Wednesday, July 22, 2026

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President pro tempore (Mr. Grassley).

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer: Let us pray. Almighty God, source of all goodness, use our lawmakers today for Your glory. Make them undaunted people, striving to know Your will and experience Your power. Lord, provide them with exactly what they need to accomplish Your purposes. May they receive Heaven's approval for their faithful service to You and country. Lord, transform their complex problems with solutions from Your throne. We commit the work of this day to You, receiving Your strength to honor Your Name. We pray in Your glorious Name. Amen.

The President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

The motion was agreed to.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Walter Clayton, of New York, to be Director of National Intelligence.

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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. 833, Walter Clayton, of New York, to be Director of National Intelligence. John Thune, Tom Cotton, Jon Husted, Alan Armstrong, Jim Banks, Bernie Moreno, Chuck Grassley, John Barrasso, Marsha Blackburn, Joni Ernst, John R. Curtis, Roger F. Wicker, Pete Ricketts, Katie Boyd Britt, Bill Hagerty, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Mike Crapo.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

The Democratic leader is recognized.

Now, Mr. President, on Air Force One, Donald Trump's corruption truly knows no limits. Apparently, it wasn't enough for Trump to charge the American people for his golden ballroom on the ground. Now he wants the taxpayers to fund his palace in the sky as well. Trump's $400 million foreign jet--the biggest gift a President has received from a foreign government ever--is anything but free. Taxpayers will have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to outfit Trump's luxury jet with the security upgrades it needs to serve as Air Force One. I am advancing the Presidential Airlift Security Act for immediate passage to ensure that Americans don't have to foot the bill to "max out" Trump's luxury jet when he already has access to a perfectly fine Air Force One. There is no way we are letting Trump charge Americans so he can fly in style while they are struggling to make ends meet. I introduced this legislation last year, but every single Republican Senator voted against the bill. Senate Republicans cleared the way for Trump's Air Force One spending spree. I urge my colleagues across the aisle not to repeat the same mistake. Trump always finds a way to saddle the American people with the cost of his corruption. We have an opportunity to stop it. Will our Republican colleagues join us to make that happen? Democrats will continue to expose how the Trump administration's corruption is driving up Americans' costs every chance we get--the slush fund, an exemption from taxes, what he did on his own social media in charging people for it, and now this Air Force One corruption. Every day--just about every day--there is a new story about how Trump's corruption is rampant and raises the costs of the American people.

Mr. President, on the Election Protection Task Force, Donald Trump knows he can't defend Republicans' disastrous record. So he is attacking the midterm elections that could hold him accountable. Instead of trying to earn Americans' votes, Trump is trying to discount them. That is not going to happen, Donald. Today, Senate Democrats' Election Protection Task Force will gather for a second time to war-game responses and to plan how we can counter Trump's effort to subvert our elections. We are going to red-team a number of different instances that Trump might try to subvert our election and what we will do to counter them. We are fighting to protect the right of every eligible American voter to cast a ballot and to have it counted without interference, intimidation, or obstruction. Our task force is preparing, over and over again, to meet the election threats we know are coming. We are bringing together top experts to identify threats to the election, to test responses, and to strengthen our defenses because we are defending the American people's right to vote and have a free and fair election. We are preparing our responses to what they might do now so that voters can have confidence later. Trump is doing everything he can to undermine confidence in our elections because he knows just how bad of a bind he is in. The Trump administration has made life harder and more expensive for the American people. Trump knows Americans won't ignore the higher costs, the rampant corruption, and the widespread chaos he has unleashed on our country, which is why he is trying to ignore their votes altogether. But this country and this election belong to the American people, not to Trump. Democrats are going to make sure it stays that way.

