization" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650).
(9) Information system.--The term "information system" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650).
(10) Recognized security practices.--The term "recognized security practices" has the meaning given such term in section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)).
(11) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT COORDINATION WITH THE AGENCY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Director shall coordinate, including by entering into a cooperative agreement, as appropriate, to improve cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(b) Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the Director to make resources available to entities that are receiving information shared through programs managed by the Director or the Secretary, including Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, sector coordinating councils, and non-Federal entities.
(2) Scope.--The coordination under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) developing products specific to the needs of Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities;
(B) sharing information relating to cyber threat indicators and appropriate defensive measures, including automating cyber threat information sharing, in a manner that adequately protects against unauthorized access or disclosure; and
(C) providing technical assistance to covered entities and business associates to improve cybersecurity preparedness.
(c) Joint Cybersecurity Planning.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Director shall establish a joint cybersecurity capability plan to coordinate responses to significant cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(2) Elements.--The joint cybersecurity capability plan established under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) protocols for rapid information sharing during sector-wide cybersecurity incidents;
(B) coordination mechanisms with the sector coordinating council for the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and
(C) coordination with Cybersecurity State Coordinators for incidents affecting multiple States.
(3) Submission to congress.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives the final joint cybersecurity capability plan prepared under paragraph (1) and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2).
(B) Updates.--If the Secretary and the Director update the joint cybersecurity capability plan required under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives such updated plan and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2).
SEC. 4. CLARIFYING CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall delegate a representative to lead oversight and coordination of activities within the Department of Health and Human Services to support internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including coordination and communication with other public and private entities related to preparedness for, and responses to, cybersecurity incidents, consistent with applicable provisions of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), other applicable laws, and National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience). Such activities shall not include implementation or enforcement of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule").
(b) Reports.--
(1) Report on delegation.--Not later than 60 days after delegating a representative under subsection (a), and any time a new representative is delegated under such subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that describes how such representative will implement steps to improve internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(2) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the state of cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including--
(A) an assessment of the most significant cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities facing the Healthcare and Public Health Sector;
(B) a summary of major cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector during the preceding year;
(C) an assessment of the overall cybersecurity posture of the Healthcare and Public Health Sector;
(D) a description of actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve cybersecurity; and
(E) recommendations to improve Healthcare and Public Health Sector cybersecurity.
SEC. 5. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN.
Section 405 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting "information system;" after "federal entity;"; and
(ii) by inserting " `information system'," after " `Federal entity',";
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
"(4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term `cybersecurity incident' has the meaning given the term `incident' in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code.
"(5) Cybersecurity risk.--The term `cybersecurity risk' has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650)."; and
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
"(4) Plan.--
"(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall expand and implement the Cyber Annex of the All Hazards Plan of the Department of Health and Human Services to inform applicable personnel within the Department of Health and Human Services of processes and protocols to prepare for, and respond to, cybersecurity incidents.
"(B) Scope.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall address cybersecurity incidents involving information systems, including hardware, software, databases, and networks, used or maintained by, or on behalf of, the Department.
"(C) Elements.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall include strategies--
"(i) to assess cybersecurity risks;
"(ii) to prevent cybersecurity incidents;
"(iii) to detect and identify cybersecurity incidents;
"(iv) to minimize damage in the event of a cybersecurity incident;
"(v) to protect data;
"(vi) to recover from any cybersecurity incidents expeditiously; and
"(vii) to communicate and share non-sensitive information about cybersecurity incidents with entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector (as defined in section 2 of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026).
"(D) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and relevant experts, as appropriate.
"(E) Updates.--The Secretary shall review and update the plan under subparagraph (A)--
"(i) not less frequently than once every 2 years; and
"(ii) after any significant cybersecurity incident affecting the Department of Health and Human Services or a Federal health program.
"(F) Report.--Not later than 60 days before the date on which the Secretary begins implementing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report that describes such plan.".
SEC. 6. CLARIFYING BREACH REPORTING OBLIGATIONS.
Section 13402(f) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17932(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(6) The number of individuals affected by the breach.".
SEC. 7. ENHANCING RECOGNITION OF SECURITY PRACTICES.
