Thursday, July 16, 2026

Mr. President, we recently celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence--the 250th birthday of our country. On July 4 in 1776, the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration. The document laid out the causes which impelled the colonists' separation from Great Britain. But more than that, it laid out the political beliefs that would govern a new nation.

Text printed in the Record (347 characters)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That in order to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Unalienable rights--rights inherent in man, given by God; rights that exist before government; and that it is the job of government to protect--government not by divine right or military might, but by consent; a government that represents the people, not the will to power. A revolutionary document--pun intended. Many of the ideas in the Declaration, of course, were not new. It was a document built on the wisdom of the ages, on the tradition of British common law, on the inheritance of Christianity, and the colonists' own experiment in self-government in the colonies. Jefferson himself, writing in 1825, said of the Declaration:

Text printed in the Record (481 characters)

Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, in printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

While many of the ideas in the Declaration were not new, the document was nevertheless, as I said, revolutionary because the Declaration marked an event essentially unique in human history. There had been philosophical treatises on laying out principles of government, but this was not a philosophical treatise. It was the founding of a government, of a new nation, based on philosophical principles--a nation inaugurated not by conquest but on a set of ideas. And what ideas: All men are created equal. Where before in the history of governments do we find that? All men are created equal. No one is given special dignity by nature; no man has a divine right to rule over any other. No, all men are created equal--created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, rights that are not the gift of government but of nature and of nature's God, rights that government must defer to and defend. As everyone knows, the United States is currently hosting the World Cup. The media has been filled with stories on how much visitors to this country are enjoying the United States. They are encountering the American character: generous, optimistic, big-hearted, friendly. And they are embracing it. And it occurs to me that that American character almost unquestionably has a lot to do with our founding principles. When you believe that all men are created equal, when you believe that they have God-given rights and dignity--well, that has consequences. All men are created equal. There is no class of divinely appointed rulers, no hereditary aristocratic class, no barriers set to prevent you from rising. Those principles have consequences. So I don't think it is surprising that Americans are generous and big-hearted and optimistic and friendly. I think it is the natural consequence of the principles that we espouse. Every Fourth of July is a day of celebration, but this one--marking 250 years--was particularly special. South Dakota was honored to welcome President Trump to our fireworks at Mount Rushmore--a truly spectacular event. There is no better place to reflect on the majesty of this great country. It is fitting too, though, that along with the celebrations--along with the fireworks and the parades and the hotdogs and the hamburgers--that July 4 be a day of thanksgiving for the Declaration of Independence and the Nation it founded, for the blessing of liberty, and for all those who have pledged their lives to its defense, from the founding of our country to the present day. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his "Concord Hymn," referred to the opening shot of the battles of Lexington and Concord as "the shot heard round the world." If I may borrow his phrase, I think it is fair to say that the Declaration was the "statement heard round the world." It is still--still--heard round the world to this day, and I pray it will be heard until the end of time. May God bless our beloved country and keep us faithful to the principles for which we stand. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader (Executive Session)

Page S4120 · Official text

The Democratic leader is recognized.

Election Security (Executive Session)

Page S4120 · Official text

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

Mr. President, Donald Trump's election speech tonight is not about the election Trump lost 6 years ago; it is a threat against the election he is afraid to lose this November. Trump may control the microphone tonight, but he will not control the verdict in November. The voters will have the last word, and Senate Democrats will rebut Trump's lies every day. We will fight like hell to make sure Trump can't silence voters. Trump's prime-time speech tonight isn't simply about relitigating his overwhelming defeat in the 2020 election; it is about undermining the 2026 election before a single vote has been cast. Trump won't expose anything of substance about 2020; he will just echo the same stale, baseless, pathetic lies he has repeated for 6 years. Donald, you have been trying this shtick for 6 years. Only your little coterie of sycophants still believes these lies--no one else. You can say it tonight, Trump. You can say it tonight. You can say it tomorrow. You can say it every night until election. No one believes you. The election was not stolen. Trump keeps chasing his tail, going round and round and round in circles so many times, he has left a rut in the ground. Every time he tells a lie, he digs himself deeper into the hole. Trump's fixation on these conspiracy theories reeks of desperation. Trump knows he can't defend Republicans' disastrous record--his disastrous record as well--so he is trying to discredit the voters who will judge it in November. Hey, Donald, the reason your numbers are so low is because you are obsessed with BS like this instead of what Americans actually care about. The American people are fed up with Donald Trump. Americans are fed up with the chaos in their streets, fed up with the corruption in their government, fed up with sky-high costs in every part of their lives because of this administration's policies. Voters are sick of forking over their tax dollars to line Trump's pockets and to fuel his failed war in Iran. Trump has given up on winning over hearts and minds. Now he is focused on rigging rules and purging voter rolls. Instead of changing course on their deeply unpopular agenda, Trump and the GOP have launched a coordinated, multifront campaign to subvert the 2026 election. But don't worry, America, it will fail. Trump has called for Republicans to "take over voting in 15 states in the country." That is what he said. Trump said:

Text printed in the Record (104 characters)

We want to take over. We should take over the voting. . . . Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)

It is in his own words. Trump has issued unlawful Executive orders to try to kill vote-by-mail. The administration is packed to the rafters with election deniers, including key election oversight positions. MAGA loyalists like Todd Blanche and Kash Patel have used the DOJ and FBI to torment election officials and foment lies with politically motivated investigations designed to sow doubt and instill fear. Trump's Republican allies in Congress keep pushing the SAVE Act, the most devious voter-suppression legislation Trump has ever dreamed up. Donald, when it comes to the SAVE Act, the courts have rejected it, Congress has rejected it, and even members of your own party have rejected it. Give it up. The SAVE Act isn't going anywhere. There is no way we are letting this administration feed Americans' personal data into an algorithm Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Russell Vought created and let it pick who gets to vote. Donald Trump made life harder and more expensive for the American people, and now he wants to make sure the American people can't hold him accountable at the ballot box. That is what Trump's speech is about tonight. But in America, voters choose their leaders; leaders do not choose their voters. Senate Democrats are going to fight like hell to make sure our elections belong to the voters, not to Donald Trump. The country does not belong to Donald Trump. The ballot does not belong to Donald Trump. The verdict does not belong to Donald Trump. It belongs to the American people. And this vote in November, they will deliver it.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Executive Session)

Pages S4120–S4121 · Official text

Now on Republican inaction on ICE, two more people have been gunned down in the street by Trump's ICE agents, and all Republicans have done is shrug their shoulders and point fingers. Senate Republicans know full well they were the ones who abandoned commonsense reforms to rein in ICE on multiple occasions. Yesterday, Senator Collins of Maine tried pinning the blame on Democrats even though she voted against an amendment requiring ICE to wear body cameras just last month. Absolutely shameless. Absolutely shameless. If Republicans had accepted our proposal for body cameras, warrant requirements, use-of-force standards, training, and other basic reforms used by every law enforcement agency across the country, these killings could have been prevented. Instead, Republicans jammed through a partisan bill that pumped tens of billions of dollars into Trump's rogue Agencies without any restraints whatsoever. So it was Senate Republicans who chose not to make reforms to ICE, as Democrats tried to push them. Americans know exactly who to blame for unleashing the chaos on the streets. Where were Senate Republicans when Trump immediately reinstated the vehicle stops policy that led to these killings? Where were Senate Republicans when the administration said ICE agents had "absolute immunity" after the Minneapolis murders? Where were Senate Republicans when we gave them opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to reform ICE? There is blood on the streets, and the blame is on the Senate Republicans. I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Waiving Quorum Call (Executive Session)

Page S4121 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Westercamp nomination.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Wyoming (Executive Session)

Page S4121 · Official text

Mr. President, over just the last couple of weeks, the people of Wyoming have celebrated two very important events: July 4, Independence Day, as America turned 250; and July 10, Wyoming Statehood Day. My home State of Wyoming turned 136 that day. We celebrated both of those great occurrences all across the State for a full week. We had the iconic Cody Stampede Rodeo in Cody, WY. We saw volunteers in Gillette serve over 4,000 hot dogs at the Independence Day community celebration. We saw the Boy Scouts in Sheridan serve over 1,000 pancake breakfasts. And my Rotary Club in Casper celebrated the values that started our country. We had Wyoming best-selling author C.J. Box read the Declaration of Independence at a community gathering in Carbon County. The streets were packed for the Independence Day parade in Cody, and people then gathered at Veterans Park for the annual "Let Freedom Ring" celebration. The seats were full for the Big Wyo Rodeo in Sheridan and the Casper Rodeo finals just this past Saturday night. Our entire congressional delegation attended parades and festivities all across the Cowboy State. This is the America that we saw these past 2 weeks. Yet there is another vision being offered to this country today, and we see it on the other side of the aisle. It is the vision being offered by the Democrats, and it is a dark vision, indeed. It is a vision of open borders, of high taxes, and of lawlessness. It is a vision that damages our communities and disrespects the values that Americans hold dear. Today's Democrat Party has taken a radical turn to the left. Today's Democrat leadership is enabling it. America's largest city--the hometown of the minority leader, Senator Schumer--is now being run by a professed socialist. Our Nation's Capital is about to elect one as well. People proclaiming to be socialists are winning Democrat primaries across the country. In Michigan, a Democrat front-runner for the U.S. Senate is campaigning with an extremist who blames America for the September 11 terrorist attacks. These were the attacks that 25 years ago cost the lives of 2,977 Americans. Extremism drives the Democrat Party, and its influence within the party is growing. Here is what they want: Democrats want open borders. Democrats want to defund the police. Democrats want to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats want to abolish the U.S. Border Patrol. Democrats want to weaken law enforcement. They want to make it harder to remove illegal immigrant criminals from our communities. Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court. They want judges who will rewrite the law and ignore the Constitution. Democrats want to abolish the electoral college. They want to make it possible for only a handful of big cities in blue States to control the selection of the next President. Democrats want higher taxes. They want hard-working American families to pay for healthcare for illegal immigrants. Democrats want to keep affordable, available, reliable American energy in the ground. That is today's Democrat Party. They are radical, they are extreme, they are dangerous, and they are scary. You may have noticed that, in the middle of a heat wave, the new Democrat mayor told New Yorkers to turn up their air conditioning to 78 degrees. Why? Because the New York power grid was collapsing. How could that be? Why was the New York power grid collapsing? Well, because New York Democrats--pressured by climate extremists--shut down reliable nuclear powerplants. Welcome to the Democrat Party of 2026. Alarmingly, in this very Chamber, Democrat leaders are cheering on the radical left. After socialists swept their primaries this summer, one Democrat Senator said that "this is a very good trend." Another said it is a sign that their party is "alive and well." Another said we are now seeing the "future of the Democrat Party." By contrast, Republicans continue to deliver results. We passed the Working Families Tax Cut law. We stopped the largest tax increase in American history. We put more money back into the pockets of millions of hard-working Americans. Ninety-six percent of Americans who make under $200,000 a year benefited from the Working Families Tax Cut law. Republicans secured the border. We passed the largest investment in border security in American history. We fully funded ICE and Border Patrol for the next 3 years, and we are deporting illegal immigrant criminals. The contrast is clear: Democrats stand for high taxes, open borders, and lawlessness. Republicans stand for freedom, liberty, and American greatness. America is worth defending. America is worth celebrating. America is worth fighting for. That is what Republicans are committed to doing, and that is what we did as the people of Wyoming over the Fourth of July. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Pete Ricketts (R-NE)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Lindsey Graham (Executive Session)

Pages S4121–S4122 · Official text

Pete Ricketts (R-NE)

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our colleague Lindsey Graham, who tragically passed away last weekend. Lindsey Graham was the definition of the word "patriot." He loved this country and dedicated his life to serving this country. He was from humble backgrounds. His parents ran a bar. And, again, tragically, he lost his parents at a young age. His mom died when Lindsey was 20, and his dad died when he was 22. And so, as a young man, he took over the care of his sister Darline, who was only 13 years old. He was the first in his family to go to college and then got a law degree, joined the Air Force. And to help take care of his sister, he adopted her so she could get his Air Force benefits. He served our country in the Air Force and in the National Guard and the Air Force Reserve, a total of 33 years, retiring at the rank of colonel and a Bronze Star. He began his career in politics in 1992 in the South Carolina Legislature and got elected to the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives, in 1994. He was the first Republican to be elected from his district since 1877. He served in the House for 8 years and then came to the Senate, 2002, taking over for Strom Thurmond. And he has been a dynamic personality in this body, and I have had the privilege to get to know him and call him my friend. Lindsey Graham was part of the glue for the Senate, and not just for Republicans but for Republicans and Democrats. He worked across the aisle. Just a few days ago, my colleague from Delaware was talking about how he worked with Lindsey Graham on a number of different items; one is a conservation fund that also fights terrorism. He remarked that Lindsey, in his way, was able to boil down why this was so important and had hats created that said: "Good for animals, bad for terrorists." And that was very typical of Lindsey because he could boil things down very simply to be able to make a point, almost like a country lawyer. He would say: How many people think that, for example, if Iran had a nuclear weapon, they would use it on us? Raise your hand. They would raise their hand. And he would say: So how many people think it would be bad if they got a nuclear weapon? All of those people would raise their hand. How many people think we should stop them from getting a nuclear weapon? They would raise their hand. That is the simple way that Lindsey would make his point. He was supersmart and had an incredible sense of humor. It was not often fun if you were on the other side of that sense of humor sometimes. In one of our Budget Committee hearings, Lindsey Graham was presiding, and we had one of our members who was going through all sorts of points and charts and so forth. And when the presentation came to an end, Lindsey Graham said something to the effect: Well, next time we are going to record that, and we are taking it down to Gitmo because it would be more effective down there. So you wanted to make sure that you were talking to the right audience and making your points quickly with Lindsey. He was also very charming and was very direct. When he would go talk to foreign leaders, he would be able to get across those simple ideas the way he did with audiences back at home and be able to express directly through humor, through charming them, to help them understand where their interests were aligned with our interests, how we needed to work together to be able to keep the people of their country safe and the people of our country safe. Lindsey was very clear-eyed about the dangers of dictators like Vladimir Putin. He understood, when Putin is losing, we are winning, we are safer. He was appalled by the invasion of Russia into Ukraine--that unprovoked, aggressive attack--and was a fierce advocate for supporting Ukraine, not only because of the injustice of what Russia is doing to Ukraine but because Lindsey understood what the threat to the United States and the people of America would be if Putin is successful; that if they are successful in Ukraine, they are going to go after a NATO member, and then we will have boots on the ground in Europe. Lindsey was trying to keep us safe by advocating for the Ukrainians. When Lindsey would see an issue, he would hop on a plane and go fix it, whether it was overseas or to my home State of Nebraska. He came to Nebraska several times. I loved the man. I had the privilege of spending time with him here over the last 3\1/2\ years. He liked Coke Zero and Riesling wines. He was charming, funny, intelligent, dedicated to this country. Our body and this country is losing a lot with Lindsey Graham. We are losing some of the humor we had. We are losing some the glue that holds us together. We are losing a fierce patriot, and our country is worse off for it. Susanne and I are praying for Darline and the rest of her family and Lindsey's staff at this tragic time and, indeed, for our entire country as we have experienced the loss of this larger than life patriot, Lindsey Olin Graham. Lindsey, I know you are looking down on us from upstairs, and you are going to do your best to guide us from up there. We really, really miss you. I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The Senator from Nebraska.