Finally, Mr. President, on the Charlton Allen nomination, you know, it is no secret that the Trump administration is chock-full of people who have a known history of racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice; and Trump's nominee for general counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Charlton Allen, is no exception to this. Back in 1996, Allen published a front-page article in his student newspaper that included a cartoon depicting a Jewish candidate for student president as the devil. Allen's article explicitly highlighted the candidate's Jewish identity and parroted numerous anti-Semitic tropes. Allen also reportedly displayed homophobic signs around campus and even drew comparisons between homosexuality and bestiality. He also wrote other articles that were racist and Islamophobic. A bigot like Allen doesn't belong on the board of a student newspaper, let alone in a Presidential administration. Every Senate Republican ought to be against this guy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, in 1983, I was elected to the House of Representatives. I was a freshman Congressman and as nervous as any politician could be. I had defeated a Republican incumbent to come to the House, and I was just sure, looking over my shoulder, there was an issue, a press release, a vote that was going to do me in in the next election. I was as nervous as could be. In the midst of that situation, I had a visit from the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives, and they said: Congressman Durbin, there is news for you which may decide your fate in the years to come. I said: What is it? Social Security is about to go broke. In 1983, we faced the possibility that we would not be able to make the promised Social Security payments to beneficiaries across America. I couldn't imagine a tougher challenge. One of the most popular programs in America, one out of five Americans on Social Security--and in 1983, it faced the situation where they couldn't make their payments as promised. And so I proposed a Commission to take a look at it--a bipartisan Commission--and come up with changes in Social Security in 1983: raise the retirement age, raise the amount of money paid by employers and employees into Social Security, and tax income from Social Security for the first time. These changes were not easy. Some were controversial, but we knew we had to do it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social Security with the changes in 1983. You know, what? It worked. It worked to the point where we just had an announcement last week by the trustees in bankruptcy that the system will make every payment promised until the end of 2032--50 years after the 1983 changes were made. So the promise was kept, but then the problems arise. After that, the Social Security trust fund will not have enough money to pay the promised benefits. What does that mean? Well, go back to my notation that one out of five Americans receive Social Security--either elderly or disabled receive Social Security. Out of those, one out of five of the recipients of Social Security have no other source of income. The average Social Security check in America is about $2,400 a month. The announcement, according to the trustees, is each one of those recipients will see their monthly paycheck cut between $450 and $500. So if $2,400 is the average payment and there is a cut of $400 to $500, you can imagine the impact it will have on families. They will be making some very difficult decisions because one out of five, as I mentioned, Social Security recipients have no other source of income. They depend on Social Security. What happens when those people lose $450 to $500 a month? They have to make hard decisions on prescription drugs; on paying some utility bills and not others; on groceries--what they are able to buy, if anything. So it boils down to a very terrible situation, a terrible challenge. So the obvious question from the American people, just those receiving Social Security today as well as those that will in the future is, What is Congress going to do about it now? In 1983, you responded with 50 years of solvency by changing the policy. What is the plan in the current situation where we face another dramatic situation with Social Security? And the answer is, if you look at the agenda of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, this year we are going to do little or nothing--little or nothing. Why is it important that we move now instead of waiting another year, 2, 3 years before we do something? It becomes more expensive and more difficult the longer you wait to fix Social Security. The sooner you do it, the easier it is. And it won't be totally easy. There will be some changes people will like and some they won't like. But the bottom line is, the longer Congress waits to act on Social Security, the more expensive it will be, the more difficult the policy choices will be. I have reached out to several of my colleagues saying: Can we finally agree, as Democrats and Republicans, that the No. 1 social policy of the U.S. Government, Social Security, should be a bipartisan issue that we address? Well, it turns out that four Republicans joined me as well as three other Democrats, and we have eight members, Democrats and Republicans, who are supporting the bill that I call the PROMISE Act. What is the PROMISE Act? Is it the solution to the problem with Social Security? No, but it is a procedure so that we can reach that solution. Here is what it says: We are going to set up a system where the Social Security Advisory Board sends us a proposed change in Social Security. That is the starting point--just the starting point--for hearings and for a national discussion about where we want Social Security to go at the end of 2032. That does not presume any solution. There are many Senators who have come up with ideas on what to do with Social Security--some surprising. A Republican Senator from Ohio joined a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts just 2 weeks ago, and they came up with a bipartisan proposal to save Social Security beyond 2032. The same thing has been offered by the Senator from Vermont and other Senators. They have ideas. The junior Senator from Rhode Island has a proposal as well. What I am trying to do is not to pick the winners and losers, not to choose one plan over others but to create a process on the floor where we actually, physically, verbally debate the issue. Trust me, Congress is not overworked. The House of Representatives taking off this week for 4 or 5 weeks of being back home for the August recess is fine. We do it every year. But before they leave, I think they should take up some procedure that says we are going to return to fix Social Security after the August recess. The same thing should be true in the Senate. It is a bipartisan Senate in one respect, but the majority is on the Republican side. If they believe Social Security is important enough to make it a priority, let's put it on the legislative agenda when we return this year. Let's give peace of mind to the millions of Americans who currently live with Social Security benefits and those that work every week and every month paying into Social Security for their own retirement in the future. This is not easy, but it is doable. I was part of that process many years ago, and I want to be part of it again before I retire at the end of this year. So we have a bipartisan procedure. It does not assume any changes. It basically says we have to reach a point where we pass something that gives us another 50 years of solvency for Social Security. It is not too much to ask. I have seen it done. I voted for it 50 years ago, and I am prepared to vote again if we have--not quite 50 years ago. It was 44 years ago I did it, and I would do it again. It is a challenge, which I think we can meet. We have the bipartisan starting point: the PROMISE Act. I want to see, I hope, a bipartisan vote to set up that procedure that we will return to in September or October of this year so that we get something done and we give peace of mind to the people who are depending on Social Security for their future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