(a) Recognized Security Practices.--Section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)) is amended, in the first sentence, by inserting ", investments," after "other programs".
(b) Regulation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations implementing section 13412 of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C.
Text printed in the Record (11,801 characters)
17941), which shall include--
(1) recognized security practices that the Secretary may consider when determining fines under such section;
(2) the extent to which such recognized security practices should be in place for consideration by the Secretary;
(3) procedural requirements or information that shall be submitted by a covered entity or business associate to the Secretary for consideration; and
(4) how the Secretary will take into account such recognized security practices when determining fines, earlier favorable termination of audits, or mitigating remedies that would otherwise be agreed to in any agreement with respect to resolving potential violations of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule") between the covered entity or business associate and the Department of Health and Human Services.
(c) Annual Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall include in the annual report required under section 13424(a) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17953(a)) information on implementation of section 13412 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 17941), including an accounting of every case in which the Secretary considered recognized security practices when effectuating audits and assessing fines under such section.
SEC. 8. REQUIRED CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall update the security regulations under part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), to require non-governmental entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector and covered entities and business associates to adopt minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices, including--
(1) multifactor authentication, or a successor technology;
(2) encryption of protected health information, or a successor technology;
(3) requirements to conduct monitoring, including penetration testing, to maintain the protections of information systems; and
(4) other minimum cybersecurity standards, as reflected in national cybersecurity frameworks.
(b) Requirements.--The minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be based on--
(1) national cybersecurity frameworks, as appropriate, such as--
(A) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Risk Management Framework (or a successor framework);
(B) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (or a successor framework);
(C) the National Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-53 r5 Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (or a successor special publication), with relevant components of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Privacy Framework; or
(D) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework;
(2) the Health Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Healthcare and Public Health Cybersecurity Performance Goals; and
(3) the health care-specific cybersecurity performance goals of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
(c) Effective Dates.--The regulations updated in accordance with subsection (a), including each new requirement established, shall take effect on the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may exercise enforcement discretion for entities experiencing extraordinary circumstances in complying with the requirements of subsection (a).
SEC. 9. GUIDANCE ON RURAL CYBERSECURITY READINESS.
Section 405(d) of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533(d)) (as amended by section 5(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(5) Rural cybersecurity guidance.--
"(A) Definition of rural.--In this paragraph, the term `rural' has the meaning given such term by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy.
"(B) Guidance on rural cybersecurity readiness.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall issue guidance to rural entities on best practices to improve cybersecurity readiness, including strategies--
"(i) to improve cybersecurity infrastructure, including any technical safeguards to mitigate cybersecurity risk;
"(ii) to integrate best practices issued by the Secretary to improve cybersecurity preparedness;
"(iii) to improve workforce preparation to mitigate any cybersecurity risks, including existing public-private programs to support educational initiatives;
"(iv) to implement policies to facilitate mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting requirements under law; and
"(v) to explore and recommend best practices, including--
"(I) outsourcing information technology and chief information security officer functions to third parties on a part-time basis;
"(II) participating in regional rural health care information technology management sharing programs; and
"(III) migrating data to secure cloud-based platforms.
"(C) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to rural entities to implement the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B).
"(D) GAO study and report.--
"(i) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study, and submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, on how rural entities have implemented the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B).
"(ii) Contents.--The study under clause (i) shall assess--
"(I) how rural entities have implemented any technical safeguards and any challenges faced by such rural entities in areas for which safeguards were not implemented;
"(II) steps to further support cybersecurity resilience for rural entities;
"(III) areas to improve coordination between Federal agencies, including for the purposes of required cyber reporting; and
"(IV) any opportunities to support public-private collaboration in the area of cybersecurity readiness.".
SEC. 10. GRANTS TO ENHANCE CYBERSECURITY IN THE HEALTH AND
PUBLIC HEALTH SECTORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible entities for the adoption and implementation of cybersecurity best practices.
(b) Eligible Entity.--To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), an entity shall be--
(1) a Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4)));
(2) a health facility operated by or pursuant to a contract with the Indian Health Service;
(3) a nonprofit hospital;
(4) a rural health clinic (as defined in section 1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(2))); or
(5) a nonprofit entity that enters into a partnership or coordinates referrals with an entity described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4).