Pete Ricketts (R-NE)

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Thom Tillis (R-NC)

Mr. President, it is actually fitting. I just had somebody in the cloakroom tell me the last person that came to the floor and used the chart to draw on was none other than Lindsey Graham, so I will dedicate these comments to Lindsey.

Voter Identification (Executive Session)

Pages S4122–S4123 · Official text

Mr. President, when I was elected in North Carolina and ran the campaign to get us to a majority and become speaker, one of the promises that I made to the people of North Carolina is that we would pass a voter ID bill; we would be smart about it; we would get it cleared through the Obama Justice Department; we would implement it in a methodical fashion so that we could further increase the already acceptable levels of election integrity in North Carolina. It took a couple of years. It actually took a couple of losses before we got it done, but we got it done. So for anybody to accuse me of saying that I don't like voter ID, you ought to check your facts and take a look at the signature on the law that was ratified by then-Speaker Thom Tillis in the State of North Carolina. Why do I tell you that? To at least put forth my bona fides with respect to implementing complex legislation. I have been trying to explain for nearly a year that the SAVE Act--whether it is the SAVE Act, the SAVE America Act, the new SAVE legislation that is being proposed in the House, "SAVE Goes to Hollywood," "SAVE Goes to Hawaii," whatever the sequels are--all of them are fundamentally flawed and impossible to implement by this election. Now, let me explain why. In addition to actually having experience with legislating, ratifying, and implementing voter ID law in North Carolina, I also happened to be a partner at Pricewaterhouse, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and IBM Global Business Services. My entire career has been founded on implementation. When you look at implementation, you look at the complexity of what it takes to get anything done--even the most simple thing. The reason why businesses pay firms like Pricewaterhouse to do what we do is because details matter, planning matters, execution matters. Now, let's talk about the SAVE Act or the SAVE America Act or whatever the heck they are calling the next thing that they are talking about putting in the reconciliation bill. States fit into two categories when it comes to how they administer elections. There are 41 States that administer at a county level--and I'm doing this to better explain it to my friend the senior Senator from Utah--41 States at the county level. What does that mean? Well, in North Carolina it means that we have 100 counties, and we have the State. We have 101 election entities that would have to implement whatever we put into law in North Carolina. If you multiply that by the 41 States that do it the same way, we have almost 4,000--let's narrow it because somebody will say: Oh, you overestimated. We have over 3,000--it is actually somewhere around 3,600--3,000 governmental entities that have to implement the letter of this law, OK? So we will just go with 3,000. Keep it low. Now, we have nine States that actually administer at the State, county, and municipal level. That actually adds about another 7,000 governmental entities that would have to implement the letter of this law--whatever the law is, all right? The election is going to be held on the second Tuesday of November, right? We are August, September, October, right? So we have fewer than--let's just call it 100 days before the election. You are telling me that whatever proposal is being considered in the House can come and get done in the House, which it hasn't done, come to the Senate and get passed, go to the President's desk--let's say all of that--let's just say a miracle occurs. We can take it out of the Crock-Pot, put it in the microwave--we get it done in 2 weeks, right? OK. Well, 2 weeks from now happens to be about the first week of August, so that would be August, September, October--3 months after ratification to implement complex voter ID policy that is generally administered at the State level in time for this election. Well, it can't be implemented on day one, right? South Dakota actually starts voting 46 days before the election. No. 1, you have got to go back and tell these 10,000 different entities: We don't know what the timing is. We have got to implement this stuff. So your early voting, your absentee ballot voting, the people that requested ballots, the military members overseas that are actually getting teed up with the current laws--that is all off the books, and we are going to get you something new in 60 days. Folks, I have done implementation work. The math doesn't work. I have to believe that these people who are Ivy League educated, qualified to go to the Supreme Court, can do basic math. It can't be done. It can't be a serious effort. And if it is a serious effort, I would suggest that they engage somebody who has actually implemented it before, instead of assuming that they can because they simply can't. And so when I have somebody put a microphone up in my face and say: Why are you against voter ID? I would say: First, do your homework. I ratified it. I fulfilled a promise. We have solid elections in North Carolina. I am against it because people are selling you a bill of goods. When I had this discussion with the senior Senator from Utah, it was like: Well, you know, I understand that it doesn't work in practice, but it should work in theory. He didn't say that, but that is effectively how he responded to it. I don't work in a theoretical world. I grew up in a trailer park. I worked as a management consultant. I work in a practical world. And in a practical world, I don't care how much you want voter ID done, the only thing you are going to have in this election is 72 Members of the Senate who already have voter ID in their States--did you know that? You would think that we didn't have any. Mr. President, 36 States already have voter ID. You want to sit down here and talk about how you upped the bar, and you give people a year or two to get it implemented, fine. But don't fool the American people into thinking you can implement something of this complexity over 60 days. My God, it needed to happen 2 years ago. As a matter of fact, the senior Senator from Utah's legislature has recently changed their policy, which I think they should have called for years ago, of mass mailing ballots to everybody, right? This should be fairly simple. You are only going from mass mailing ballots to saying: Hey, we have got to request it, right? They decided to take 3 years to implement that. I would ask the senior Senator from Utah: Why don't we speed it up? Why don't we do it this year? If we can do something as expansive as all this that they have tried to do in the three different sequels to the SAVE Act, you can certainly do that in Utah, can't you? Because the effect of this bill would be to eliminate it anyway. So get `er done. Do it now. Or let's start being honest with the American people. We should figure out a way to get every State to get to voter ID. We should put in grants that say: If you hit this threshold, we will help you with the implementation; and if you don't, we are going to spend that money to audit your elections. That is fine. That is good governance. And that is giving the States the option to decide whether or not they want to up the ante and increase the integrity of their elections or expect an audit from the Federal Government if they don't. That is what I would be advising my client. This is what I am advising my client right now--the President of the United States--like CEOs that I have advised before: Mr. President, these people are misleading you if they are telling you that this can be implemented by November. The only thing that will occur is an undermining of the integrity of our elections right now. So, folks from North Carolina, our State motto is "Esse quam videri"--"To be, rather than to seem." This seems like a legit proposal, but it isn't, and it hasn't been for the last year because you couldn't have gotten it done with 10,000 election entities if we had passed it last July. So let's be honest with the American people. Let's focus on getting every State to have voter ID. Let's provide funding that lets the States opt into it and have a consequence if they don't in terms of audit. But let's stop the charade. Let's stop the distraction. Let's get the government funded. Let's use reconciliation if we need to, but let's not clog it up with another piece of policy airdropped by a Member of this Senate or the White House that will undermine this bill, undermine what we need to get done before the election. So the fact is, we are not going to have 10,000 people doing things radically by election day. What we are going to do if we continue down this path is to convince the American people that you can't count on your election results. And that is dangerous. That is irresponsible. If you see voting improprieties in your State, report it. There are tools right now to investigate them. But don't further undermine the confidence of the American people by saying: My goodness, they can't get this implemented? The election must be invalid. That is not an America that anybody should sign up for. We ought to do it right, and we have to do the work. So if I see a reconciliation bill come from the House with another failed attempt to confuse this election, I will use every device I have available to slow down the wheels of government until people cop a clue and do the math.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

The Senator from Louisiana.

Intel (Executive Session)

Pages S4123–S4124 · Official text

John Kennedy (R-LA)

Mr. President, I have a friend in Louisiana. He is the former State speaker of the house. And Charlie invented a new word in English. The word is "winky-doo." When the then-speaker of the statehouse wanted to describe someone acting dishonestly or denigrating your position or double-crossing you, the speaker would say: He tried to winky-doo me. He tried to winky-doo me. I have always loved that word. Intel, a fine American company, may be trying to winky-doo the American taxpayer. Last year--and let me say that again. Intel is a fine company. They have to compete in the market to manufacture chips like everybody else. I believe in free enterprise. I don't believe in state-supported capitalism, government-run capitalism. But Intel was not doing a very good job competing, and so the Federal Government decided to bail them out. The Federal Government--the Department of Commerce--gave Intel $8.9 billion cash, bought 10 percent of the company--not $8.9 million, $8.9 billion cash. Now, a fairminded person, when the Department of Commerce did this, could have said: Well, why Intel? Why not some other company? So that gave me pause. Fair point. I didn't like seeing the Federal Government picking and choosing among American companies about which should get $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money. I didn't like that. I still don't like it. If there is a fair competition, fine. And I get that manufacturing chips are important to America. I get all that. But the government is still playing favorites. When the government buys 10 percent of a company--$8.9 billion. Did I mention that is how much money Intel got? When the Federal Government takes a 10-percent equity position in a company, you can bet that the politicians, of which I include myself, are going to give a whole lot of advice to Intel--or any other company they buy the stock in. Sometimes that will be sound business advice, but sometimes it will just be raw gut politics. I don't like it. I don't like it. I know the new thing is neosocialism. I have watched new Members of Congress get elected, all of whom can--they all know the words to the Cuban national anthem, and they are all for socialism. I would ask them to take a look at the history of Cuba and the former USSR and China and Argentina and Venezuela--and I could continue going--and they should try to show me a country where socialism has worked. They can't. But I digress. The reason I didn't like this idea of buying 10 percent of the stock of Intel was because, as far as I was concerned, it was in the foothills of socialism. If a company needs help and we decide as a government that company is vital to America, God made these things called loans that are collateralized so that the company has to pay it back. But my wishes were not followed. The Department of Commerce gave Intel $8.9 billion cash in return for 10 percent of the company. Well, here is why I think Intel might have winky-dooed us. Intel just announced they were taking $5 billion of that, and do you know what they are doing with it? They are building a chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--in Ireland. I mean, I don't get it. And I know Intel is going to say: Oh, it wasn't the $8.9 billion that the American taxpayers gave us that we took and helped the Irish economy. Money is fungible, folks. Money is fungible. And they can say all they want "Oh, it wasn't American taxpayer money; it came from a different pot of money." Now, if this is true--and I saw it announced publicly that they are building a $5 billion chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--after $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money was given to them, as far as I am concerned, this deal is a breech birth; it is a total cockup. And somebody from the Department of Commerce or from Intel needs to explain this to the American people, because I don't like it. I didn't like it when we started giving money to particular companies going: Yeah, we like you, but we don't like you. You don't get any money, but you get money. If that decision will be made, it ought to be made by Congress, folks--your elected representatives. But it was done. But right after we did it, Intel took the money and invested it in Ireland. It triggers my gag reflex. I hope I am wrong. Intel, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this. Department of Commerce, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this. The Department of Commerce, I think, is going to say: Oh, Intel has outside investors in building this plant. That, to me, is a distinction without a difference. As far as I am concerned, the way it looks to me right now, we gave them $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money, and they said "Thank you very much" and went and decided to spend it in Ireland. And where I come from, we call that a three-wheeled shopping cart. So Intel needs to build that manufacturing plant in America or they need to give the American people their money back, and they need to do it now. And they need to explain it to the American people. Mr. President, we have to vote, but I have still got 5 minutes. That is a dangerous combination, but I am going to do it in 5 minutes.

Food Stamps (Executive Session)

Page S4124 · Official text

Mr. President, last year, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. One of the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill was that, in America, if you are hungry, we are going to feed you. We are going to give you food stamps. We don't want you to be hungry. But in return for those food stamps, if you are able-bodied, if you are not disabled and you don't have kids at home, you have to go get a job. You have to work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week or do community service for 20 hours a week--a fair trade. We said: We don't want to take food stamps away from people who need them; we want fewer people to need food stamps. And it is working. The full provision of the law is not even implemented, but so far, we have had 4 million people who were on food stamps--in those States that have implemented the work requirement, we have 4 million people who have either decided they don't need food stamps because they didn't want to work or they have gone to work for a living and they no longer need food stamps. Now, those are the only two possibilities. When you say "You have to work to get food stamps," and 4 million people say "We are off the food stamp rolls," one of two things has happened: You either really didn't need the food stamps or you went to work and you didn't need the food stamps. It is going to have an even more meaningful impact as more and more States implement the work requirement. It was long overdue. We ought to extend it to every social program in America. I am not talking about and we weren't talking about taking food away from a mother with a sick child in her arms. This rule just applies to able-bodied people who aren't disabled, who aren't elderly, and who don't have kids at home. And all we require is that they work 20 hours a week or go to school for 20 hours a week and get job training or do community service. It is working. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber are going to try to roll it back. We need to fight them tooth and nail. I made it. I am done. Peace out.

Cloture Motion (Executive Session)

Page S4124 · Official text

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (558 characters)

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 738, Kara Marie Westercamp, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade. John Thune, Ted Budd, Thom Tillis, John Barrasso, Tim Sheehy, Joni Ernst, Jon A. Husted, Katie Boyd Britt, David McCormick, Mike Rounds, John Boozman, Bill Cassidy, Rick Scott of Florida, Josh Hawley, Cynthia M. Lummis, Kevin Cramer, Steve Daines.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore

Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of Kara Marie Westercamp, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted "Yea."

Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is neccessarily absent. The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (924 characters)

Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murray Ossoff Padilla Paul Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden Hagerty McConnell Murphy The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 48, and the motion is agreed to. The motion was agreed to.

Legislative Session

Pages S4124–S4127 · Official text

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Alan Armstrong (R-OK)

Mr. President, for generations, Americans understood that building our critical infrastructure was not a partisan cause; it was a national responsibility. Previous generations built the powerplants, pipelines, highways, transmission lines, and mines that raised our standard of living, enabled the growth of our economy, protected our national security, and expanded opportunity across this country. The generations before us were builders, and their efforts gave us the great Nation we often take for granted today. They understood that large-scale infrastructure was not merely a collection of projects; it was the backbone of national prosperity. That broad consensus built out the most advanced infrastructure of its time, delivering affordable energy and economic growth. Over time, America showed that we did not have to choose between a strong economy or a cleaner environment. We could achieve both because we had the confidence to build and innovate. Today, however, we have moved away from that spirit of national purpose. Instead of building for the future, we are increasingly living off what previous generations were willing to imagine, finance, and construct. We have been relying on the fruits of their labor for decades. And today, we are beginning to see the harsh realities of infrastructure that is too aged and insufficient to support the next wave of growth. America's energy problem is not a lack of resources, nor is it a lack of ingenuity. It is our failure to build the infrastructure needed to move these resources to the people who need them. We should be honest about how we got here. Like a frog in the boiling pot, we have slowly gotten into this dangerous condition that holds our great Nation back. Over time, too many political leaders have become complacent. It became easier to oppose a project than to defend the need to build one. When every pipeline, transmission line, power generator, and industrial project is treated as something to stop rather than something to build responsibly, the costs of that do not disappear; they accumulate slowly, until families are paying more, reliability is deteriorating, and investment is moving elsewhere. Nowhere is that failure clearer than in the Northeast. Pennsylvania sits atop one of the most prolific natural gas formations not in the United States but in the world. Yet, only a few hundred miles away, families and businesses in New England pay some of the highest energy prices in the country because the region lacks sufficient pipeline capacity. That constraint creates an artificial scarcity. When demand rises during the winter, natural gas must serve both home heating and electricity generation. Because the pipelines cannot deliver enough fuel, prices surge, and generators turn to more expensive and dirtier alternatives, like fuel oil. We saw this during the 2018 bomb cyclone. New England was forced to burn additional oil and actually import LNG from Russia even though abundant natural gas was available nearby. And I will remind you that this is gas that is priced at an equivalence of $0.42 a gallon versus the $4 per gallon fuel oil that it was substituted with. That outcome was not caused by a shortage of American energy; it was caused by a shortage of American infrastructure and by years of political decisions that made blocking projects easier than building them. I saw this problem firsthand while leading the Williams Companies. We pursued the Constitution Pipeline, a 120-mile project designed to carry low-cost Pennsylvania natural gas to constrained markets in the Northeast. We had our Federal certificate. We had bought the pipe, we had bought the right-of-way, and we were actually in the process of clearing the route. But we were stopped by a State government that used section 401 of the Clean Water Act as a political veto, actually waiting until Earth Day to deny a permit for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with water quality. It is actually ironic. Opponents to natural gas projects act like they are saving the planet, but what their efforts really do is make us shift to energy sources that have much higher emissions, like having folks in New England burn fuel oil. Yes, New England and New York use more fuel oil for power generation than anywhere in our Nation. I also saw the chilling effect of judicial overreach. Williams built a billion-dollar pipeline project to move gas from Pennsylvania into New Jersey. It was completely constructed. It was up and running. It was operating at a 90-percent load factor during the peak of the winter load. Yet, 9 months after it was fully constructed and in service, the court vacated the certificate. Mr. President, put yourself in that board room for a minute. Imagine explaining to your board that you just spent a billion dollars on a project the government now says you have no license to operate. What do you think that board is going to say the next time you bring them a large project to build? These consequences are not limited to heating bills. The same infrastructure constraints leave our electricity system with less flexibility and almost no margin for error when demand surges. In fact, we saw this just 2 weeks ago in the PJM market--the Nation's largest power market. Electricity that normally trades at approximately $60 per megawatt-hour rose to roughly $300 per megawatt-hour. At certain locations on the system, prices actually reached up to $2,500 per megawatt-hour. In addition to that, PJM reduced and took emergency steps to restrict electricity to certain facilities, shutting down certain industries. Those wholesale price spikes do not remain confined to an electricity market; they eventually appear in the utility bills paid by families and businesses. I have spent a good deal of my time over the past several months sitting in the presiding chair where you are today, Mr. President, and listening to Democratic leaders rail against high gasoline prices. Well, gasoline is not the only energy bill families have to pay. In New York, retail electricity prices have risen by approximately 60 percent over the last 5 years--significantly more than gasoline prices have risen. Yet we hear far less outrage about the rising costs of keeping the lights on, heating a home, or running a small business. We cannot simply blame those increases on energy producers. In fact, wholesale natural gas prices have declined over the same 5-year period on an inflation-adjusted basis. We cannot blame them on instability in the Strait of Hormuz either. The problem is actually much closer to home. It is the result of years of complacency here in government and a political culture that rewarded saying no while ignoring the cost of failing to build. When we prevent pipelines and transmission lines from connecting abundant supply with growing demand, the consequences are actually predictable: Prices rise, reliability declines, and generators rely more heavily on costly backup fuels. The economic consequences extend far beyond the utility sector. A manufacturer, a data center, an industrial facility will not commit billions of dollars to a region if it cannot obtain reliable energy at a competitive price. Those projects move elsewhere, taking jobs, tax revenues, and economic opportunity with them. That is the central contradiction of our current system--America can produce extraordinary quantities of affordable energy, but our permitting process too often prevents us from being able to deliver it to the consumers. That is not an inevitable outcome. It is the result of political choices, and it can be corrected by political courage. That is why the opportunity before us is so significant, and this is why permitting reform is such a passion of mine. I constantly ask a simple question as I spend my time here in the Senate: Why wouldn't we do this? In this body, we often debate how much taxpayer money we should spend to solve a problem, but permitting reform presents us with something fundamentally different--an opportunity to strengthen the country that requires zero taxpayer investment. By cutting unnecessary delays and restoring predictability to the permitting process, we can attract private investment, lower consumer costs, create jobs, and grow this economy. It is, quite literally, economic opportunity lying on the ground. We simply need to pick it up. That leads me to another question: Who would actually be against this? Who would oppose a plan that attracts private investment back to our shores by providing the clarity that project developers desperately need? Perhaps our enemies would oppose it. They certainly see our inability to build as a huge vulnerability and as a weakness of our great democracy. They benefit when our projects are trapped in an endless loop of reviews, appeals, and litigation--or perhaps it is the cottage industry of litigants that has learned to profit from delay. These special interest groups have increasingly used administrative tools--originally intended to protect legitimate environmental interests--to stall or block projects for political purposes and end up doing more harm than good for our environment. They may not actually care about the environment, but I do. They need a villain to drive their fundraising. They have made the energy company that villain even though it is the utility--and particularly the consumer of the utility--who ultimately pays the price. Every day, Americans probably don't see the connection between something like a 401 water quality certificate and their skyrocketing utility bills, but I do. I have seen firsthand how these arbitrary standards are used as political footballs. When we allow these delays, we aren't hurting Big Energy; we are forcing American families to pay three times the rate for their power because of the massive risk that we have injected into the system. It is time to stop the regulatory creep and the endless litigation. It is time to embrace a fuel source-neutral approach that focuses on one thing: building a stronger, more secure America. Unless you are a trial lawyer looking for a payout or a foreign adversary looking for a weakened America, there really is no reason to be against this. This country was built by men and women who understood that great nations must be the best places to host tomorrow's industries. We should honor that inheritance not by merely maintaining what was left to us but by demonstrating the same courage and ambition. The defining geopolitical contests of this century will be won by the nations that can deploy their resources, not just those that possess them. America has the energy, the capital, and the technology to lead. The only remaining question is whether we have the political will to build the infrastructure necessary to turn those advantages into sustained global leadership. I am retired from the industry. I have zero political ambition beyond this seat that I hold right now. I am here because I have seen how this system is positioned to strangle our great country. Let's stop choosing short-term popularity over long-term economic and national security. We have a bill. Let's work together to legislate a solution. We cannot let what has been one of our greatest strengths turn into our biggest vulnerability. It is time for this Senate to show courage and lead. It is time to restore confidence in America's capacity to outrun our competition, and it is time to get America building again. With that, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome Senator Armstrong from Oklahoma in his delivering his maiden speech. It is an important part of this institution, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who weren't able to hear him in person will have a chance to listen to it and to get to know him during his stay here. Welcome to the Senate.

Alan Armstrong (R-OK)

Thank you very much.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Florida.

Rick Scott (R-FL)

Mr. President, I welcome my colleague from Oklahoma and thank him. I completely agree with his ideas. We have got to get energy production increased in this country and drive down the prices for all consumers. Mr. President, I rise today to seek the passage of my One Nation, One Visa Policy Act. Imagine if every State in the Union, on a whim, had the power to allow foreign nationals to travel to their States without a visa. In other words, imagine if American States allowed anyone, from anywhere, for any reason, to access American sovereign territory--even those from adversarial countries; that you could do it in any State. Most Americans would say that that would be an insane policy, and they would be absolutely right. Florida can't set its own visa policies, neither can, you know, New Mexico, Texas, California, or New York. That would be chaos, and it would make our immigration system meaningless. Currently, the only place in the United States where visa-free travel from foreign countries is allowed--the only place--is in the Mariana Islands, a territory. It is in this small U.S. Pacific island territory where foreign nationals can legally enter America without having a visa. Since 2009, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, has become a hotbed for birth tourism, which is a strategy used by citizens of foreign powers to deliberately undermine our Nation's immigration laws. Over 3,300 communist Chinese nationals have been born on these islands except they are also bona fide American citizens. They have passports, birth certificates, and Social Security cards. Keep in mind this is a territory where only 45,000 Americans live. The CCP and Chinese civilians found this loophole and have exploited it for birthright citizenship. You can be a full-fledged devotee of the CCP--you can actually hate America and hate our people and hate our way of life--and still abuse birth tourism to get a foothold in the country you seek to undermine and destroy. Now, come on. That is ridiculous. It all needs to end now. All the One Nation, One Visa Policy Act does is stop this visa-free travel from communist China to the United States. It doesn't ban travel from China--you can still come--but it says: If you are a citizen from China, which is our foremost adversary, you have got to get a visa. We have got to know who you are if you want to enter my State, any of our States, or any other sovereign territory of our country. You have got to get a visa if you are from communist China. It is common sense. I am grateful to Secretary Mullin, who, while a U.S. Senator, signed on to my letter to then-Secretary Noem that called for an end to China's participation in any Chinese visa waiver program. As Secretary Mullin continues to work to end China's visa-free privilege, I hope the United States Senate can offer the administration the support it deserves by passing this legislation immediately. I would also like to thank my friends, Senators Lee, McCormick, Budd, and Lankford, for cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3857 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there objection? The Senator from New Mexico.

Martin Heinrich (D-NM)

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, this bill will needlessly punish the Northern Mariana Islands and significantly--or I should say further--harm its tourist economy, which is the islands' largest source of revenue and jobs. There is a current program in place. The current program requires any visitors who come to the Northern Mariana Islands through this program to undergo a two-step vetting process by the Department of Homeland Security, including having an in-person interview. That program has already reduced visitation from the PRC from over 185,000 visitors down to 18 in 2026--not 18,000 but 18. The purpose is to ensure that visitors do not pose any risk to the United States but allow the islands' economy to grow. The current visa program was put in place after a long and thoughtful consultation between the United States and our territory the Northern Mariana Islands. It successfully balances both our national security needs and supports the economic vitality of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Northern Mariana Islands are more than just an American territory; they are one of our most important partners in the Pacific to actually counter China's influence in this critical theater. We can't ask them to further decimate their tourism economy. This legislation, as well meaning as it is, would certainly undermine the stability of our partner and American territory. We should not abolish the program. Instead, we need to ensure the Department of Homeland Security is doing sufficient screening to prevent visitation that poses a risk. The Northern Mariana Islands do not have a voice in the Senate, and that is why I am objecting today in support of our partner in the Pacific. While I oppose the passage of this bill, I do stand ready to work with Senator Scott and others to support the security of our Nation in a way that does not harm the people and government of the Northern Mariana Islands. So I object to the request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The objection is heard. The Senator from Florida.

Rick Scott (R-FL)

Mr. President, I recognize my colleague. We both are in the same position. We don't want to do anything that absolutely hurts the economy of the CNMI, but at the same time, we have got to figure this out to make sure that we don't have birth tourism. So I look forward to working with my colleague in a constructive manner to make sure that, you know, the Communist Party of China does not abuse this so as to have birth tourism there.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

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...

Pages S4127–S4129 · Official text

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"--Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 447, S.J. Res. 198.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (436 characters)

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 447, S.J. Res. 198, 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".

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Is there a sufficient second? The yeas and nays are ordered.

Mr. President, colleagues, at the beginning of this year, the Trump administration empowered unaccountable AI companies to delay and deny certain types of care in traditional Medicare. Now, Donald Trump promised--promised--that he would not touch Medicare, and, today, it is clear that that Trump promise has been broken. Seniors paid into Medicare out of every paycheck during their working years, and they did so with an expectation they would have an ironclad guarantee of affordable healthcare. Today, seniors in six States across America are discovering that care their doctor has recommended for them has been slowed or halted by a shadowy AI-driven third party. The consequences are not abstract. Seniors with severe back pain have to wait weeks for relief, upending their lives and leaving them suffering because of the bureaucracy of healthcare. The types of care that are subject to these restrictions are not frivolous: knee arthroscopies, nerve stimulations, steroid injections, cervical fusion. These types of procedures are the care that seniors rely on to stay mobile and pain-free in the aging process. Now, decisions between doctors and patients are overridden by for-profit AI contractors. The Trump administration's only defense of this model has been to point to the rapid rise of skin substitute procedures to justify their flawed experiment. The Trump administration's work doesn't pass the smell test. First, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services already have now lowered payment rates for this procedure; in doing so, closed the loophole driving the dramatic increase.