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

The legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael C. Martin, of Michigan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Mr. President, it shouldn't be this difficult to get the State Department to follow the law. Earlier this year, when we passed the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill on a bipartisan basis, we were very clear that the spending requirements in it were not suggestions; they were a matter of law. We are not asking the State Department to do us a favor and spend the money we provided; we made a law. Yet we are still having to fight tooth and nail with the State Department officials to get money out to the people in places around the world that are counting on the United States of America. Let's take funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. For months, the administration has been withholding $600 million which is meant to help millions of children get vaccinated against preventable diseases, including Ebola, cholera, and mpox. And even though the Secretary has told us repeatedly, including in a hearing last month, that he will personally see to it that this money is released, it is still stuck. Why? Because people at HHS, who have their own views and theories about vaccines, keep blocking it. Here is the thing: This funding is in the State Department's budget. HHS has no jurisdiction here. And I want to be really clear about this. Sure, this is a jurisdictional dispute. Sure, this is a legal matter. A, this is a law, not a suggestion. B, this just doesn't go through HHS; they have no jurisdiction here. Why am I so animated about it? It is because little kids are not getting vaccinated right now. Gavi, the global Vaccine Alliance, they come to us, and they articulate to us that children across the planet are getting sick unnecessarily because they are not getting vaccinated. What happened was, because of the COVID pandemic and the disagreement about mandatory COVID vaccines, now certain people are so brain-poisoned that we think we shouldn't even prevent disease in children. And kids are dying because the United States is sitting on its butt, not disbursing money that is a matter of law. Here is another example with the Global Fund. Last week, after months of fighting to release funding, the administration finally made a $661 million contribution to the Global Fund, which will help to fight deadly epidemics like HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria by providing medicines and strengthening health infrastructure. But even then, the administration is still withholding close to $2 billion in additional contributions, all while HIV prevention is falling, malaria is surging, and we are trying to contain multiple outbreaks globally, including Ebola. When the Congress got all animated about attacking USAID, it was because: Hey, we want to help PEPFAR; we want to help Gavi; we want to help the Global Fund. We want to be the good guys around the world, but let's not do all this cultural stuff. Let's not waste all this money on superfluous stuff. And do you know what is happening? They eliminated a tiny portion of the tens of billions of dollars that get pushed out every year--tiny--and I mean we are talking tens of millions versus tens of billions. That was like cultural stuff and arguably--arguably--progressive or leftwing, a tiny portion of it. But I want everybody to understand what they did in the process. They cut previously bipartisan priorities, and lots and lots of people died. These are not bureaucratic mixups. Every day that this money doesn't get to where it is supposed to go, every contribution worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars is delayed, people go hungry, people get sick, people die. That is what has made what happened last year at USAID particularly cruel. The richest man in the world wanted to send USAID to the wood chipper, and this Congress and this Senate ratified those decisions. And yet we worked with the Secretary and we worked with appropriators on both sides of the aisle and we worked with the great, late Senator Lindsey Graham--may his memory be a blessing--to reestablish the principle that the United States is the good guys and that it is not just the example of our power but the power of our example that makes the United States the indispensable Nation. We are the good guys. And when a batch of aid medicine or communications infrastructure or food arrives with that little patch with "United States of America" on it, people go: Help is on the way. The good guys are here. And so we got through this process on the appropriations side to reestablish the principle that USAID, in its new iteration, under mostly the State Department, is still a bipartisan priority. And there are lots of people who believe that. But the State Department is not executing on these dollars. And the consequences are geopolitical, but they are also human. People are still literally dying because we are not pushing this money out. And just so you know that I don't think this is an entirely partisan question, there were Democrats, people who consider themselves Democratic strategists, who