(c) Use of Funds.--In adopting and implementing cybersecurity best practices pursuant to a grant under subsection (a), an eligible entity may use grant funds--
(1) to hire individuals with demonstrated cybersecurity expertise and train personnel in such cybersecurity best practices;
(2) to update electronic data systems, such as by migrating to cloud-based platforms;
(3) to join and participate in health cybersecurity threat information sharing organizations;
(4) to contract with third parties to assist the eligible entity in carrying out the activities described in this subsection;
(5) to conduct cybersecurity risk assessments and vulnerability assessments; and
(6) to develop or improve cybersecurity incident response plans.
(d) Grant Period.--A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period of not more than 3 years.
(e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary may give consideration to the demonstrated need of eligible entities.
(f) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including--
(1) a description of how the eligible entity will establish baseline measures and benchmarks that meet the Secretary's requirements to evaluate performance outcomes; and
(2) a strategic plan for how, after the end of the grant period, the eligible entity will sustain the activities funded under the grant and continue to adopt cybersecurity best practices.
SEC. 11. HEALTHCARE CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE.
(a) Training for Healthcare Experts.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Cybersecurity State Coordinators of the Agency, the Office of the National Cyber Director, and private sector health care experts, as appropriate, shall provide training to Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities on--
(1) cybersecurity risks to information systems within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and
(2) ways to mitigate the risks to information systems in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(b) Strategic Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, in coordination with the Agency, shall develop a strategic plan to support growing the cybersecurity workforce for health care entities.
(2) Contents.--The strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) recommendations for existing educational programs that can be used to support cybersecurity training;
(B) dissemination and development of educational materials on how to improve cybersecurity resilience;
(C) development of best practices to train the health care workforce on cybersecurity best practices;
(D) development of recommendations specific to rural facilities;
(E) development of best practices to leverage artificial intelligence to support cybersecurity preparedness;
(F) opportunities for public-private collaboration to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce; and
(G) alignment with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Workforce Framework.
SEC. 12. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT REPORTING COORDINATION
WORKING GROUP.
(a) Working Group.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convene a working group to examine how to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting for cybersecurity incidents.
(2) Membership.--The working group described in paragraph (1) shall include representatives of--
(A) the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency;
(B) the Securities and Exchange Commission;
(C) the Office of the National Cyber Director;
(D) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(E) the Federal Trade Commission;
(F) State attorneys general;
(G) State health departments; and
(H) private sector health care entities.
(3) Conclusion.--The working group shall conclude not later than 18 months after the date of the first meeting of the working group.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the conclusion of the working group under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that--
(1) identifies areas the working group has identified to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting;
(2) includes recommendations to Congress on further streamlining such reporting; and
(3) addresses coordination with State breach notification laws.
Text of Senate Amendment 5819
Pages S2703–S2705 · Official textSA 5819. Mr. CASSIDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3315, to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to coordinate to improve cybersecurity in the health care and public health sectors, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Text printed in the Record (10,985 characters)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026".
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term "Agency" means the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
(2) Business associate.--The term "business associate" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(3) Covered entity.--The term "covered entity" has the meaning given such term in section 160.103 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation).
(4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term "cybersecurity incident" has the meaning given the term "incident" in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code.
(5) Cybersecurity state coordinator.--The term "Cybersecurity State Coordinator" means a Cybersecurity State Coordinator appointed under section 2217(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 665c(a)).
(6) Director.--The term "Director" means the Director of the Agency.
(7) Healthcare and public health sector.--The term "Healthcare and Public Health Sector" means the Healthcare and Public Health sector, as identified in National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience).
(8) Information sharing and analysis organization.--The term "Information Sharing and Analysis Organization" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650).
(9) Information system.--The term "information system" has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650).
(10) Recognized security practices.--The term "recognized security practices" has the meaning given such term in section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)).
(11) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT COORDINATION WITH THE AGENCY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Director shall coordinate, including by entering into a cooperative agreement, as appropriate, to improve cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(b) Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the Director to make resources available to entities that are receiving information shared through programs managed by the Director or the Secretary, including Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, sector coordinating councils, and non-Federal entities.