(Mrs. CAPITO assumed the Chair.)

Second, the skin substitute procedures only account for a tiny fraction of care under the model. In the case of Oregon's neighbor to the north, Washington State, skin substitutes account for less than 1 percent of services--less than 1 percent of the services, Madam Chair--subject to the prior authorization under this model. So the excuses hold no water. Prior authorization has run rampant in the American healthcare system. For-profit insurance companies are increasingly using this business tactic to block and deter care in order to increase their profits. I want to put a fine point on this. In 2024, insurance companies that sell Medicare Advantage plans denied more than 4 million prior authorization requests--just think about that: 4 million prior authorization requests. Of those denials, only 1 in 10 were appealed by a senior or their doctor. But when the denial was appealed, it was overturned 8 times out of 10. What this tells me is that prior authorization is being used to deny legitimate care, often acting as a bureaucratic hurdle meant to discourage seniors and their doctors from pursuing a course of treatment that might impact insurance company's bottom line. It is bad enough that this is the state of affairs in Medicare Advantage, but now the Trump administration is trying to import insurance company tactics into traditional Medicare. And that would mean that seniors who selected it precisely because they don't want to deal with the headaches and complexity of an insurance company would suffer. This is not a partisan issue. Many of my Republican colleagues have expressed concern about prior authorizations and the state of Medicare Advantage. I hope that they will stand with those of us today who want to tell the Trump administration to abandon an ill-advised experiment that seniors don't want. They didn't ask for it. It doesn't make sense. There is a lot of work to be done to improve both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage for seniors that count on the Medicare guarantee. And I have been working on that Medicare guarantee since the days when I was a codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. Let's work on that together, and we can start by ending this AI-driven prior authorization experiment. It is a mistake. We can't run the risk of it being sent to other parts of the healthcare system. I urge a "yes" vote. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Idaho.

Mike Crapo (R-ID)

Madam President, in response to the discussion that my colleague from Oregon has just engaged in, far too often, our Nation's healthcare system incentivizes low-value, high-cost services. For years, bipartisan policy makers throughout Capitol Hill and across administrations have endeavored to disrupt this flawed paradigm, especially in the Medicare Program. Unfortunately, despite progress to incorporate new value-based payment arrangements, Medicare's underlying reimbursement structure continues to rely heavily on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality of care. In addition to failing patients and providers, Medicare's perverse financial incentives contribute to massive waste and abuse. Well-meaning clinicians often face opaque coverage guidelines that can result in denied reimbursements, while malicious actors exploit bureaucratic vulnerabilities to defraud the program. Through the wasteful and inappropriate service reduction model--work WISeR--CMS is testing whether enhanced technology can help address these systemic failures. For a limited set of nonemergency services with a documented history of abuse and overuse, providers in select States must submit claims for review. Claims that meet existing Medicare coverage requirements are quickly approved, offering providers payment predictability. When issues arise, board-certified clinicians--not technological machines, board-certified clinicians--intervene to make the final decision. The potential benefit of this "detect and prevent strategy" is substantial. For example, Medicare spending on skin substitutes, one of the chosen WISeR model services, increased and--hear this--increased from $256 million in 2019 to $10 billion in 2024. It doesn't even take a technological machine to tell you that something is wrong there. Proactive, technology-based scrutiny could have detected this outlier spending growth and protected both patients and taxpayers. Regrettably, misinformation about this model has sparked fears of delays in essential patient care and additional burdens on providers. Later today, the Senate will proceed to a resolution to stop this important work of the WISeR model. Every Member of this body agrees that patients should have access to high-quality care, providers deserve predictable payment for services, and avoidable waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare should be stopped. Ending this pilot program prematurely will deprive CMS of a useful tool to accomplish each of those goals. And I urge my colleagues to consider the facts and oppose this resolution. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, we don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of fighting inefficiency, fighting fraud. We have been working on those issues, as the chair of the Finance Committee knows, together wherever possible. Unfortunately, what we have seen in this experiment is that we are not dealing with inefficiency and fraud. We are forcing patients to come back again and again and again. That just defies common sense. And on the issues like skin substitutes, that has been addressed through a payment process, payment policy reform, to get at the incentives and wasteful utilization. So on the points that the minority is making, the reality is patients are not going to get care, and we are not going to make sensible changes as we have in other areas to deal with fraud and inefficiency. That is why we ought to be voting for what we are trying to do today on the Democratic side. I yield back and hope we will have a bipartisan vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Washington.

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Madam President, I wanted to talk today about not just how Republicans are making healthcare more expensive but also how they are making it just plain worse for seniors. President Trump came into office saying he would not cut Medicare, but that was clearly a lie because right now his administration is trying to privatize Medicare; in part, by putting AI between Medicare beneficiaries and their healthcare. In January of this year, under Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz's leadership, CMS began this pilot program that uses AI to require prior authorization in traditional Medicare for the first time ever, and it is set to run for 6 years. They call it the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction Model. Well, they got the wasteful and inappropriate part right. The WISeR Model uses AI to deny vulnerable seniors the care they need and that their doctors recommend. Not only that, but the for-profit contractors that conduct this prior authorization are paid a percentage of the cost of care that they deny. They are literally incentivized to rip healthcare away from seniors because that is best for their bottom line. When your business model relies on denials, denials are what seniors are going to get, and that is perverse. WISeR was rolled out in the beginning of this year in my home State of Washington and five other States without safeguards and without any transparency and without the best interests of Medicare beneficiaries at the heart of this program. President Trump is saying: Forget the doctors who went to medical school and took an oath to do no harm. AI knows better when it comes to healthcare decisions for our seniors. The consequences of that poor judgment are real, and they are life-threatening. I hear from Medicare patients in Washington State all the time. They are suffering debilitating pain for weeks because they are not getting the care they need, thanks to this harmful model--patients like Joanne. She is a Medicare beneficiary from Quilcene, WA. She went to her doctor for severe pain. An MRI showed that a herniated disk was pressing on her sciatic nerve. Joanne's doctor prescribed an epidural injection to help ease that pain. This was standard, routine care--care that, before this year, she would have been able to get quickly after it had been recommended by her doctor. But because of this WISeR Model, she had to wait 6 weeks to get approval. That means, thanks to WISeR, Joanne had to deal with unnecessary, unrelated pain for 6 weeks. Because of this nonsense delay, her day-to-day life was disrupted and the burden fell on her then to fight for the care she needed. This is simply outrageous, but that is also WISeR working by design, and that is a direct impact of the Trump administration's actions. We have seen way too many stories like Joanne's from States that have been selected for this pilot program. No way should an algorithm decide if seniors should get the care they need. That is exactly why I join my colleagues here in introducing a resolution to overturn this model. And I want all of my colleagues to join me in voting for it so we can make sure seniors in my State and all over the country can, once again, receive their healthcare on time and without interruption. Let's just use our common sense. It is clear as day that some AI models should never be at the wheel making healthcare decisions left and right. And it is not just patients I have heard from. I have met with healthcare providers all over my State. Whether it is a rural hospital or a doctor in Seattle, no one--no one--has had anything good to tell me about prior authorization in traditional Medicare. Now, I ran for office because I believe regular people deserve a say in how their government is run, and that is especially true when it comes to the government deploying AI technology. I don't know any senior--Republican or Democrat--who asked President Trump to let AI decide if their doctor-recommended treatment was necessary. Of course, AI can help make things more efficient or do good things. That is not what the WISeR Model is doing. So let's get to the crux of it. As a country, we make a promise to American seniors: If they paid their taxes throughout their careers, they earned their Medicare coverage. Full stop. WISeR breaks that promise to seniors with these senseless AI-driven prior authorizations that deny and delay care. Let me be clear, many seniors choose traditional Medicare over other options because traditional Medicare rarely requires prior authorizations. People choose traditional Medicare because they want to make their healthcare decisions with their doctor, not with a private company that is out to make a profit. Simply put, the WISeR Model--which, again, delays and denies necessary care to Medicare patients--is reckless, and it is irresponsible. I want my Republican colleagues to join us in voting to get rid of WISeR once and for all because this should not be a partisan issue. We all have seniors in our States that deserve the highest level of care without having to deal with redtape and delay. Thanks to Trump, AI is getting in between our seniors and their healthcare in Arizona, in New Jersey, in Ohio, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and in my State of Washington. We have an opportunity to stop this harmful experimental pilot program before more seniors are harmed. No senior in America should have to appeal their pain and suffering to a machine. To my colleagues, if it were your spouse or parent who needed care, whom would you want to decide if they get their treatment, their doctor or a for-profit algorithm? Would you want them to suffer in pain for weeks for care that they are entitled to? I know what my answer is. Let's maintain the promise of Medicare. Let's pass this resolution. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Fortunately, for--let me say to Senator Murray that I so appreciate your presentation, and particularly talking about the algorithms. And, also, the fact is that under what you have described very clearly, the big winner under this flawed experiment is a bunch of middlemen who are trying to profit off denials, and not the people who really desperately need care. So I very much appreciate it, and Oregon is proud to be a partner with Washington State in leading the country to get rid of this very flawed idea. And I thank you for your remarks.

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Thank you. Thank you.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, I would ask consent to start the 1:30 vote now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.

The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted "nay" and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) would have voted "nay."

Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) is necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (871 characters)

Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Young Hagerty McConnell Murphy Wicker The motion was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong). The majority leader.

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)

Page S4129 · Official text

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 775.

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 senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Benjamin M. Flowers, of Ohio, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit.

Cloture Motion (Executive Session)

Page S4129 · Official text

Mr. 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 senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion (Executive Session)

Page S4129 · Official text

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Florida.

Working Families Tax Cut Act (Executive Session)

Pages S4129–S4130 · Official text

Ashley Moody (R-FL)

Mr. President, I rise today to share some good news with the United States of America. We just celebrated not only the birthday of this Nation--250 years--but we also celebrated the anniversary of the Working Families Tax Cut Act being signed into law. As my State's newest Senator, this was an important piece of legislation for many reasons, and I will share what it has meant for hard-working Floridians. But I championed this package, and I am so excited to say that we were able to deliver major wins through this legislation. It is the largest tax cut in the history of our Nation, and I believe, on the birthday of the United States of America, it was important to recognize that the people most wisely know how to spend their money. And we have seen such positive results already for Floridians and Americans alike. I just traveled around the State of Florida last week, as all of our colleagues did, when we went back to our States and met with our constituents. And I can tell you people were excited, and they were excited because they were just coming off of having to file their taxes. And they are already seeing what this is going to mean for their families. We got together with law enforcement officers--hundreds of them--where we highlighted no tax on overtime. A lot of people don't think about how no tax on overtime helps those that wear a badge and pick up extra shifts and put their lives on the line to protect us. Now they get to keep more of that money when they do so. We celebrated no tax on tips at a restaurant called Beth's Burger Bar, and so many of their waiters and waitresses were excited about keeping more of their money. We talked to parents about child-owned investment accounts over at a local school in St. Cloud. Floridians are just excited, and they have a right to be. We can proudly boast that we now have the highest average tax refund of any State in the Nation, and that is great news for Floridians. But it is not just Floridians. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of these new tax cuts. Over 7.5 million individuals claimed no tax on tips, and 29 million Americans have claimed no tax on overtime. For a waitress working late shifts or a hotel worker that drives Florida's tourism economy, that means they are keeping more of that money. For the nurse or, as we discussed, for the law enforcement officer picking up extra shifts, the linemen that so often have to come in and restore power in Florida after storms--when they are putting in extra hours--factory workers putting in extra hours to support their families, that no tax on overtime rewards hard work instead of taxing it. And these tax cuts weren't just for workers. They were also for seniors, and in Florida--"the senior State"--this was incredibly meaningful. In Florida, we are home to the largest senior--one of the largest senior--populations in the Nation, with more than 5 million seniors. That is more seniors than many of the populations in the entirety of some of my sister States around the Nation. And so I argued very hard for the provisions that eliminated taxes on Social Security benefits and provided additional relief through the enhanced deductions for seniors. So there were two ways we were trying to make it easier on our seniors. More than 35 million seniors have already claimed the enhanced deduction, and that helps them keep more of that retirement income. So after a lifetime of work, seniors deserve to keep more of what they earned working, not send it back up here to Washington, where we keep showing--time after time after time these days--that so much of it has gone to fraud. And so making sure we are keeping money in the pockets of hard-working Americans is incredibly important. So I just want to underscore what that meant--that Working Families Tax Cut Act--just this past filing season. Mr. President, 97 percent of all filers in the Nation--97 percent--received a tax cut. American families and workers claimed $82 billion in individual relief directly from the act, and Americans received $325 billion in total tax refunds--$325 billion in total tax refunds. And as I said before, Floridians can brag that they brought home the largest average Federal tax refund in the country. Our State filers brought home an average refund of $4,500, compared to the national average of $3,300. Just as important as delivering tax relief and beefing up some of those deductions were for Americans and our seniors, we also made sure that that act invested in our next generation, our children. Through the package, we thought outside the box. We did something that has never been done before, and we created child-owned investment accounts for every American child born, which was designed to give our next generation a real jump start on the American dream. And a lot of people still do not know this. It shocked me, as I was traveling around Florida last week. And these were folks who had just had babies, and they did not know that their child that they were holding was already eligible for $1,000 into an investment account. For every baby born, from 2025 through 2028, whose parents open up one of these accounts--and it is so easy to do, incredibly easy to do--the U.S. Treasury will invest $1,000. If the child doesn't touch it--and you can add to it too. But if you don't touch that original investment, by the time they are 18 and they are on their own, you can use it for a vacation, for a downpayment on a house. There are ways that you can use that. It is almost $8,000. If they don't touch it at all, it is projected it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars upon retirement--close to a million dollars, if not more. This is incredible news. So when you are hearing about all of the fraud that we keep uncovering or where we sent millions of dollars to some foreign country to help some crazy program for foreign nationals, today, Americans can go to irs.gov/trumpaccounts and sign up and get $1,000 for their kids. And the lens through which we viewed this and the lens through which we approached this and argued for this historic act was: How do we reorient? How do we course-correct and start making decisions on behalf of this country to invest in Americans, American children, and American industries first? More than 5.5 million child-owned investment accounts have been opened nationwide so far, and 1.4 million are eligible for the $1,000 pilot program contribution. So in addition to these accounts, 40 million families have taken advantage of the enhanced child tax credit that we permanently doubled and expanded through the Working Families Tax Cut Act. So not only do we have the investment accounts for these children, we also now have given a double--permanently--child tax credit on your taxes. So, of course, preparing our next generation for success will require more than just financial security, but this was such a great start toward that end. And if I can get one thing through to American parents right now, it is easy to sign up. There is money waiting for your children right now from the U.S. Treasury because we want to set them up for success. But we didn't stop at financial investment. Education is also important. And through this Working Families Tax Cut Act, of which we are now celebrating the 1-year anniversary--and many of the provisions that we all fought hard for, over on this side of the aisle, are now just going into effect--we also made sure that there was a Federal tax credit scholarship that could help millions of students across the Nation get education of their parents' choice. Two decades ago, we did this in Florida. We had a low graduation rate. I want to say it was in the sixties. We started with our first school-choice statute. Two decades later, we are out now at over 92 percent graduation rate. It shows you that not every child learns the same, and parents know what their children need. And educational needs should not be based on the ZIP Code in which they are born. Florida has figured that out. We figured that out some time ago. And now I am here as Florida's newest U.S. Senator, announcing a great piece of legislation that will expand this approach to children across our Nation. But even for States where you have universal school choice--and there are a few of us like Florida, but others have started with school-choice statutes--understanding that each child learns differently, you can still take advantage of the Working Families Tax Cut Act because it allows for the deduction of education expenses for tutoring, for technology, and for so many of those supplemental education expenses that come along with education that parents choose. So Floridians are still winning, even though we already have school choice. When parents have more choices, we know--and we have seen the data show--that students are more likely to find the educational path that fits their unique talents and goals. And that, ultimately--for this country, for our Nation's forward success--will mean a stronger workforce. It will mean more innovation and a stronger economy, not just for the State of Florida--for which I champion every day--but for our entire Nation. At the end of the day, families and small businesses know how to spend their money far better than some of these bureaucrats that are making decisions in the bowels of some of these Agencies. And we are uncovering, day in and day out--and we will continue to do so--exposing where some of those choices went awry and where some of those choices led to corruption and crime. But we are here today to celebrate what we have been doing right and how we have been course-correcting with our intent to focus on bettering the lives of American families, American workers, and this Nation moving forward. So I believe that less taxes will mean more opportunity, more growth, more freedom for hard-working Americans, and I am incredibly excited to be standing here today as one of the newest U.S Senators that helped deliver this win last year. And as we are watching it go into effect and see the success and the effect it is having on our constituents, it is certainly something to celebrate, and I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to do so today. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Michigan.