said out loud--who said out loud--that Democrats were walking into a trap because USAID doesn't poll well. I don't care if it polls well. I am not here to have a pollster tell me that I shouldn't care that kids are getting malaria. I am not here to get talked out of the United States being the good guys because healthcare polls higher, because the cost of gasoline polls higher. I am not deciding what to put into a 30-second spot. I am deciding how to use the power given to me by the people of the State of Hawaii, and I think they care about whether people die unnecessarily because of the stupidity of this Congress. And I want everybody to know what is happening now, in addition to all that money being still throttled. So there were parades and festivals and other things that were funded that ended up on a FOX News chyron that were embarrassing to USAID. And I would say about two-thirds of them were just flatly untrue, but some of them actually happened. So the idea--I went to Lindsey, I went to Marco, I went to Mario Diaz-Balart, I went to Lois Frankel, I went to John Thune, and I went to others, and I said: Look, you are pushing on an open door. If the principle here is USAID should stick to its knitting, stay in a narrow couple of lanes--foreign military financing, economic assistance, disaster response, and humanitarian assistance--and we should do nothing superfluous, you are pushing on an open door. If you would like USAID to be a little more aligned with the State Department and not working sort of against each other's interests--even in country--fine, you are pushing on an open door. So that is what we tried to ratify in the last appropriations bill. But here is the crazy thing. It is not that they are not spending money on ideological projects. They have just decided to spend money on their own ideological projects. So instead of vaccinating little kids against deadly diseases, they are now spending millions of dollars to help British nonprofits--one of them recently established and now receiving $7 million from United States taxpayer dollars--to help British nonprofits report on whether free speech is being censored in London. This is how they explained the funding:

Just so we are all clear, they were trying to get out of the business of saving lives in order to get into the business of promoting "unapologetic celebrations of European nations' individual character and history." That is what we are now paying for with our tax dollars. Here is another one. They want to send millions of dollars to protect free speech and foster dialogue in the UK, Europe, and Australia--not Equatorial Guinea or Eswatini, which despite being among the world's most repressive governments, the Trump administration is still sending tax dollars to them. They are going after our allies. Is the UK or the EU or Australia a threat to democracy? One more example: The State Department set up a $200 million fund to make private sector investments in and around Armenia, and the guy they appointed to lead it just so happens to be one of Trump's ballroom donors and has deep business ties in the region. You could have made a credible argument that USAID strayed from its central mission by supporting societal and cultural activities, that it tried to do too many things in too many places and that actually focusing our efforts on a few key priorities was a better strategy. But they didn't do that. They have just picked their own rightwing version of wokeness to fund with taxpayer dollars. And so we are only partially through metabolizing what has happened to foreign aid globally and in the United States. The good news is that we have reestablished the bipartisan principle that we should still be present in the world, that we should still alleviate suffering, that we should still provide economic assistance, that we should still respond to disasters, that we should still do foreign military financing, and that all of that is the right thing to do because we are the good guys. And, also, all of that is the right thing to do because it is way cheaper than any military engagement, and winning hearts and minds is just a hell of a lot cheaper than going to war. And so we reestablished that principle in the legislative context. But now the State Department has to start executing on what the law says. And this is not like the USAID thing, where we gave them a pile of money and gave them the authority to do a bunch of grants and then they canceled a bunch of grants and moved things around. I may have objected to that, but that was permissible. What they are doing now is not permissible. PEPFAR money is not a choice they get to make; it is a choice we already made. Gavi money is not a choice they get to make; it is a choice we already made. The Global Fund money is not a choice they get to make; it is a choice we already made. These are things in statutory law. They are not the Ford Foundation, where they say: Well, we have changed our grant criteria. This is a matter of Federal law, and they have to follow it. I yield the floor.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The nomination was confirmed. (Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)