(2) Scope.--The coordination under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) developing products specific to the needs of Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities;
(B) sharing information relating to cyber threat indicators and appropriate defensive measures, including automating cyber threat information sharing, in a manner that adequately protects against unauthorized access or disclosure; and
(C) providing technical assistance to covered entities and business associates to improve cybersecurity preparedness.
(c) Joint Cybersecurity Planning.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Director shall establish a joint cybersecurity capability plan to coordinate responses to significant cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(2) Elements.--The joint cybersecurity capability plan established under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) protocols for rapid information sharing during sector-wide cybersecurity incidents;
(B) coordination mechanisms with the sector coordinating council for the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and
(C) coordination with Cybersecurity State Coordinators for incidents affecting multiple States.
(3) Submission to congress.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives the final joint cybersecurity capability plan prepared under paragraph (1) and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2).
(B) Updates.--If the Secretary and the Director update the joint cybersecurity capability plan required under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives such updated plan and a description of how such plan implements the elements required under paragraph (2).
SEC. 4. CLARIFYING CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall delegate a representative to lead oversight and coordination of activities within the Department of Health and Human Services to support internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including coordination and communication with other public and private entities related to preparedness for, and responses to, cybersecurity incidents, consistent with applicable provisions of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), other applicable laws, and National Security Memorandum-22 (April 30, 2024; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience). Such activities shall not include implementation or enforcement of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule").
(b) Reports.--
(1) Report on delegation.--Not later than 60 days after delegating a representative under subsection (a), and any time a new representative is delegated under such subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that describes how such representative will implement steps to improve internal and external cybersecurity resilience within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(2) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the state of cybersecurity in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector, including--
(A) an assessment of the most significant cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities facing the Healthcare and Public Health Sector;
(B) a summary of major cybersecurity incidents affecting the Healthcare and Public Health Sector during the preceding year;
(C) an assessment of the overall cybersecurity posture of the Healthcare and Public Health Sector;
(D) a description of actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve cybersecurity; and
(E) recommendations to improve Healthcare and Public Health Sector cybersecurity.
SEC. 5. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLAN.
Section 405 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by inserting "information system;" after "federal entity;"; and
(ii) by inserting " `information system'," after " `Federal entity',";
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (7) as paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
"(4) Cybersecurity incident.--The term `cybersecurity incident' has the meaning given the term `incident' in section 3552 of title 44, United States Code.
"(5) Cybersecurity risk.--The term `cybersecurity risk' has the meaning given such term in section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 650)."; and
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
"(4) Plan.--
"(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall expand and implement the Cyber Annex of the All Hazards Plan of the Department of Health and Human Services to inform applicable personnel within the Department of Health and Human Services of processes and protocols to prepare for, and respond to, cybersecurity incidents.
"(B) Scope.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall address cybersecurity incidents involving information systems, including hardware, software, databases, and networks, used or maintained by, or on behalf of, the Department.
"(C) Elements.--The plan under subparagraph (A) shall include strategies--
"(i) to assess cybersecurity risks;
"(ii) to prevent cybersecurity incidents;
"(iii) to detect and identify cybersecurity incidents;
"(iv) to minimize damage in the event of a cybersecurity incident;
"(v) to protect data;
"(vi) to recover from any cybersecurity incidents expeditiously; and
"(vii) to communicate and share non-sensitive information about cybersecurity incidents with entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector (as defined in section 2 of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026).
"(D) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult with the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and relevant experts, as appropriate.
"(E) Updates.--The Secretary shall review and update the plan under subparagraph (A)--
"(i) not less frequently than once every 2 years; and
"(ii) after any significant cybersecurity incident affecting the Department of Health and Human Services or a Federal health program.
"(F) Report.--Not later than 60 days before the date on which the Secretary begins implementing the plan under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report that describes such plan.".
SEC. 6. CLARIFYING BREACH REPORTING OBLIGATIONS.
Section 13402(f) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17932(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(6) The number of individuals affected by the breach.".
SEC. 7. ENHANCING RECOGNITION OF SECURITY PRACTICES.
(a) Recognized Security Practices.--Section 13412(b)(1) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17941(b)(1)) is amended, in the first sentence, by inserting ", investments," after "other programs".