MERIT Act (Executive Session)

Pages S4130–S4131 · Official text

Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the MERIT Act, the Minimum Experience Requirements for Intelligence Transition Act--a lot of words, but the bill is simple. It requires anyone serving as the Director of National Intelligence--even in a temporary capacity--to have extensive national security experience. It is common sense. You don't hand the keys to America's intelligence community to someone who has no experience, regardless of party or political loyalty. The Director of National Intelligence is a powerful job, and I know because I was there at the creation. I was one of the first people at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, when it was stood up. I was seconded there as a CIA officer. I helped stand it up after Congress created it so that we never again miss a terrorist attack, like we did on 9/11. The Office uses powerful tools to gather secrets from our foreign adversaries, like China and Russia, from terrorist networks, and from threats to our homeland. But it is that power in the wrong hands that I want to talk about today. America's national intelligence community can be used to gather information not just from our foreign adversaries but, if turned against us, against the American people, it can be used to monitor Americans, to target political opponents, to dig through records, to punish critics, to help any President relitigate an election. Right now, that is where we are.

Bill Pulte (Executive Session)

Page S4131 · Official text

President Trump has installed a loyalist, Bill Pulte, as the Acting Director of National Intelligence. He has zero national security experience. He has worked with the private sector and in real estate. He has never had a security clearance before this job. He has never handled classified information before this job. And now, today, at this moment, he heads up 18 different intelligence Agencies in the United States. He used to be the head of Federal Housing--that was his job given by President Trump--and he demonstrated his character at that job. He used Housing records--private Housing records--to go after President Trump's enemies. Just think of what is possible with him at the top of our intelligence community. Now, President Trump placed him there to do two things: One, to focus on politicizing our elections; and, secondly, to use the intelligence community for the goals he has because he is obsessed with meddling with both. You just have to use President Trump's own words to understand the story here. This isn't hyperbole. At the State of the Union, President Trump declared that the only way Democrats could win in the midterms is if they cheat. Just weeks earlier, he called for Republicans to "nationalize" elections in 15 states. This year alone, he has repeated claims that the elections are rigged more than 100 times. Those words have been backed up by action. He has attempted to seize ballots in Georgia, my home State of Michigan, and Arizona. He has sued 30 States in total for their voter rolls. He has pushed Congress over and over again to pass the SAVE America Act, which would disenfranchise millions of voters across the country. He dismantled the Election Assistance Commission, which helps every State carry out their elections. He has pushed the postal service to restrict mail-in voting. He has refused to rule out sending U.S. uniformed troops or law enforcement to the polls to interfere in the elections come November. And he has pressed the Supreme Court to go after and gut parts of the Voting Rights Act, allowing States to silence the voters, particularly minority voters. Second, he has tried to weaponize our intelligence community. He has declassified information to support false claims about elections and sow doubt in our democracy. He has directed the CIA, the NSA, and other intelligence Agencies to target his enemies. He has created a weaponization working group to implement that order. And he has sent the former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to raid ballots in Fulton County, GA; something that the intelligence community has no business doing. Now, President Trump is giving a speech tonight. Bill Pulte is now at the center of this. President Trump was very open; he tweeted about putting him in this job specifically to use the intelligence community's power to support his false claims. Tonight, in the President's address to the Nation, he is expected to say how, again, our elections are being rigged and attempt to cherry-pick intelligence to declassify. But let us remember: Whatever he brings up, President Trump's team already saw what happened in 2020. He was the President of the United States during those elections. If his intelligence community at that time saw information, looked it over, and then decided that the election wasn't rigged, that was because that was what was presented to them as factual. You are telling me that the President now, all these years later, wants to relitigate what he was in charge of in 2020, and choosing to do it 3 months before the midterm elections. Call me skeptical. And all of this is happening as Bill Pulte is right there as our Acting DNI. Tulsi Gabbard going down to Georgia was not enough to soothe the President. Bill Pulte is now his yes-man to do just that. He has gone from being unqualified for this role to dangerous to democracy. With the bill, we will ensure that people who serve as the Acting Director of National Intelligence actually have some national security experience needed to do this job, they treat it responsibly, not on behalf of one party, not on behalf of one man but on behalf of Americans, to keep us safe. That is the mandate of the intelligence community. It is what we were trained to do--and I say that as a CIA officer--and this President is corrupting that with his choice as DNI. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senator from Washington.

Medicare (Executive Session)

Pages S4131–S4132 · Official text

Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Mr. President, today, we are faced with a critical choice here in the U.S. Senate and across the country about the future of traditional Medicare. We had an opportunity to protect Medicare, the thing that seniors care about most, and they wanted to hear from us that we were going to do that. I am not sure that is what transpired. People don't want to have corporations or insurance companies tell them about traditional Medicare. They want that relationship to be about the doctor-patient relationship. If you are on Medicare, you go to your doctor; you ask them what he thinks should be done; he basically tells you; and then you receive your Medicare treatment. Well, Medicare is a promise. And that promise is made when we pay into that, as taxpayers, and we expect to get the care that we need. But in this case, there are those in the Trump administration who are trying to change that obligation. Instead of having your doctor tell you what you need, they are trying to push an AI-driven software program that will tell you in advance--in advance--you don't even get that treatment. So, instead of relying on your doctor's advice, instead they are telling you, you do not get to hear what the doctor ordered. This is very troubling because this might be the way private insurance works; and many Americans know what it is like to be on the phone with an insurance company telling you they are going to deny your benefits. But they certainly don't, for traditional Medicare, want an AI app telling you in advance you don't even get the Medicare that you have paid into. More than 700,000 Washingtonians and 28 million Americans have chosen the Medicare program because they want their healthcare decisions made by their doctor. If they don't, you can choose Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is different. But on January 1 of this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched an application--driven by AI--euphemistically called the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction Model, known as WISeR. WISeR is an AI-driven prior authorization program being piloted in six states: Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and in my home State of Washington. This model inserts a black box computer algorithm into the decisions that should be being made by a physician and the patient. It puts a layer of bureaucracy between seniors and the care their doctors have recommended. In April, with the help of the Washington State Hospital Association, my office released a report examining the impacts of this application on seniors in my State. What we found was deeply troubling. Washington patients are waiting up to four times longer to complete procedures covered by this model. Procedures that took approximately 2 weeks to get taken care of are now taking months. In Washington alone, more than 18,600 people receive services now subject to this WISeR, and people in the Nation, it is about 1.1 million. That is 1.1 million people who could face delays or denials for care. Michael Edgerly is a 78-year-old from Cle Elum in Washington, who spent 22 years serving his community as a mail carrier. He left his job with scoliosis and degenerative joint disease. His neurosurgeon recommended a nonopioid--a nonopioid--treatment, an epidural steroid injection, to manage this serious and severe chronic pain. But what did the AI app WISeR tell him? Nope. System delayed. He went on for weeks and weeks living in constant pain, which a doctor--if he was talking to a doctor--would have just said: I approve this treatment. But, no, he was forced into an AI app approval process that took longer and longer and longer to get this coverage. Another constituent Keith Magnuson of Seattle who used to be an extremely active man who could regularly walk 6 miles a day, now, because of a lumbar spinal stenosis, he can barely walk 100 yards without severe pain. His doctor recommended a minimally invasive procedure called MILD which is commonly used by physicians covered by Medicare. But, again, the WISeR model put in his treatment and said it was denied. As a result, this once-active man had to significantly scale back even his daily life all because of an AI model telling him he was denied. Michael and Keith are not isolated cases. At the University of Washington Medical Center alone, our report found that more than 100 patients were waiting for similar approvals. What makes this even more concerning is that many of the procedures included in the WISeR model are nonopioid pain treatments. That means we are trying to get off of the opioids, not prescribe them. There are alternatives. But this AI model for Medicare, even though your doctor might have said otherwise, "go ahead and do it," is now denying you or taking weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks to get you the approval. These treatments provide patients with critical alternatives to addictive medicines, and we need to continue to get them to our constituents. In a time when our country continues to face an opioid crisis with more than 50,000 overdose deaths annually, we should be making it easier for patients to access these nonopioid treatments, and we should not enable a system where contractors have financial incentives to delay or deny care. That is not efficiency. These concerns are not just coming from me; they are coming from seniors, physicians, and healthcare organizations. Organizations like AARP and the American Medical Association have warned that the impact of this program on aging Americans is real. I am hearing every day from my patients, from patients in my State--including the two I mentioned--who have been negatively impacted by this WISeR model. I brought this up at an important Senate Finance Committee with the Secretary of HHS and have said: This has to stop. I do believe AI has enormous potential to improve in healthcare and healthcare research. I do think it is going to help us find some new things. But technology should not be used today, on programs that are guaranteed for our citizens, to now be interrupted and delayed by an AI model instead of allowing them to talk to their doctor. Again, private insurance can do whatever it wants. Medicare Advantage can do whatever it wants. But traditional Medicare should not be subject to an AI model denying people things that the doctor wants to order. There is nothing, in my mind, innovative about using a computer to tell seniors they can't get the care their doctors prescribe. Unfortunately, this model that is now in six States is being tested, but the administration has made it clear it expects to expand this nationwide. If you don't represent a State where it is being deployed, I encourage you to get up to speed on this. The Senate, in this last vote, just had a chance to stop it, but we didn't. So I am asking my colleagues to please get educated on how devastating this can be for individual lives and ask yourselves if you believe in traditional Medicare and the doctor-patient relationship. If you do, I guarantee you we will force this administration to stop using this AI tool to deny care for our seniors. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd)

The majority leader.

Executive Calendar

Pages S4132–S4135 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 718, Calendar No. 783 through Calendar No. 812 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Space Force, Air Force, with the exception of PN970-2; Army, with the exception of PN1061, Theresa M. Long; PN1015, Mark R. Berube and Mandi A. Samples; PN1017, Joel A. Arends and Michael D. Thompson; PN1072, Phillip T. Buckler; PN1065, Samuel A. Smith; Marine Corps, with the exception of PN681-4; Navy, with the exception of PN835; PN925, PN990, Robert J. Moreno and Joshua Q. McCright; and PN1029, Kelly Cruz; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is ordered. The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:

Text printed in the Record (11,874 characters)

The following named officers for appointment in the United States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Lt. Gen. Calvert L. Worth, Jr. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Brig. Gen. Jason B. Nicholson The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Col. Scott C. Mills The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: Brig. Gen. Mark W. Siekman The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Maj. Gen. Paul D. Moga The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: Col. Bryan M. Bailey Col. Gregory B. Berry Col. Robert M. Degregorio Col. Brandon M. Douglass Col. James S. Doyle Col. Daniel J. Ebrecht Col. Kyle H. Goldstein Col. Jason M. Grandy Col. Jesse L. Hamilton Col. Benjamin R. Harrison Col. Brandon M. Kelly Col. Rodney E. McCraine Col. Nicci S. Rucker Col. Kristine B. Smith Col. Roland C. Tsui Col. Sheila W. Wilds The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Col. John W. Sannes The following named Army National Guard of the United States officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12211: Col. Michael D. Armstrong Col. Jason S. Baker Col. Timothy C. Baldwin Col. Dennis A. Bickett Col. Jeffrey M. Bilodeau Col. William L. Blanco Col. Olen C. Bridges Col. Matthew D. Calton Col. Maxime C. Casteleyn Col. Thomas P. Compitello Col. Jeffrey R. Cree Col. David E. Crenshaw Col. Adam M. Curry Col. Chad W. Daniels Col. Anthony W. Dennis Col. Kristin L. Derda Col. Russel K. Des Jardins Col. Michele D. Edwards Col. Matthew J. Elder Col. Ian L. Fawks Col. Todd A. Fitzpatrick Col. Bradley M. Frank Col. Todd R. Fredricks Col. Brett J. Gagnon Col. Peter G. Garver Col. Russell W. Gibson Col. Paul C. Gravely Col. Michael J. Grzybowski Col. Stephen T. Guertin Col. Christopher M. Guilmette Col. Willus B. Hall Col. William B. Hanna Col. Russel M. Harden Col. Louis P. Hawkins, Jr. Col. David M. Helfrich Col. William L. Henry Col. Seth T. Hible Col. Ronald D. Hogsten Col. Vance R. Holland Col. Jeramy D. Hopkins Col. William L. Irby Col. Barry C. Jackson, Jr. Col. Michael J. Jochen Col. Aaron A. Kelsey Col. Robert J. Kincaid, Jr. Col. Kurt K. Kobernik Col. John M. Krueger Col. William W. LeCates Col. Bobby J. Lee, Jr. Col. Michael M. Majors Col. Shane M. Martin Col. Michael D. McCoy Col. William T. McKnight Col. Shawn M. Miller Col. Juan M. Mora Col. Corey J. Norris Col. Jan M. Oleen Col. Eric D. Orcutt Col. Joseph Paladino Col. Chantry T. Parker Col. Jeremy G. Pfeifer Col. Charles R. Rankin Col. Christopher S. Ratcliff Col. Andrew M. Ratcliffe, III Col. James D. Reese Col. Marocco V. Roberts, Jr. Col. Marci J. Sam Col. April L. Sapp Col. Rodney D. Seaba Col. Derek M. Smith Col. Tiffany M. Sneed Col. Kurt K. Southworth Col. Mark C. Stevens Col. Brian J. Stramaglia Col. Cody J. Strong Col. Richard M. Sudder, II Col. Rodney K. Tatum, Jr. Col. Davis K. Ulricson Col. Augusto Villalazhiguero Col. William H. Wagner Col. Robert W. Walker, Jr. Col. Kenneth R. Walker, Jr. Col. Kenneth J. Walsh, Jr. Col. Joe W. Warren, Jr. Col. John M. Wenzel Col. Christopher J. Weskamp Col. Michael A. Wilson Col. Jason L. Wisehart Col. Roger B. Zeigler The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Stephen W. Aldridge Capt. Joseph A. Baggett Capt. Thomas T. Bodine Capt. David S. Cox Capt. John D. Craddock Capt. William D. Gallagher Capt. Christopher F. Hill Capt. Jeffrey W. Hill Capt. Jeffrey Juergens Capt. Thomas M. Ogden Capt. Eric J. Rozek Capt. William A. Shafer Capt. Aaron J. Taylor Capt. Clifford W. Toraason The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Sean P. Barbabella The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Matthew L. Bolls Capt. Michael S. Carl The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Jeffrey P. Buschmann Capt. Christopher D. Eng. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Robert R. Christian The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Eric M. Gardner The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Capt. Ryan Stormer The following named Army National Guard of the United States officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 12203 and 12211. Brig. Gen. Robert F. Paoletti The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: Col. Tanya E. Simmons Col. Neil E. Thowe The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: Col. Dane M. Sandersen The following named officer for appointment in the United States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Col. Frank Diorio, Jr. The following named officers for appointment in the United States Space Force to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Col. Mark C. Bigley Col. Ryan P. Frazier Col. Jared A. Hoffman Col. Jason N. Schramm Col. Clifford V. Sulham Col. Phillip A. Verroco Col. Eric J. Zarybnisky The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10 U.S.C., section 601: Maj. Gen. Daniel T. Lasica The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10 U.S.C., section 601: Maj. Gen. Larry R. Broadwell, Jr. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10 U.S.C., section 601: Brig. Gen. Jason D. Voorheis The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S C., section 601: Maj. Gen. David J. Sanford The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Lt. Gen. David R. Iverson The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Maj. Gen. Curtis D. Taylor The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Vice Adm. Christopher S. Gray The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Rear Adm. Paul C. Spedero, Jr. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Rear Adm. Brad J. Collins The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: Rear Adm. Marc J. Miguez The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: Capt. Patrick W. Finney Capt. Robert C. Gerstemeier Capt. Harold M. Kim Capt. Andrew R. Needles Capt. Sara J. Taylor PN969--2 AIR FORCE nomination of MATTHEW T. ANDERSON, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN1058 AIR FORCE nomination of Anh T. Nguyen, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1059 AIR FORCE nomination of Jenna L. Stewart, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1080 AIR FORCE nominations (37) beginning ANNA M. ADKINS, and ending KARINA A. ZUNIGA, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1081 AIR FORCE nominations (20) beginning LIOR ALJADEFF, and ending BENJAMIN B. WINSTON, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1082 AIR FORCE nominations (142) beginning JASON K. ADAMS, and ending YOU XU, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN974 ARMY nominations (15) beginning JOHN M. BRANNING, and ending CHARLES W. WHITE, IV, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN1013 ARMY nominations (2) beginning MIGUEL F. GARCIA, and ending ROBERT A. WHITEHURST, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026. PN1014 ARMY nomination of Dionne L. McMillan, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026. PN1015 ARMY nominations (224) beginning HEATH A. ABRAHAM, and ending RICHARD M. YUROCKO, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026, except for Mark R. Berube and Mandi A. Samples. PN1016 ARMY nominations (41) beginning TERIA L. BELGRAVE, and ending TERA D. WOMACK, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026. PN1017 ARMY nominations (204) beginning JASON M. ADELAINE, and ending DAVID J. ZIELINSKI, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026, except for Joel A. Arends and Michael D. Thompson. PN1060 ARMY nomination of Eric M. Gaddis, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1061 ARMY nominations (91) beginning JONATHAN D. BAILEY, and ending PATRICIA YOUNG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026, except for Theresa M. Long. PN1062 ARMY nominations (27) beginning IVETTE BLANCO PADILLA, and ending JOHNNY R. VIDIC, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1063 ARMY nomination of Richard T. Atkins, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1064 ARMY nomination of Annette G. Gonzales, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1065 ARMY nominations (104) beginning AKUNNA K.

Text printed in the Record (11,778 characters)

AKURUKA, and ending 0002768133, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026, except for Samuel A. Smith. PN1066 ARMY nominations (128) beginning CHRISTINE A. ARGUEZA PRINCE, and ending 0003094083, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1067 ARMY nominations (31) beginning MICHAEL A. BROUSSARD, and ending 0003218840, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1068 ARMY nominations (18) beginning WILLIAM A. BASKERVILLE, JR., and ending SARAH B. SULKOSKY, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1069 ARMY nominations (2) beginning Michelle E. Martinez, and ending Jaime S. Roche, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1070 ARMY nomination of Rachel H. Bokmeyer, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1071 ARMY nominations (186) beginning YOUSEF H. ABUHAKMEH, and ending KATHERINE M. ZAMPERINI, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1072 ARMY nominations (37) beginning PATRICK J. ARBUCKLE, and ending LARRY L. ZHANG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026, except for Philip T. Buckler. * PN846 COAST GUARD nomination of Jesse M. Millard, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February 11, 2026. * PN415 FOREIGN SERVICE nominations (2) beginning Mary Smith, and ending Michael Francom, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of July 15, 2025. *PN896 FOREIGN SERVICE nomination of Tuyvan Huu Nguyen, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March 25, 2026. *PN897-1 FOREIGN SERVICE nominations (13) beginning Tifani Chanel Dyson, and ending Ryan Alan Werner, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March 25, 2026. *PN898 FOREIGN SERVICE nominations (5) beginning Russell Duncan, and ending Jeromy McKim, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March 25, 2026. PN803 MARINE CORPS nomination of Michael L. Reynolds, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of February 4, 2026. PN980 NAVY nominations (3) beginning KEVIN M. BACON, and ending TODD M. GEORGE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN981 NAVY nominations (4) beginning JAMES B. GALLAGHER, and ending SHAYNE J. SCHUMACHER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN982 NAVY nominations (2) beginning DAVID L. BADMAN, Jr., and ending JITINDRA W. SIRJOO, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN983 NAVY nominations (2) beginning WILLIAM E. SNIDER, III, and ending HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN984 NAVY nominations (12) beginning ROBERT G. BEAUCHAMP, and ending KRISTEN S. WHITESELL, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN985 NAVY nominations (23) beginning MICHAEL J. BAHR, and ending MARCELA C. ZELAYA, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN986 NAVY nominations (6) beginning JOSHUA I. CAMPBELL, and ending DARRIN L. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN987 NAVY nominations (8) beginning JORDAN M. ADLER, and ending RYAN T. WADINGTON, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN988 NAVY nominations (8) beginning ROBERT J. BEBBER, and ending JASON M. WITTROCK, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN989 NAVY nominations (19) beginning MATE W. AERANDIR, and ending MICHAEL B. ZIMET, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN990 NAVY nominations (318) beginning JAMESON R. ADLER, and ending DAVID E. ZIEROTH, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026, except for Robert J. Moreno and Joshua Q. McCright. PN991 NAVY nominations (10) beginning CLINTON T. CERALDE, and ending KAREN J. TEAGUE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN992 NAVY nominations (6) beginning AARON C. GEARY, and ending JONATHAN J. SLAGER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN993 NAVY nominations (4) beginning SEAN P. CAULFIELD, and ending ROBERT D. WENDT, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN994 NAVY nominations (11) beginning FRANCIS B. CARNABY, and ending PATRICK T. SULLIVAN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN995 NAVY nominations (3) beginning RICHARD S. CHERNITZER, and ending BETH A. TEACH, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN996 NAVY nominations (3) beginning BRIAN F. BRESHEARS, and ending BRADLEY J. WILLIFORD, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN997 NAVY nominations (3) beginning LANCE A. ALT, and ending TYRONE WALLER, II, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN998 NAVY nomination of Nathan J. Richardson, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 2026. PN1018 NAVY nomination of Luis F. Rosario, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026. PN1019 NAVY nominations (5) beginning SERGIO BARTAKIAN, and ending JOHN E. VINE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026. PN1020 NAVY nominations (2) beginning TIMOTHY C. HORTON, and ending TRAVIS J. WILDER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 20, 2026. PN1029 NAVY nomination of PATRICIA M. LEE, which nomination was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1030 NAVY nominations (45) beginning DAMON W. BATESON, II, and ending ROBERT E. ZUBECK, II, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1031 NAVY nominations (17) beginning JOSEPH R. COLLINS, and ending ANDREW J. VALERIUS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1032 NAVY nomination of Beau E. Bennett, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1033 NAVY nomination of Aaron M. Poland, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1034 NAVY nominations (3) beginning MATTHEW S. GILL, and ending LENAYA A. ROTKLEIN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1035 NAVY nominations (21) beginning JESSICA E. BRICK, and ending JOHN B. WARD, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1036 NAVY nomination of Ross C. Sickler, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1037 NAVY nomination of Renee S. Baggott, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1038 NAVY nominations (3) beginning DAVID C. KOLBERG, and ending ERIC E. SEAGER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1039 NAVY nominations (5) beginning KENNETH L. BYERS, JR., and ending JESSE L. WALSH, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1040 NAVY nominations (8) beginning AARON A. ECONOMOU, and ending CHRISTOPHER D. WOZNIAK, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1041 NAVY nomination of Christopher M. Neboshynsky, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1042 NAVY nominations (2) beginning PHILLIP J. ADDISON, and ending JOHN P. MORROW, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1043 NAVY nominations (12) beginning DANIEL E. BURAS, JR., and ending LAUREN A. WARRENZECCHIN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1044 NAVY nominations (5) beginning ROBERT J. DISPALDO, and ending THERESA L. THAO, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1045 NAVY nomination of Megan M. Fine, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 1, 2026. PN1073 NAVY nomination of Christopher P. Toscano, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1074 NAVY nominations (4) beginning SCOTT M. BATCHELOR, and ending CAROLINE R. TRIEPEL, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1075 NAVY nomination of Leonard N. Aranas, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026. PN1083 NAVY nominations (64) beginning VINCENT L. ACKERMAN, and ending JAIME A. WONGLOPEZ, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1084 NAVY nominations (18) beginning NATALIE R. BAKAN, and ending CHRISTOPHER E. VERZOSA, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1085 NAVY nominations (35) beginning NOAH M. APUSEN, and ending ADAM L. ZEILER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1086 NAVY nominations (15) beginning MATTHEW S. BAILEY, and ending NICHOLAS B. STAMPFLI, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1087 NAVY nominations (25) beginning DAVID A. ANTICO, and ending JENNIFER L. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1088 NAVY nominations (23) beginning JATAN BASTOLA, and ending EDWARD P. WINDAS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1089 NAVY nonimations (14) beginning DONALD A. BAKER, III, and ending MARLIN WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1090 NAVY nominations (14) beginning JON A. ANGLE, and ending CHRISTOPHER J. WIDHALM, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 2026. PN1076 SPACE FORCE nomination of Jason P. Lowery, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of June 4, 2026.

Executive Calendar

Page S4135 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 813 through Calendar No. 817; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to Calendar No. 813 through Calendar No. 817 en bloc? The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:

Text printed in the Record (859 characters)

Brett Doyle, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the United States International Trade Commission for a term expiring December 16, 2030, vice Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, term expired. David Foley, Jr., of Virginia, to be a Member of the United States International Trade Commission for a term expiring June 16, 2032, vice Amy Karpel, term expired. Samuel Negatu, of the District of Columbia, to be Member of the United States International Trade Commission for a term expiring June 16, 2029, vice F. Scott Kieff, term expired. Peter-Anthony Pappas, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the United States International Trade Commission for a term expiring June 16, 2035. (Reappointment) Bartholomew Thanhauser, of New York, to be a Member of the United States International Trade Commission for a term expiring December 16, 2027, vice David S. Johanson, term expired.

Legislative Session

Page S4135 · Official text

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The Senate will now resume legislative session.

Morning Business

Page S4135 · Official text

Margaret Wood Hassan (D-NH)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 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.

Vote Explanation

Page S4135 · Official text

Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)

Mr. President, I missed the following votes, but had I been present, I would have voted:

Text printed in the Record (362 characters)

No on rollcall vote No. 196, Motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 779 Jeffrey T. Kuntz, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. No on rollcall vote No. 197, Confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 779 Jeffrey T. Kuntz, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.

Tribute to Matthew Ives

Pages S4135–S4136 · Official text

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Matthew Ives of Peterborough as July's Granite Stater of the Month for his extraordinary commitment to helping others through his service as a volunteer trauma nurse in Ukraine. Matthew has dedicated his career to the care of others. His path into nursing began with years of service in healthcare, working as a lifeguard, EMT, 911 dispatcher, pharmacy technician, and ultimately graduating from nursing school at Nashua Community College. After he witnessed the suffering caused by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Matthew asked himself what he could do to help. He recognized a critical need for additional training in lifesaving trauma care, particularly the proper use of tourniquets to prevent otherwise survivable injuries from becoming life-threatening. In 2024, Matthew traveled to Ukraine for his first volunteer deployment. Working in a bomb-damaged stabilization point near the frontlines, he treated both military personnel and civilians suffering from burns, broken bones, shrapnel wounds, and other traumatic injuries. Matthew has repeatedly returned because he knows that the need for care remains great. Even when he is back in the United States, he continues to support the people he met in Ukraine by helping secure the resources that they need to continue their lifesaving work. In addition to training and treating patients, he has personally helped provide supplies and equipment, including funding vehicles and medical equipment for those serving on the frontlines. Matthew says that New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" spirit has shaped the way that he views the resilience of the Ukrainian people. He sees that same determination in those who continue to defend their communities despite immense hardship, refusing to surrender their freedom in the face of tyranny. His work reminds Granite Staters that courage often takes the form of quietly showing up each day to serve others, even in the most dangerous circumstances. Matthew has returned to Ukraine, where he trains Ukrainian servicemembers in lifesaving medical skills and continues to provide care on the frontlines. Matthew's compassion, courage, and selflessness are why I am proud to name him July's Granite Stater of the Month.

Lake Tahoe Summit

Page S4136 · Official text

Jacky Rosen (D-NV)

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Padilla, Senator Schiff, Congressman Kiley, and Congressman Amodei to celebrate an incredible milestone for Lake Tahoe, the crown jewel of Nevada and California. In 1997, Nevada Senator Harry Reid and California Senator Dianne Feinstein spearheaded the inaugural Lake Tahoe Summit. This event brought together Federal, State, regional, and local leaders, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, scientists, environmental advocates, and economic interests to address the deteriorating clarity of Lake Tahoe's waters. It marked a defining moment in bipartisan collaboration to protect one of the Nation's most iconic and treasured landscapes, and this year, we are celebrating 30 years of that partnership. Lake Tahoe is an amazing natural wonder. It is the oldest freshwater, permanent lake in North America, and the third oldest in the world at 2.3 million years old. It is also the second deepest lake in the United States, plunging to a depth of 1,645 feet, with waters so clear that objects can be seen at depths exceeding 70 feet. The Wa;i.;iw (Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California) are the original stewards of Lake Tahoe, and the Lake continues to hold great significance as their ancestral, current, and future home. Straddling the border of California and Nevada in the Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe is a national treasure that we are all so proud to protect. Following the inaugural Tahoe Summit hosted by Senators Reid and Feinstein, the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, or EIP, was created to restore Lake Tahoe's water quality and strengthen the region's environment and economy for future generations. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and more than 80 partners collectively known as Team Tahoe have worked together to guide and implement the EIP; today, the EIP is one of the Nation's most successful conservation and restoration programs with more than 900 projects implemented across the areas of watersheds and water quality, aquatic invasive species, forest health, sustainable recreation and transportation, and science, stewardship, and accountability. Lake Tahoe is an irreplaceable natural, cultural, and economic treasure--a jewel of the Sierra--whose protection is both a solemn responsibility and a profound privilege. The 30th annual Lake Tahoe Summit will be a celebration of Lake Tahoe and the power of public-private partnerships that benefit the lake, economy, and community. The Tahoe Federal delegation, State and local officials, members of Team Tahoe, and the public will come together at this event to celebrate the progress made over the last 30 years and commit to solving the challenges of the next 30 years. I am so honored to be hosting this year's event that will recognize the incredible legacy of my dear friend Senator Reid, and I look forward to continuing that legacy with my fellow colleagues as we work to protect this special place.

Measures Referred

Page S4136 · Official text

The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (625 characters)

H.R. 4288. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in San Jose, California, as the "Corporal Patrick D. Tillman VA Clinic"; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 6007. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, as the "Anthony `Tony' J. Gallopo VA Clinic"; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 6963. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the "Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic"; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Measures Placed on the Calendar

Page S4136 · Official text

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and placed on the calendar:

Text printed in the Record (171 characters)

H.R. 4647. An act to designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in West Haven, Connecticut, as the "Captain Paul W. `Bud' Bucha VA Medical Center".

Measures Read the First Time

Page S4136 · Official text

The following bill was read the first time:

Text printed in the Record (75 characters)

H.R. 2913. An act to authorize support for Ukraine, and for other purposes.

Executive and Other Communications

Pages S4136–S4137 · Official text

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (4,730 characters)

EC-4074. A communication from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer from North Carolina to New York" (RTID0648-XF391) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2026; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-4075. A communication from the Administrator of the General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, reports required by the Small Business Act on all prime contract procurements; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. EC-4076. A communication from the Biologist, Migratory Bird Program, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Process for Authorizing Seasonal Migratory Game Bird Hunting" (RIN1018-BI04) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4077. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Oklahoma; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Units, and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units" (FRL No. 12763-02-R6) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 2, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4078. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; Creation of Synthetic Minor Permit Program" (FRL No. 13009-02-R3) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4079. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Louisiana; Control of Emissions From Existing Other Solid Waste Incineration" (FRL No. 13256-02-R6) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4080. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Cleveland, Ohio Area to Attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standards" (FRL No. 13297-02-R5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4081. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products" (RIN2060-AV56) (FRL No. 5185.1-02-OAR) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 2, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4082. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Delaware; 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Limited Maintenance Plan for the Philadelphia Nonattainment Area" (FRL No. 11969-02-R3) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 2, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4083. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Updates to the State Implementation Plan for New Source Review Permitting and General SIP Provisions" (FRL No. 12970-02-R6) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 2, 2026; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Reports of Committees

Page S4137 · Official text

The following reports of committees were submitted:

Text printed in the Record (634 characters)

By Ms. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, without amendment: S. 3383. A bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 119-130). By Mr. CASSIDY, from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute: S. 2339. A bill to reauthorize the Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009. S. 4472. A bill to amend the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act to reauthorize the provisions of such Act through fiscal year 2031, and for other purposes.

Executive Reports of Committees

Page S4137 · Official text

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Text printed in the Record (890 characters)

By Mr. LEE for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. *William Hague, of Washington, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior. *Kevin Lilly, of Texas, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife. *Kaveh Farzad, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs). By Mr. GRASSLEY for the Committee on the Judiciary. Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit. Angela Veronica Colmenero, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. Michael C. Martin, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Kasdin Miller Mitchell, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. Antonio M. Pozos, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate. (Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Introduction of Bills and Joint Resolutions

Pages S4137–S4138 · Official text

The 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 (8,118 characters)

By Mr. HEINRICH: S. 5008. A bill to require Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators administering an open access transmission tariff to offer basic access service for energy-only delivery, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Ms. SLOTKIN: S. 5009. A bill to ensure that any individual serving as Director of National Intelligence in an acting capacity possesses the qualifications required of the Director of National Intelligence to have extensive national security expertise, and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Husted): S. 5010. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules governing the State administration of self-employment assistance programs; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Warren, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Welch): S. 5011. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on excessively disparate wages paid to chief executive officers; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Ms. Murkowski): S. 5012. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants for career support for a skilled, internationally educated health care workforce; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. CASSIDY: S. 5013. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to use amounts under the Veteran-Directed Care program to provide care to veterans with acquired brain injury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. CASSIDY: S. 5014. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain spouses eligible for services under the disabled veterans' outreach program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Fetterman, and Mrs. Fischer): S. 5015. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to review and evaluate the processes for updating maps that depict the extent of the availability of broadband internet access service in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. By Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Warnock, and Mr. Gallego): S. 5016. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to modify allotments under that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand): S. 5017. A bill to direct the Security of Labor to carry out a grant program to award grants to States to carry out a paid leave program, to establish the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse): S. 5018. A bill to approve certain requests for a major disaster declaration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. By Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Smith, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Welch): S. 5019. A bill to amend the Securities Act of 1934 to require country-by-country reporting; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Cassidy): S. 5020. A bill to require a study on manufactured homes in areas at high risk of natural hazards and weather extremes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Blumenthal): S. 5021. A bill to provide consumer protections for students; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Fetterman, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Peters, Ms. Smith, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Welch): S. 5022. A bill to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. By Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. Banks, Mr. Budd, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Sheehy, and Mr. Scott of Florida): S. 5023. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the inadmissibility of certain aliens seeking citizenship for children by giving birth in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Cotton): S. 5024. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that an entity domiciled in a foreign adversary country is a foreign instrumentality for purposes of the prohibition on economic espionage; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Ms. GRAHAM (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Risch, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Britt, Mr. King, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Curtis, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Reed, Mr. Husted, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Alsobrooks, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Schatz, Mr. McCormick, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Justice, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Capito, Ms. Collins, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Budd, Mr. Moran, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Daines, and Mr. Thune): S. 5025. A bill to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. By Mr. SANDERS: S. 5026. A bill to require warning labels on sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, foods and beverages containing high-intensity sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and foods high in nutrients of concern, such as added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, to restrict junk food advertising to children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. HEINRICH: S. 5027. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure fair reimbursement rates for home and community-based services furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. HUSTED: S. 5028. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to establish a Federal standard relating to the recovery of the full, incremental costs of upgrades that serve large-load customers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. By Mr. KELLY: S. 5029. A bill to amend the requirements for teaching residency programs under part A of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. MARSHALL (for himself and Ms. Lummis): S. 5030. A bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provide benefits for sex-rejecting procedures to provide benefits for items and services to address the harms caused by sex-rejecting procedures and to restore healthy human form and functioning, to the greatest extent possible; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. By Mr. KELLY (for himself and Mr. Curtis): S. 5031. A bill to amend the National and Community Service Act of 1990 to expand participation by underrepresented populations in service programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions

Page S4138 · Official text

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

Text printed in the Record (210 characters)

By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Booker, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Welch): S. Res. 806. A resolution designating July 2026 as "Plastic Pollution Action Month"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Additional Cosponsors

Pages S4138–S4139 · Official text

At the request of Mr. Tillis, the name of the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1031, a bill to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to create a Radiation Oncology Case Rate Value Based Payment Program exempt from budget neutrality adjustment requirements, and to amend section 1128A of title XI of the Social Security Act to create a new statutory exception for the provision of free or discounted transportation for radiation oncology patients to receive radiation therapy services. At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the names of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) were added as cosponsors of S. 1289, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and to support programs at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center. At the request of Mr. Banks, the names of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno) and the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) were added as cosponsors of S. 1328, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Baldwin, the name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1677, a bill to provide health insurance benefits for outpatient and inpatient items and services related to the diagnosis and treatment of a congenital anomaly or birth defect. At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) 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. Padilla, the name of the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody) was added as a cosponsor 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. Tillis, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2761, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide long-term stability for Medicare beneficiary access to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests by improving the accuracy of, and feasibility of data collection for, the private payor-based fee schedule payment rates applied under the Medicare program for such tests, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Banks, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2821, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reform the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Cotton, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Moreno) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2941, a bill to discontinue certain exceptions from H-1B nonimmigrant visa numerical limitation. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) 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. McCormick, the names of the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) were added as cosponsors of S. 3524, a bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to modify certain cost-sharing requirements for grant programs under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3605, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a portion of general business credit carryforwards to be transferred by certain taxpayers affected by federally declared disasters and other incidents. At the request of Mr. Sanders, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3622, a bill to prohibit the naming, renaming, designating, or redesignating of any Federal building, land, or other asset in the name of a sitting President, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3784, a bill to amend the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant program to promote career awareness in accounting as part of a well-rounded STEM educational experience. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3934, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand the availability of medical nutrition therapy services under the Medicare program. At the request of Mr. Coons, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4144, a bill to amend the Credit Repair Organizations Act to add additional protections against harmful practices within the credit repair organization industry, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Capito, the name of the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith) 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 Mrs. Blackburn, the name of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4233, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to codify the Medicare low-wage index hospital policy. At the request of Mrs. Blackburn, the name of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4329, a bill to amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4437, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to establish additional requirements for dealers, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks) 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. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4501, a bill to bar aliens from admission to the United States to give birth on United States soil or remaining in the United States to undermine the sovereignty of the United States through birth tourism. At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4775, a bill to amend the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to clarify liability protections for firearms and associated manufacturers and retailers, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Markey, the name of the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4814, a bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status. At the request of Mr. Murphy, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4999, a bill to prohibit certain transfers of aircraft provided by the Government of Qatar, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Schmitt, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 6583 intended to be proposed to S. 4784, an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Pages S4139–S4140 · Official text

Following the storm, the State of Rhode Island worked with FEMA to develop a preliminary damage assessment of the storm's impact. The assessment found over $19 million in damages, amounting to more than nine times the threshold required for a major disaster declaration. Under any other administration, this disaster declaration would have been approved on the merits, given its historic nature and FEMA's own damage assessment. However, after months of waiting, on July 2, 2026, President Trump denied the request from Rhode Island with no explanation. On the same day Trump denied Rhode Island's request, he also denied requests from New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts that all reportedly exceeded FEMA's damage thresholds. Yet, that same week, he approved disaster aid for six Republican-led States. Disaster aid and helping communities recover from deadly storms should never be political. Yet President Trump's record proves that he cannot be trusted to adjudicate disaster money fairly without invoking his own partisan biases. The Disaster Relief Fairness Act would address that problem by granting all disaster declarations requested between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 that meet the Federal requirements and thresholds for assistance. This will help ensure that States and Tribes get the relief they need--regardless of who they voted for--and allow them to fully recover from disasters. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Whitehouse and me in supporting this legislation. ______

Text printed in the Record (1,636 characters)

By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Cassidy): S. 5020. A bill to require a study on manufactured homes in areas at high risk of natural hazards and weather extremes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my legislation to require a study on how to improve the resiliency of manufactured homes in areas that are at high risk of natural hazards and weather extremes, which I introduced today. More than 22 million Americans, most of whom earn less than the median national income, call manufactured housing home. These homes are significantly less expensive than traditional site-built homes and will play a key part in how we address our country's affordable housing crisis and increase home ownership. I was proud to work with my colleagues across the aisle to pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which includes provisions to increase the supply of America's manufactured housing. Yet manufactured housing is disproportionately located in areas that are the most exposed to climate hazards. As we continue to see a pattern of increased extreme climate events, we need all our housing to be resilient in areas at high risk of natural hazards and weather extremes. Congress should be aware of what strategies industry leaders are currently employing and understand potential options to increase the performance of manufactured homes in high-risk areas. I want to thank my colleague Senator Cassidy for introducing this bill with me. I hope our colleagues will join us in taking a step towards improving the resiliency of our nation's housing stock.

Introductory Statement on S. 5018

Pages S4139–S4140 · Official text

Senate Resolution 806--Designating July 2026 as "Plastic Pollution Action Month"

Page S4140 · Official text

SENATE RESOLUTION 806--DESIGNATING JULY 2026 AS "PLASTIC POLLUTION ACTION MONTH" Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Booker, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Welch) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

Text printed in the Record (3,222 characters)

Whereas plastic pollution represents a global threat that will require individual and collective action, both nationally and internationally, to address; Whereas approximately 450,000,000 tons of plastic are produced each year, a number that is projected to triple by 2050; Whereas, in the United States-- (1) the rate of plastic waste recycling is less than 10 percent; and (2) less than 3 percent of plastic waste is recycled into a similar quality product; Whereas a study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that, in 2022, the United States-- (1) mismanaged 4 percent of plastic waste; (2) landfilled 73 percent of plastic waste; (3) incinerated 19 percent of plastic waste; and (4) recycled 4 percent of plastic waste; Whereas single-use plastics account for at least 40 percent of the plastic produced every year; Whereas more than 12,000,000 tons of plastic waste enter the ocean every year from land-based sources alone; Whereas, if no action is taken, the flow of plastics into the ocean is expected to triple by 2040; Whereas, as of the date of adoption of this resolution, studies estimate that there are approximately 171,000,000,000,000 pieces of plastic in the oceans of the world; Whereas, of those 171,000,000,000,000 pieces of plastic in the ocean, 1 percent floats, 5 percent washes up on beaches, and 94 percent sinks to the bottom; Whereas nearly 1,300 marine species have consumed plastics; Whereas peer-reviewed modeling has found that ingesting plastic in an amount the size of less than 3 sugar cubes can kill a seabird; Whereas plastics, and associated chemicals of plastics, are ingested by humans and are associated with well-established human health risks; Whereas studies have found microplastic particles in human blood, lungs, colons, and placentas; Whereas studies suggest that humans ingest more than 800 microplastics per day; Whereas taking action to reduce plastic use, collect and clean up litter, and reuse and recycle more plastics will lead to less plastic pollution; Whereas, every July, people challenge themselves to reduce their plastic footprint through "Plastics Free July"; Whereas, during the 40-year period preceding the date of adoption of this resolution, more than 19,000,000 volunteers have joined the International Coastal Cleanup to collect more than 400,000,000 pounds of plastic and debris while simultaneously recording their findings to inform research and upstream action; Whereas switching from single-use items to reusable items can prevent waste, save water, and reduce litter; and Whereas July 2026 is an appropriate month to designate as "Plastic Pollution Action Month" to recommit to taking action, individually and as a nation, to reduce plastic pollution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates July 2026 as "Plastic Pollution Action Month"; (2) recognizes the dangers to human health and the environment posed by plastic pollution; and (3) encourages all individuals in the United States to protect, conserve, maintain, and rebuild public health and the environment by responsibly participating in activities to reduce plastic pollution in July 2026 and year round.

Text of Amendments

Pages S4140–S4142 · Official text

SA 6701. Mr. DAINES submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (10,445 characters)

Insert after section 111 the following: SEC. 111A. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF MINERALS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION; SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO MINING INDUSTRY. (a) Prohibition on Importation.-- (1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, no mineral specified in paragraph (2) may be imported into the United States if the mineral is-- (A) produced in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity; or (B) determined to have been exchanged with, swapped for, or otherwise obtained in lieu of a mineral described in subparagraph (A) in a manner designed to evade or circumvent the application of this subsection. (2) Minerals specified.--The minerals specified in this paragraph are the following: (A) Platinum, unwrought or in semimanufactured forms, classified under heading 7110 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (in this subsection referred to as the "HTS"), including-- (i) palladium; (ii) braggite; (iii) rhodium; and (iv) ruthenium. (B) Nickel classified under heading 2604 of the HTS. (C) Copper, ores and concentrates, classified under heading 2603 of the HTS, including zinc. (3) Termination.--The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the President certifies to Congress that the Government of the Russian Federation has ended all hostilities against Ukraine. (4) Russian entity defined.--In this subsection, the term "Russian entity" means an entity organized under the laws of the Russian Federation or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of the Russian Federation. (b) Sanctions With Respect to Mining Industry.-- (1) Nornickel.--Not later than 15 days after making a determination under subsection (c), and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall impose the sanctions described in subsection (d) with respect to-- (A) any directors of, officers of, and shareholders with an interest in, Nornickel or any subsidiary or successor entity of Nornickel; and (B) any foreign government or foreign person that has knowingly sold, supplied, transferred, or purchased nickel originally sourced from the Russian Federation, Nornickel, or any subsidiary or successor entity of Nornickel. (2) Mining entities owned by sanctioned persons.--Not later than 15 days after making a determination under subsection (c), and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall-- (A) impose the sanctions described in subsection (d) with respect to any entity in the mining industry a majority of the ownership interest in which is held by a person, or a group of persons, subject to sanctions under this Act or other sanctions imposed by the United States with respect to the Russian Federation on or before the date of the enactment of this Act; and (B) prohibit any United States person from engaging in any transaction with an entity described in subparagraph (A). (c) Determination.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall determine if any of the following actors has engaged, is engaging, or is planning to engage in an act described in paragraph (2): (A) The Government of the Russian Federation. (B) Any proxy of the Government of the Russian Federation. (C) Any individual or entity controlled by or acting at the direction of the Government of the Russian Federation. (D) Any person described in paragraph (3). (2) Acts described.--An act described in this paragraph is any of the following: (A) Refusing to negotiate a peace agreement with Ukraine. (B) Violating any negotiated peace agreement. (C) Initiating another military invasion of Ukraine. (D) Overthrowing, dismantling, or seeking to subvert the Government of Ukraine. (3) Persons described.--The persons described in this subsection are the following: (A) The following officials of the Government of the Russian Federation: (i) The President of the Russian Federation. (ii) The Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. (iii) The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation. (iv) The Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. (v) The Deputy Ministers of Defense of the Russian Federation. (vi) The Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces of the Russian Federation. (vii) The Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation. (viii) The Commander of the Airborne Forces of the Russian Federation. (ix) The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy of the Russian Federation. (x) The Commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation. (xi) The Commander of the Special Operations Forces of the Russian Federation. (xii) The Commander of Logistical Support of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. (xiii) The commanders of the Russian Federation military districts. (xiv) The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. (xv) The Minister of Transport of the Russian Federation. (xvi) The Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation. (xvii) The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation. (xviii) The Minister of Energy of the Russian Federation. (xix) The Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. (xx) The Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation. (xxi) The Director of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. (xxii) The Director of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. (xxiii) The Director of the National Guard of the Russian Federation. (xxiv) The Federal Guard Service of the Russian Federation. (B) Any foreign person that-- (i) knowingly sells, supplies, transfers, markets, or provides defense articles, equipment, goods, services, technology, or materials to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; (ii) knowingly conducts a transaction with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation; (iii) has engaged in or attempted to engage in activities that-- (I) materially undermine the military readiness of Ukraine; (II) seek to overthrow, dismantle, or subvert the Government of Ukraine; (III) debilitate the critical infrastructure of Ukraine; (IV) debilitate cybersecurity systems through malicious electronic attacks or cyberattacks on Ukraine; (V) undermine the democratic processes of Ukraine; or (VI) involve committing serious human rights abuses against citizens of Ukraine, including forceful transfers, enforced disappearances, unjust detainment, or torture; (iv) operates or has operated in the energy, commodities, telecommunications, banking, industrial, transportation, or manufacturing sectors of the economy of the Russian Federation; (v) is an oligarch (as defined and identified by the President); (vi) is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, for or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, the Government of the Russian Federation-- (I) transnational corruption, bribery, extortion, or money laundering; (II) assassination, murder, or other unlawful killing of, or infliction of other bodily harm against, a United States person or a citizen or national of an ally or partner of the United States; (III) activities that undermine the peace, security, political stability, or territorial integrity of the United States or an ally or partner of the United States; or (IV) deceptive or structured transactions or dealings to circumvent the application of any sanctions imposed by the United States, including through the use of digital currencies or assets or the use of physical assets. (C) Any person or agent of any person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) if the sanctioned person transferred property or an interest in property to the person-- (i) after the date on which the President imposed sanctions with respect to the sanctioned person; or (ii) before that date, if the sanctioned person did so in an attempt to evade the imposition of sanctions. (D) The following financial institutions: (i) The Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia). (ii) Sberbank. (iii) VTB Bank. (iv) Gazprombank. (v) Any other financial institution organized under the laws of the Russian Federation and owned in whole or part by the Government of the Russian Federation. (vi) Any subsidiary of, or successor entity to, any of the financial institutions described in clauses (i) through (v). (vii) Any financial institution that engages in transactions with any of the financial institutions described in clauses (i) through (vi). (E) Any director of, officer of, official of, or shareholder with an interest in, a financial institution described in subparagraph (D). (d) Sanctions Described.--The sanctions described in this subsection to be imposed with respect to a person described in subsection (b) are the following: (1) Blocking of property.-- (A) In general.--The President shall exercise all of the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of the person if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person. (B) Inapplicability of national emergency requirement.--The requirements of section 202 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply for purposes of this section. (2) Ineligibility for visas, admission, or parole.-- (A) Visas, admission, or parole.--An alien described in subsection (b) shall be-- (i) inadmissible to the United States; (ii) ineligible to receive a visa or other documentation to enter the United States; and (iii) otherwise ineligible to be admitted or paroled into the United States or to receive any other benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). (B) Current visas revoked.-- (i) In general.--The visa or other entry documentation of an alien described in subsection (b) shall be revoked, regardless of when such visa or other entry documentation is or was issued. (ii) Immediate effect.--A revocation under clause (i) shall-- (I) take effect immediately; and (II) automatically cancel any other valid visa or entry documentation that is in the possession of the alien.

SA 6702. Mr. DAINES submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Text printed in the Record (1,548 characters)

Insert after section 111 the following: SEC. 111A. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF MINERALS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. (a) In General.--Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, no mineral specified in subsection (b) may be imported into the United States if the mineral is-- (1) produced in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity; or (2) determined to have been exchanged with, swapped for, or otherwise obtained in lieu of a mineral described in paragraph (1) in a manner designed to evade or circumvent the application of this section. (b) Minerals Specified.--The minerals specified in this subsection are the following: (1) Platinum, unwrought or in semimanufactured forms, classified under heading 7110 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (in this subsection referred to as the "HTS"), including-- (A) palladium; (B) braggite; (C) rhodium; and (D) ruthenium. (2) Nickel classified under heading 2604 of the HTS. (3) Copper, ores and concentrates, classified under heading 2603 of the HTS, including zinc. (c) Termination.--The prohibition under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the President certifies to Congress that the Government of the Russian Federation has ended all hostilities against Ukraine. (d) Russian Entity Defined.--In this section, the term "Russian entity" means an entity organized under the laws of the Russian Federation or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Text of Senate Amendment 6701

Pages S4140–S4142 · Official text

Text printed in the Record (10,445 characters)

Text of Senate Amendment 6702

Page S4142 · Official text

Text printed in the Record (1,548 characters)

Authority for Committees to Meet

Page S4142 · Official text

Mike Crapo (R-ID)

Mr. President, I have eight 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 during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 9 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.

Privileges of the Floor

Page S4142 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Ava Wyden, Kira Posner, Julia Long, Collin Park, Olivia Hicks, Daniel Reichert, and Mahima Yogesh.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Page S4142 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order with respect to the Westercamp nomination be modified so that the confirmation vote may occur notwithstanding rule XXII and with all other provisions remaining in effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Measure Read the First Time--H.r. 2913

Page S4142 · Official text

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

The clerk will read the bill by title for the first time.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (76 characters)

A bill (H.R. 2913) to authorize support for Ukraine, and for other purposes.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day.

Orders for Monday, July 20, 2026

Page S4142 · Official text

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, July 20; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 5:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Flowers nomination and the cloture motion filed today ripen at that time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Adjournment Until 3 P.m. Monday, July 20, 2026

Page S4142 · Official text