The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

The legislative clerk read the nomination of Antonio M. Pozos, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, you see, over 1.2 million Hoosiers are employed by small businesses. As you look across our Nation, small businesses are the backbone of our modern economy. In fact, the way to grow an economy is to figure out how to get more people to start businesses and to grow those small businesses into larger businesses. Our Federal small business programs exist for that purpose--to help hard-working entrepreneurs grow their businesses and to create more jobs. They don't exist to reward those who have defrauded taxpayers. That is not why they exist. Unfortunately, during the COVID pandemic, some individuals exploited emergency Small Business Administration relief programs for personal gain. Their actions diverted resources away from legitimate small businesses in Indiana and across the country. They undermine confidence in these important programs, and they undermine confidence in government at a time when confidence is already low. The principle behind my bill is quite simple. If someone is convicted of defrauding the Small Business Administration through certain COVID-era loan or grant programs, then that individual should not be eligible to receive future financial assistance from the Small Business Administration. It is that simple. They should not be eligible if they are a fraudster. Likewise, businesses controlled by those who are convicted shouldn't be eligible for future SBA assistance. This is the essence of the Assisting Small Businesses Not Fraudsters Act. It should not be--I would imagine it is not--controversial. This is something everyone should enthusiastically support. I would add that this bill only applies after a criminal conviction in order to ensure due process. Honest, hard-working entrepreneurs and small business owners shouldn't have to compete with convicted fraudsters for Federal opportunities. Every taxpayer dollar lost to fraud is a dollar that cannot help legitimate small businesses expand, hire workers, or invest in their futures. Chair Ernst's Protecting American Taxpayers Act advances that same goal across government by strengthening accountability, protecting taxpayer dollars, and ensuring Federal programs work as intended. I urge all of my colleagues to support this package and my Assisting Small Businesses Not Fraudsters Act. I yield the floor.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, I have been working on Social Security now 8 years. Why? One, it is a guarantee--an intergenerational guarantee--made to Americans, when they get to a certain age, to retire. It is an earned benefit which says that, after a lifetime of work and contribution, Americans can count on a measure of financial security. Today, more than 75 million Americans rely on Social Security. Most are retired workers. Many are disabled. Others are widows or widowers and children. Now, let's just set the context: A program that 75 million Americans rely on, 10 million baby boomers a day become eligible for, and in 6 years, if Congress does nothing, by law, their benefits will be cut almost 29 percent. So let's just say that once more. If Congress does nothing, in 6 years, by law, benefits going to 75 million Americans--and more at that time--will be cut by almost 29 percent. We have known this is coming. It is because there has been a continued drawdown from the Social Security trust fund. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than it receives. Currently, it is receiving money from payroll taxes but also from the trust fund. When the trust fund goes belly up in 6 years and the only income is that which current workers are paying, then the amount going out has to fall, and it will fall 28.5 percent if we wait until then to fix things. I am pleased to say, though, that there is now momentum on both sides--Republicans and Democrats--to find a solution and to preserve benefits for those who have spent their lifetime earning them. By the way, people ask: How is Social Security going bankrupt? I have been paying into it my whole life. Everybody I know has been paying into it their whole life. So why is it going bankrupt now? I point out to people that when Social Security came along--I don't know--there were like five kids per family, and now there are like two kids per family. And when Social Security was first enacted, you didn't get benefits until you were 65, but the average age of death was 62. Now people live until they are 82, and they are getting their hips replaced when they are 75 to go bungee jumping in New Zealand. So the point being is that people are living far longer and they are living more actively, and as a result of that, we are drawing down that trust fund. So my Democratic colleague from Illinois Dick Durbin, he and I just introduced the PROMISE Act, along with a group of colleagues, Republican and Democrat. And the PROMISE Act sets