(b) Regulation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations implementing section 13412 of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C.
Text printed in the Record (11,801 characters)
17941), which shall include--
(1) recognized security practices that the Secretary may consider when determining fines under such section;
(2) the extent to which such recognized security practices should be in place for consideration by the Secretary;
(3) procedural requirements or information that shall be submitted by a covered entity or business associate to the Secretary for consideration; and
(4) how the Secretary will take into account such recognized security practices when determining fines, earlier favorable termination of audits, or mitigating remedies that would otherwise be agreed to in any agreement with respect to resolving potential violations of part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) (commonly known as the "HIPAA Security Rule") between the covered entity or business associate and the Department of Health and Human Services.
(c) Annual Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall include in the annual report required under section 13424(a) of the HITECH Act (42 U.S.C. 17953(a)) information on implementation of section 13412 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 17941), including an accounting of every case in which the Secretary considered recognized security practices when effectuating audits and assessing fines under such section.
SEC. 8. REQUIRED CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall update the security regulations under part 160 and subparts A and C of part 164 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), to require non-governmental entities in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector and covered entities and business associates to adopt minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices, including--
(1) multifactor authentication, or a successor technology;
(2) encryption of protected health information, or a successor technology;
(3) requirements to conduct monitoring, including penetration testing, to maintain the protections of information systems; and
(4) other minimum cybersecurity standards, as reflected in national cybersecurity frameworks.
(b) Requirements.--The minimum risk-based cybersecurity practices adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be based on--
(1) national cybersecurity frameworks, as appropriate, such as--
(A) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Risk Management Framework (or a successor framework);
(B) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (or a successor framework);
(C) the National Institute of Standards and Technology SP 800-53 r5 Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations (or a successor special publication), with relevant components of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Privacy Framework; or
(D) the National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework;
(2) the Health Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Healthcare and Public Health Cybersecurity Performance Goals; and
(3) the health care-specific cybersecurity performance goals of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
(c) Effective Dates.--The regulations updated in accordance with subsection (a), including each new requirement established, shall take effect on the date that is 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may exercise enforcement discretion for entities experiencing extraordinary circumstances in complying with the requirements of subsection (a).
SEC. 9. GUIDANCE ON RURAL CYBERSECURITY READINESS.
Section 405(d) of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1533(d)) (as amended by section 5(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(5) Rural cybersecurity guidance.--
"(A) Definition of rural.--In this paragraph, the term `rural' has the meaning given such term by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy.
"(B) Guidance on rural cybersecurity readiness.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Secretary shall issue guidance to rural entities on best practices to improve cybersecurity readiness, including strategies--
"(i) to improve cybersecurity infrastructure, including any technical safeguards to mitigate cybersecurity risk;
"(ii) to integrate best practices issued by the Secretary to improve cybersecurity preparedness;
"(iii) to improve workforce preparation to mitigate any cybersecurity risks, including existing public-private programs to support educational initiatives;
"(iv) to implement policies to facilitate mandatory cybersecurity incident reporting requirements under law; and
"(v) to explore and recommend best practices, including--
"(I) outsourcing information technology and chief information security officer functions to third parties on a part-time basis;
"(II) participating in regional rural health care information technology management sharing programs; and
"(III) migrating data to secure cloud-based platforms.
"(C) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to rural entities to implement the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B).
"(D) GAO study and report.--
"(i) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Health Care Cybersecurity and Resiliency Act of 2026, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study, and submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, on how rural entities have implemented the recommendations included in the guidance under subparagraph (B).
"(ii) Contents.--The study under clause (i) shall assess--
"(I) how rural entities have implemented any technical safeguards and any challenges faced by such rural entities in areas for which safeguards were not implemented;
"(II) steps to further support cybersecurity resilience for rural entities;
"(III) areas to improve coordination between Federal agencies, including for the purposes of required cyber reporting; and
"(IV) any opportunities to support public-private collaboration in the area of cybersecurity readiness.".
SEC. 10. GRANTS TO ENHANCE CYBERSECURITY IN THE HEALTH AND
PUBLIC HEALTH SECTORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible entities for the adoption and implementation of cybersecurity best practices.