up a process. It doesn't dictate a policy. It sets up a process that puts Congress on the clock to save Social Security. What the PROMISE Act does, it says that Congress shall come up with multiple options to present to the Senate Finance Committee or to the Ways and Means Committee in the House in order for them to consider it, have it scored, and be delivered to Congress in order to deliberate. And then it says that the relevant committee--say, Senate Finance--has 7 working days to consider it and then it comes to the floor and then we have a vote on it. That begs the question, Why do it now? Why not wait until next Congress? Because every year we wait, it gets harder and harder to fix Social Security. The amount of cuts required or the amount of taxes to be raised are more dramatic, more drastic, and more likely to harm an individual's personal finances. We are not dictating a policy. We are just setting up a process. Now, by the way, in full honesty, I have a policy I have been working on, but my policy will be just one of several policies that will be considered. My policy, we have something in it which we call the big idea. In our big idea, we look at pension funds that are doing well, that are not going bankrupt, that are growing in line with the needs of the people whom they cover. This will be the kind of pension fund that Exxon or Google or Deloitte & Touche has--it is called a pension investment fund--in which dollars are invested at an early stage, allowed to grow, and as those dollars grow over time, they meet the need of the retirees as the retirees become eligible for pulling those dollars down. We have actually done that in the Federal Government. Under George W. Bush, the Federal railroad retirement system was going insolvent, and so Congress voted to allow to diversify the investments of this pension fund. I think every Democrat voted for it in the Senate. Three Republicans voted no, and the concerns they had have been proven to be wrong because what has happened now, in the Federal railroad retirement system, we still have more and more retirees relative to fewer workers, but that system is in the black because it invests in the strength of the U.S. economy, and the strength of the U.S. economy has been able to pay all future obligations. That is our big idea: What has the Congress already done successfully with the Federal railroad retirement system? What is being done with major corporations to meet their pension benefits? And kind of what do you do with your own 401(k)? So if we can set up this investment fund to supplement the payroll taxes that are the primary source for funding Social Security, we can meet that future obligation. By the way, let me go back to the PROMISE Act. I am not dictating my proposal will be the answer. We are dictating a process that can be considered so that any proposal can be brought up. The Presiding Officer has a proposal with Senator Warren. His proposal can come up. So it might be his proposal. More likely, it is going to be some sort of amalgamation. But the only option that should not be an option is to do nothing. Congress is--I am searching for the right word. Congress is being irresponsible--destructively irresponsible--if we don't address Social Security. It is driving the national debt. And if we cut benefits by 28 percent, that will double poverty among the elderly. The promised benefit will not be delivered. By the way, if all we do is borrow, it is going to tank our credit rating. By the way, going back to my particular plan, folks say: Well, what if the stock market goes down? Under our plan, all risk is borne by the investment fund; no risk is borne by the individual. That individual gets all the benefits she has been promised even if the market goes up and down. They ask me: Is it putting the trust fund into the stock market? No way. We have a separate investment fund, separate from the Social Security trust fund, and that is where the investment goes. And one more thing. Folks want to say: Well, wait a second. I don't trust the Congress, and I don't trust the President. If you put a pot of money there, it is like honey to a bear; they are going to reach in and grab it. We have guardrails all over the place, including an annual audit of how the money is invested and how the money is spent or not spent, and that audit is put online so the American people can keep track of what is happening with their trust fund. I will finish by saying this. I like my plan. I think it is a good plan. I think it is going to make it a lot easier to address the problem. But the PROMISE Act is not about my plan. The PROMISE Act, which Dick Durbin and I introduced, is only setting up a process by which Congress is forced to take action before it gets any worse. My proposal may be the one considered. It may be the Presiding Officer's. It may be somebody else's. The only option that should not be taken is the option of doing nothing. We need to do something. With that, I yield the floor.

The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

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

The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Daniel Mack Traynor, of North Dakota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 119TH CONGRESS

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies

=========================== NOTE =========================== On page S4224, July 22, 2026, second column, the following appears: Financial services and general government Senators Hagerty (chair), Boozman, Fischer, Husten, Graham, Reed (ranking member), Durbin, Coons, and Van Hollen. (5-4 The online Record has been corrected to read: Financial services and general government Senators Hagerty (chair), Boozman, Fischer, Husted, Graham, Reed (ranking member), Durbin, Coons, and Van Hollen. (5-4 ========================= END NOTE =========================

Departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies

=========================== NOTE =========================== On page S4224, July 22, 2026, second column, the following appears: Departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies Senators Capito (chair), Moran, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith, Boozman, Britt, Rounds, Husten, Graham, Baldwin (ranking member), Murray, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Merkley, Schatz, and Murphy. (9-8) The online Record has been corrected to read: Departments of labor, health and human services, and education, and related agencies Senators Capito (chair), Moran, Kennedy, Hyde-Smith, Boozman, Britt, Rounds, Husted, Graham, Baldwin (ranking member), Murray, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Merkley, Schatz, and Murphy. (9-8) ========================= END NOTE =========================

Transportation, housing and urban development, and related agencies

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

A message from the President of the United States was communicated to the Senate by Mr. Hanley, one of his secretaries.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the situation in Mali declared in Executive Order 13882 of July 26, 2019, is to continue in effect beyond July 26, 2026. The situation in Mali, including repeated violations of ceasefire arrangements made pursuant to the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali; a coup d'etat resulting in the termination of that agreement; the expansion of terrorist activities into southern and central Mali; the intensification of drug trafficking and trafficking in persons, human rights abuses, and hostage-taking; a further coup d'etat; the presence of foreign mercenaries threatening peace, security, and stability; and the intensification of attacks against civilians, the Malian defense and security forces, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), and international security presences, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13882 with respect to the situation in Mali. Donald J. Trump. The White House, July 21, 2026.