(b) Eligible Entity.--To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), an entity shall be--
(1) a Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4)));
(2) a health facility operated by or pursuant to a contract with the Indian Health Service;
(3) a nonprofit hospital;
(4) a rural health clinic (as defined in section 1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(2))); or
(5) a nonprofit entity that enters into a partnership or coordinates referrals with an entity described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4).
(c) Use of Funds.--In adopting and implementing cybersecurity best practices pursuant to a grant under subsection (a), an eligible entity may use grant funds--
(1) to hire individuals with demonstrated cybersecurity expertise and train personnel in such cybersecurity best practices;
(2) to update electronic data systems, such as by migrating to cloud-based platforms;
(3) to join and participate in health cybersecurity threat information sharing organizations;
(4) to contract with third parties to assist the eligible entity in carrying out the activities described in this subsection;
(5) to conduct cybersecurity risk assessments and vulnerability assessments; and
(6) to develop or improve cybersecurity incident response plans.
(d) Grant Period.--A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period of not more than 3 years.
(e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary may give consideration to the demonstrated need of eligible entities.
(f) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including--
(1) a description of how the eligible entity will establish baseline measures and benchmarks that meet the Secretary's requirements to evaluate performance outcomes; and
(2) a strategic plan for how, after the end of the grant period, the eligible entity will sustain the activities funded under the grant and continue to adopt cybersecurity best practices.
SEC. 11. HEALTHCARE CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE.
(a) Training for Healthcare Experts.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Cybersecurity State Coordinators of the Agency, the Office of the National Cyber Director, and private sector health care experts, as appropriate, shall provide training to Healthcare and Public Health Sector entities on--
(1) cybersecurity risks to information systems within the Healthcare and Public Health Sector; and
(2) ways to mitigate the risks to information systems in the Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
(b) Strategic Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, in coordination with the Agency, shall develop a strategic plan to support growing the cybersecurity workforce for health care entities.
(2) Contents.--The strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) recommendations for existing educational programs that can be used to support cybersecurity training;
(B) dissemination and development of educational materials on how to improve cybersecurity resilience;
(C) development of best practices to train the health care workforce on cybersecurity best practices;
(D) development of recommendations specific to rural facilities;
(E) development of best practices to leverage artificial intelligence to support cybersecurity preparedness;
(F) opportunities for public-private collaboration to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce; and
(G) alignment with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Workforce Framework.
SEC. 12. CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT REPORTING COORDINATION
WORKING GROUP.
(a) Working Group.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convene a working group to examine how to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting for cybersecurity incidents.
(2) Membership.--The working group described in paragraph (1) shall include representatives of--
(A) the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency;
(B) the Securities and Exchange Commission;
(C) the Office of the National Cyber Director;
(D) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(E) the Federal Trade Commission;
(F) State attorneys general;
(G) State health departments; and
(H) private sector health care entities.
(3) Conclusion.--The working group shall conclude not later than 18 months after the date of the first meeting of the working group.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the conclusion of the working group under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that--
(1) identifies areas the working group has identified to streamline and reduce duplicative reporting;
(2) includes recommendations to Congress on further streamlining such reporting; and
(3) addresses coordination with State breach notification laws.
Authority for Committees to Meet
Page S2705 · 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 session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing.
The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 10 a.m.
The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 11 a.m.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 9:15 a.m.
The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
Privileges of the Floor
Page S2705 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eva Friedlander, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until June 10, 2026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Resolutions Submitted Today
Pages S2705–S2706 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 764 and S. Res. 765.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolutions were agreed to.
The preambles were agreed to.
(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
Signing Authority
Page S2706 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all Members of the Republican conference be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions today, June 9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Orders for Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Page S2706 · Official textMr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Powell nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate ripen at 11:30 a.m., and if cloture is invoked on the Powell nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 2:15 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Adjournment Until 10 A.m. Tomorrow
Page S2706 · Official textMr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 6:11 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 10 a.m.
Confirmation
Page S2706 · Official textExecutive nomination confirmed by the Senate June 9, 2026:
Text printed in the Record (93 characters)
ANTHONY W. MATTIVI, OF KANSAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.