At 2:49 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

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

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

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

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

At the request of Mr. Daines, the name of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks) was added as a cosponsor of S. 137, a bill to amend title 41, United States Code, to prohibit the Federal Government from entering into contracts with an entity that discriminates against firearm or ammunition industries, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Wicker, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 186, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. At the request of Ms. Rosen, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) was added as a cosponsor of S. 189, a bill to amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to expand the capacity of junior or community colleges and area career and technical education schools to conduct training services, education, and outreach activities for careers in the residential construction industry. At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 575, a bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to increase access to services provided by advanced practice registered nurses under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Van Hollen, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1277, a bill to amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide full Federal funding of such part. At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the names of the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) 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. Lujan, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1379, a bill to ensure consumers have access to data relating to their motor vehicles, critical repair information, and tools, and to provide them choices for the maintenance, service, and repair of their motor vehicles, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1454, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide for greater protection of roosters, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Curtis, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1542, a bill to support the human rights of Uyghurs and members of other minority groups residing primarily in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to safeguard their distinct identity, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Britt, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1630, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide more opportunities for mothers to succeed, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Cassidy, the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1723, a bill to support the creation and implementation of State policies, as well as the expansion of existing State policies, for improving the quality and affordability of charter school facilities and to authorize the provision of technical assistance that will support the growth and expansion of high-quality charter schools. At the request of Mr. Boozman, the names of the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) were added as cosponsors of S. 2439, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the distribution of additional residency positions, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Banks, the name of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2955, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish Federal penalties for the knowing and intentional administration of any abortion-inducing drug to a woman without her informed consent, if the abortion-inducing drug has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Lee, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3077, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide appropriate standards for the inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Marshall, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3122, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require notifications to the Food and Drug Administration regarding food substances generally recognized as safe, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Curtis, the names of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) were added as cosponsors of S. 3208, a bill to codify the Six Assurances to Taiwan, provide congressional review of the Six Assurances, protect Taiwan from coercion, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) 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 Mrs. Hyde-Smith, the name of the Senator from South Carolina (Ms. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3697, a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the approval of new abortion drugs, to prohibit investigational use exemptions for abortion drugs, and to impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to previously approved abortion drugs, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3925, a bill to establish the Julius Rosenwald and Rosenwald Schools National Historical Park, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Van Hollen, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3981, a bill to amend the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2022 to extend the sunset, to require a determination with respect to the imposition of sanctions on certain persons of Burma, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the names of the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) were added as cosponsors of S. 4436, a bill to nullify certain rules related to foreign assistance. At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Banks) 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. Moran, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4801, a bill to amend laws relating to duty performed by members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Markey, the name of the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) 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 Ms. Blunt Rochester, the names of the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) were added as cosponsors of S. 4886, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to protect against high out-of-pocket expenditures for Medicare fee-for-service benefits, and to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to enhance programs that protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries. At the request of Mr. Welch, the name of the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4906, a bill to amend the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 to establish a dairy market stabilization program, and for other purposes. At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the name of the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4918, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for students to earn child care-related degrees and to work in child care facilities. At the request of Ms. Ernst, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4952, a bill to combat fraud in Federal programs, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Banks, the name of the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4954, a bill to declare that any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader and to amend section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude the children of invaders from birthright citizenship. At the request of Mr. Hoeven, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4975, a bill to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes. At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from Montana (Mr. Sheehy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4990, a bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to review and update Federal Aviation Administration regulations, policies, and guidance related to low-altitude airspace safety, and for other purposes. At the request of Ms. Ernst, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 6120 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.

ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE UNITED STATES OF THE RECENT CANADIAN WILDFIRES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH IMPACTS BY INCREASING EFFORTS TO EXTINGUISH THESE FIRES AND PREVENT THEIR RECURRENCE Mr. HOEVEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

I, Senator Ron Wyden, intend to object to proceeding to S. 4979, a bill to establish a process to assure the long-term fiscal stability of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, dated July 22, 2026.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

How Rosner and Markowitz Revealed the Hidden Architecture of Disease

So the war is potentially devolving here as we are hitting more and more things that affect civilian life as well as having killed thousands of civilians directly. The laws of war prohibit attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival, including water and food. So where are we? Trump now claims the main mission of this war is to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Iran's highly enriched uranium--that it only has because he tore up the agreement that prevented them from having that--is buried deep underground, so there is no easy way to extract it. If there is no easy way to extract it, how is this war supposed to solve that? So the administration now believes negotiations are essential to be able to withdraw because there is no military answer. Maybe if we had had a debate here in Congress, we would have discussed the fact that there was no military strategy that would result in the extraction of that highly enriched uranium, that it would have to be done by agreement. So we are in the fifth month of Trump trying to bomb his way to an answer, the fifth month of that strategy failing. Negotiators and facilitators of negotiators have proceeded to suggest a 10-day cease-fire to enable return to try to work out some of the details from that previous 14-point outline to solve this war. I support that effort because the path we are on is hurting America in every possible way and hurting a whole lot of civilians overseas. So let's embrace and exercise our constitutional responsibility and pass Senator Van Hollen's War Powers Resolution to end this reckless war of choice. If the President ignores it after we have passed it, then let's collectively insist on defending the role of the Senate and the House under our Constitution to be the place where the decisions are made about going to war. It is time that we honor our responsibility. I know there are a lot of Members who don't want to have to have that debate because they are afraid they will get it wrong--they will make a vote for war and it will be a disaster or they will vote against war and their constituents will disagree. But shirking the responsibility is unacceptable. So strap your big-boy pants on and do the work we were elected under our Constitution to do.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:49 p.m. adjourned until Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 10 a.m.

Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 22, 2026: