Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be expired.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate the Hutchinson Monarchs baseball team on an impressive season and their 2025 National Baseball Congress--NBC--World Series victory.

Established in 2009, the Monarchs are a summer collegiate team comprised of current college baseball players. These young men dedicated their summer to improving their skills and playing the sport they all love. While many of the players on the roster are Kansans or attend a Kansas college, some players came from other States like California, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. They live with a host family in Hutchinson, so they could be part of the Monarchs team. Each of these players displayed outstanding commitment to the team, and their hard work paid off.

The championship game's final score of 21-4 underscores the impressive nature of the win. This championship is particularly meaningful because it is the second time in 3 years that the Hutchinson Monarchs have achieved victory as NBC World Series champions.

The Monarchs' championship game also set a record, marking the most single-game runs in the team's history. Players showed up and performed tremendously. Maize native Jaden Gustafson started the team off strong in the first inning with a 2-RBI single; pitcher Pryce Bender threw a no-hitter through four frames; and Andale native Drew Bugner hit one down the line as two runs scored on the double. Each player gave their all on the field, and together, they claimed victory.

Of course, the team would not have achieved victory without the outstanding leadership from their coaches Casey Lippoldt and Ryan Stoecklein. Thank you, Casey and Ryan, for giving your time and commitment to the Monarchs and helping lead them to the championship.

I would also like to thank the host families and members of the Hutchinson community who supported the Monarchs this season. Thank you for opening your homes, preparing meals, and most importantly, showing up to the games to cheer the team on. I know that the players valued every single person who invested in them this summer as they strived to excel during each game.

Winning a World Series victory is no easy feat. This achievement takes countless hours of hard work, sacrifice, and dedication. With this victory, the team of the Hutchinson Monarchs has made our entire State proud. Congratulations again to the Monarchs, the 2025 NBC World Series champions.

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

Mr. President, I want to highlight one of my members, a former member of my staff, Mark Crowley.

For the past 8 years, I have benefited from the service, the hard work, and the loyalty of my legislative director, Mark Crowley. After 12 years of working here on Capitol Hill, Mark is leaving public service, but he has made a positive--a very positive--change during the time that he has spent here working in the U.S. Senate.

Before coming to work for me, he was working for his home State senator, Mark Kirk of Illinois. He was with Senator Kirk from 2013 to 2017. He first joined my office as a legislative assistant covering issues that surrounded the topic of justice, the Department of Justice. He also became my counsel, helping me on issues ranging from technology, taxes, to consumer protection.

Mark's contribution to the Senate has been both wide-ranging and deeply meaningful. One of the examples of this impact of his work was in 2018. The subcommittee in the Commerce Committee that I chaired completed a Senate investigation into the sexual abuse of Olympic athletes. He helped lead a thorough investigation that uncovered systemic failures that allowed abuse to persist way too long.

The joint investigation included four subcommittee hearings, interviews with Olympic athletes and survivors, and the retrieval of more than 70,000 pages of documents.

This work culminated in the development and passage of the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019. This landmark law made critical improvements to the Olympic movement that strengthened oversight and accountability for the safety of American athletes, and Mark was a critical component of the team that saw this legislation become law.

After serving as an LA and then as counsel, Mark shifted his work to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which, as general counsel, he was greatly helpful to me after I became that committee's chair.

In that role, he talked to whistleblowers, provided in-depth oversight of the operations and policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and helped veterans navigate legal challenges within the VA.

Mark has played a key role in passing some of the most consequential veterans legislation in recent memory, including the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act and the PACT Act.

Through his work on behalf of veterans, Mark has showed the same qualities that defined his work on the Olympic investigation: deep policy expertise, a strong desire to get things done--and done right-- and great care for the people who are involved.

At the beginning of 2023, Mark then took over the policy team, serving as my legislative director back in my personal office. Most recently, Mark helped to guide the ACRE Act and the Financing Our Energy Future Act to passage during the reconciliation process.

Whether we are talking about veterans, technology, the Olympics, complex Senate procedure, Mark could be counted on to effectively advise me and lead our team to the success that we have had.

He has been a mentor and guiding hand to several legislative assistants who have come through my office. My junior staff would tell you that Mark brings a steady hand, a steady presence, and even under pressure, he recognizes the importance of thoughtful decision making before taking action. They would also tell you that Mark is quick to crack a joke and often brings much needed humor to Capitol Hill on stressful days. More importantly, he has a real interest in getting to know the people he works with--not just knowing them, not just knowing what makes them tick, but being a mentor and a friend.

Mark leads in a way that earns respect. He makes sure that everyone on the team knows their role, and they know that it matters. He is the kind of person who listens first, gives clear feedback, and never dismisses an idea out of hand. I have many ideas that I thought would be shot down from the very beginning, and Mark, at least, took time to convince me that I was wrong. Because of that, my staff and I have been more encouraged to take ownership and to work harder.

While Mark has expressed to me and to his colleagues how much he loves working in the Senate as a legislative director, there is another role that he loves even more, and that of being a husband and a dad.

The fact that the Senate never seems to end its business anytime during the normal business hours really has created problems in people's family lives. I am grateful to Mark's wife Colleen for letting me keep Mark at work late into these nights for evening votes and vote- aramas, even when that meant he missed out on helping with bedtime and other tasks related to being a dad.

Mark is the father to Ilsa, James, Hallee, and has a fourth baby on the way. As much as he loves working in the Senate, he loves his family. And with a fourth child on the way, he recognized it is time to really put his family first.

I will miss Mark's presence in my office and in the Senate. I will miss his skills and expertise. They don't come along every day. He has a lot to offer our country. While he wasn't a Kansan--perhaps his only shortcoming--he embodies many of the traits that we value in the Midwest: hard work, a cheerful attitude, and determination to get things done.

My many thanks to Mark. I thank Mark for his years of service to me, to Kansans, and to our country. I am wishing him well as a father and a husband and in his new line of work.

I ask the Senate to acknowledge with me, today in these remarks, the contribution that we all find from those who work side by side with us every day in hopes for a great outcome.

Madam President, it is a pleasure to be here on the Senate floor tonight on an occasion that many of us, if not all of us, have waited days, months, years. We have been working a long time to return the U.S. Senate to the position in which we actually legislate, to the position in which appropriations bills, after a topline number, a budget number is determined, Committee on Appropriations begins the deliberation after weeks, months of consideration, of information, of witnesses, of testimony, of reports, and requests from our colleagues across the Senate.

Sometimes I think the appropriators are thought of as a unique group of people, but isn't the reality that every Member of the U.S. Senate is an appropriator? That is because when the committee finishes its work, upon our conclusion of our deliberations and our votes, then every Member of the U.S. Senate has an opportunity to speak and to amend the legislation that we have developed.

Appropriations is really an opportunity for us to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent, that we look for opportunities to reduce spending where it is inappropriate, and support projects and functions of government that matter to the American people, from things that affect people in their daily lives to the broad picture of our country's national security.

So I congratulate the leaders of the Senate. The majority leader, who upon his election to serve as majority leader, determined that he was going to be certain that we returned to something we called, in days gone by, regular order in which the committee passes 12 appropriations bills, and the Senate considers those 12 appropriations bills.

They are considered by the House, and when conferenced and reconciled, off to the President. In the absence of that, the Congress of the United States and my colleagues in the Senate, we lose authority and control over one of our primary responsibilities. On behalf of the American people, we make decisions about their hard-earned dollars and how they are spent. We make decisions about how to avoid spending that is wasteful. And that appropriation process has been absent for way too long in this body.

The bills that we are about to consider--and there will be a unanimous consent request made by me in a few moments, and that unanimous consent request will ask that four appropriations bills be considered by the U.S. Senate beginning this evening.

Four appropriations bills because those four appropriations bills have come through the committee process. Almost without exception, they have been approved in a largely bipartisan way--in many instances unanimously by every Republican and Democrat on the committee. And in every instance, they were passed by both, supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

The Appropriations Committee, although we, from time to time, have our challenges like every other committee in the Senate, has a reputation for working together to get a good result. And we are accomplishing that in the efforts that we are bringing to the Senate, to our colleagues tonight, to the American people, to see our work product on four bills.

That process requires unanimous consent--that every Member, all 100 of us, has an opportunity to make certain that they are ready to proceed. It is required because we are amending, we are adding these bills to a House bill on the Senate floor. And to do so, we have to ask every Senator: Do we have your permission to do so? And that is what is going to take place here in a moment.

The bills we are talking about tonight, the bill that is on the Senate floor, the House bill, the package by which we have to utilize because the Constitution requires that appropriations bills commence in the House of Representatives--so a House bill is on the Senate floor this evening, and we are going to ask unanimous consent to add three other bills to that House bill. Those three other bills are Agriculture, the Legislative Branch, and Commerce-Justice-Science.

And I hope I am somewhat of an expert on many of the topics included in those four bills, but I chair the subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee that appropriates for the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, and a collection of Agencies involved in science. And in that effort to find a balance and support our bills-- and I will speak to the one that I am most familiar with--we have worked in a bipartisan way to create a product that is broadly supported by every Member of the committee, at least has the thought that they had a good chance and opportunity to participate in the process and got a bipartisan result.

For my colleagues who know me, I came here to legislate. I have had the opportunity to work in the U.S. Senate where legislation has been more rare

than I want it to be, and I am proud of our efforts to bring Members of this body together to see that we have an end product for consideration by our colleagues, and presumably, passage by the U.S. Senate, consideration by the House, and a signature by the President.

We don't legislate often enough, as I said, and the sad thing is that I have said this before to my colleagues: I don't know why anybody would want to be a Member of the U.S. Senate if it wasn't to accomplish results, to work together to get a product that meant something for the benefit of our constituents back home.

That meant something for the brighter and better future for the American people and made our country more safe and secure.

When we don't do our responsibilities, when we are unable to accomplish that goal, we harm not only the institution of the U.S. Senate and its role in our government, but we harm the American people.

In the bill that I am most responsible for in this package of four, the Department of Commerce is what you might expect it to be. It affects our business communities and climate. It affects international trade. It is important for communications and telecommunications and broadband.

There is a broad array of issues and Agencies within the Department of Commerce that we are monitoring. We are making certain they are performing correctly to the best of our ability, and we are determining how much money they need to operate.

The Department of Justice is one that certainly comes home to the American people quickly. It is in many instances about law enforcement. This Department funds, for example, the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the U.S. Marshals, and they fund many grants to our local sheriff's and police departments--hugely important for the safety and well-being of American citizens.

We have been at this process, and we are making certain that we have done everything we can to make certain that law enforcement are adequately resourced for the protection of the American people and themselves.

Science--that is the third component of the bill I am most familiar with. Science is, among other things, NASA, our exploration of space; the study of STEM education, the opportunity to excite young men and women, boys and girls, across the country who see an astronaut in space and dream the dream of being that person in their future and, in that process, have a love for STEM education, for science, mathematics, engineering, research--something so important to the future of our Nation, something that protects us as an economy and, as importantly, protects us in our national defense.

We also invest in something called NSF, the National Science Foundation--again, where we produce products and research and information that enhance the quality of life, the future of our country, and our national security. It is a very, hugely important bill to the U.S. Senate, and more importantly, it is important to us because it is important to America.

So the goal this evening is to see that that bill, Commerce-Justice- Science, and the other two bills are added to the House bill that is before us that funds veterans and military construction.

So to start this process on the appropriations process--and, again, let me thank the majority leader, the Senator from South Dakota; my colleague, the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray; and the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Maine, who have worked so diligently to get us to the point that we are tonight.

Nothing has been easy, but there have been significant compromises and efforts to work together at a time in which the Senate finds too many reasons to be divided. It is enjoyable to be on a committee in which, even though we have our differences and even though there have been things that have intruded on each of our desires to have something done in the committee--there have been problems that come from the outside that distract us from our ability to work together. This committee said: We acknowledge the distractions, we acknowledge the differences, but we are going to do everything this year to make certain that the appropriations process works.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, let me explain what the Senator from Maryland is asking to be done, and I explained earlier that there is a set of amendments that is in this unanimous consent request that are put into a managers' package where they have been agreed by both the Republican and Democrat leaders of the Senate. In other words, there has been agreement that these amendments are satisfactory and will be adopted upon the adoption of that amendment.

The Senator from Maryland's amendment that he seeks is not in that list because it is in the other list I described. That list requires a vote of the Senate to determine whether or not that amendment should be adopted, in this case, by 51 votes of the Senate.

So Senator Van Hollen, the Senator from Maryland's request is: Can I move my amendment? Can we modify the unanimous consent request to move my amendment to the place that it is assured of being passed, rather than leave it in the place in which he offers that amendment during the debate of the bills--the underlying bills that we are talking about this evening, in this case, Commerce-Justice-Science--and allow the Members of the U.S. Senate to agree or disagree by approving his amendment with 51 votes or not?

Madam President, the change in procedure is: Do I get my amendment approved by unanimous agreement or do I have to earn the votes of 51 Senators to have my amendment approved?

The reality is, there is not unanimous agreement that the amendment that the Senator from Maryland is speaking about--there is absolutely not unanimous agreement across this Senate floor, perhaps, not even in a partisan way. There may not be agreement from the Democrat Members of the Senate, and there may not be agreement from the Republican Members of the Senate. Therefore, it is impossible for us to agree to allow an amendment that we know has controversy and is not acceptable to 100 Senators to get this special privilege of being adopted so easily.

The underlying unanimous consent request allows for the amendment that the Senator from Maryland is proposing--he has the right to offer the amendment on the floor. That has been agreed to. But that is insufficient for the Senator, and he wants to modify his amendment to be more easily--in fact, automatically accepted.

This issue is, sadly, if the Senator from Maryland ultimately objects to the underlying request, if he is not able to have the consent agreement modified to get the amendment in the position he wants, he then has to decide--if he fails in that regard--he has to decide: Do I want to object to all the bills, all four of them, from being considered? Unfortunately, that includes Commerce-Justice-Science, which I and the Senator from Maryland have worked on together as the chairman of that committee and as the ranking member or vice chair of that committee.

Should he ultimately object to the entire package here because he isn't successful on this request to move his amendment, then all the work that he and I and the members of the subcommittee and the members of the full committee and other Senators and their input have put together, that passed in a bipartisan way out of the committee, that bill will fall by the wayside.

We will then not consider Commerce-Justice-Science tonight, tomorrow, next week, and, in my view, the U.S. Senate will never see the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill on the Senate floor. And, therefore, our work to fund NASA; to fund the National Science Foundation; to fund our police in our home communities and our sheriffs in our home counties; to support the FBI, DEA, ATF, and the U.S. Marshals; and to support the Department of Commerce in its efforts to grow the country's economy, provide broadband to our constituents at home, rural and urban; and to support the efforts of trying to find trade agreements by this administration and the efforts at USDR to find those satisfactory agreements that grow our Nation's economy--the work that we have gone through to this point becomes irrelevant.

If this was a momentary setback, I would feel less concerned, less emotional, less connected to the desire of having this bill see consideration on the Senate floor in this package. Our appropriations process, which I have bragged about tonight--our appropriations process is fragile. We have been successful because we have each set aside things we find objectionable and

worked for the common good of the committee and the American people. It has been so long since the U.S. Senate has done its work in this arena and too many others.

All of us in this Senate, we have other things we would like to do, but we devote our time and effort to public service, presumably, to the public good of our constituents at home and the well-being of Americans across the country. And whether we do that well or not has a consequence around the globe. The United States of America is a place that needs to demonstrate to others--in our own country but others around the world--that we still have the capabilities of governing.

My view is that I have never served in the U.S. Senate when it was at its best. What I know about the Senate is what I read as a kid. What I know about the Senate as the way it should be is the way I learned about it in history. And I want to work here where we do our jobs. If we fail here, we don't just fail for the moment.

Once again, the appropriations process is set aside. When we return in September, I hope we are able to do more appropriations bills. But I doubt that this is the first one to be considered, and I doubt that the Senator from Maryland's amendment goes away so the problems we have tonight aren't going to disappear. We won't see this, and then we will immediately turn to the consideration of a continuing resolution--a continuing resolution that funds the Federal Government at the same rate, at the same place, the same amount of money as we did last year.

Incidentally--it is not incidental. We had the same problem last year. We didn't get our appropriations bills--not 1 of the 12 appropriations bills were considered on this Senate floor, and we had to do--we did; I shouldn't say we had to do--we did a continuing resolution saying we can't decide this. We can't get our act together well enough as Republicans or Democrats or as whatever--however you want to categorize people--we can't work together well enough to pass 12 appropriations bills on the Senate floor, if we were ever given a chance.

This is an indictment of all of us. And I take it very personally as a member of the Appropriations Committee with responsibilities to do our work. And none of us--to go back to the point I attempted to make earlier and got sidetracked--none of us want to be here if we are not making a difference. We have families, we have homes, places that we love to be. And we devote our time and effort to something that is of worthy cause. But the worthiness of that cause--if it is just to be here because you have your name on a door, you have perhaps an important-sounding title, ``Senator,'' there is no joy. There is no joy for me, and I can't imagine there is joy for others if the answer is: Well, we just can't work together well enough to do what the American people insist on, demand, and certainly deserve.

This place needs to prove its relevance. And, once again, if we see failure tonight, that failure will continue, and we will demonstrate it one more time: Well, they just couldn't do it. They didn't get it done. Well, they passed 3 out of 12 appropriations bills.

And in September, as the government is approaching a shutdown because we haven't funded these 12 bills--we haven't passed these 12 bills--we are, once again, on the Senate floor scrambling to figure out how we keep the government open.

What message does that send to our constituents that we can't even figure out how to have a budget or top-line number and appropriate money? Every county commission, every school board, every city council has a budget, and they figure out how to spend money in a year. Why are we less than that? Why is it so difficult for us?

I want to work in a Senate that works together. I don't expect us to agree, but there is common good that can be found in so many instances. And we are so close.

The Senator from Maryland's amendment is about where the FBI headquarters should be located and the process by which that decision should be determined. I appreciate the Senator's interest, but this is not even in the jurisdiction of the subcommittee I chair. This is before us tonight because one of the Senator from Maryland's successors put money into the Commerce-Justice-Science bill for the purposes of building an FBI headquarters, perhaps, in her home State of Maryland. We have dealt with this issue. Let me say it this way. This issue has appeared before us before. The jurisdiction is in a different subcommittee of Appropriations. And the jurisdiction in the administration rests with the General Services Administration, the GSA, not funded by Commerce-Justice-Science or any of the other bills we are considering.

The Senator did offer an amendment in the committee, and it ultimately failed. And one of the things I know about the Senate is it takes a majority, at a minimum, to pass a piece of legislation. And the Senator from Maryland does not have a majority, in my view, who will vote for his amendment.

He can work to make that happen. The Senator from Maryland can lobby and encourage and educate Senators on the Senate floor and in their offices from now until the time that this bill passes. If he objects-- if he ultimately objects because he doesn't have a modification to where he fits in the adoption of what we are talking about, then none of the things in the bill become law, and he has lost his opportunity to make the case to 99 of his colleagues about whether he is right or not.

The Senator and I have worked to find a conclusion that would be satisfactory and I have been unable to--we have been unable to. I don't know exactly what my reputation is in this place, but I do think that people think I work hard and work hard together, and that has been the case in this circumstance. But as I have assured the Senator from Maryland, I know no path forward with his amendment that allows this bill to pass the U.S. Senate.

So when he decides whether or not he is going to object to the underlying question, the question to the Senator from Maryland is, the things that we worked on together, do they matter more than the amendment that you want in such a way that you are unwilling to offer the amendment on the Senate floor and let the Senate work its will?

I think I am about ready to conclude my remarks. But it reminds me that so many times, by our colleagues who are not on the Appropriations Committee, I think we get criticized for being insular. That is not true. We take input from every Senator. Ninety-nine of the Senators in this body provided information to the Appropriations Committee to tell us how to do our work, but there is this sense that we do our own thing.

I have always said the reason we have the Senate is to bring the bills to the floor so everybody--those who are not on the Appropriations Committee--have the chance to have their input. I can't turn what was a majority vote against the Senator from Maryland's amendment into something that a majority of my colleagues would support.

But we are willing--the majority leader has indicated to the Senator from Maryland, he can have a vote to see if he can do it. While I tried and failed to find 51 votes for the Senator's amendment, I am quite certain he is more skilled than I am. I am quite certain that he is passionate enough about this issue. Let him find the folks who would support his amendment, and he can do so. It has been given to him, that opportunity. All he has to do is find 50 Senators to join him to say it. I don't think it is easy, but I think that effort on his part is a better outcome--whatever the outcome of what that amendment is--it is a better outcome than this legislation, Commerce-Justice-Science, the Agriculture Department, the Legislative Branch, and Military and Veterans Affairs. It is more important for us to demonstrate that we actually can legislate and appropriate.

And here we are, starting on our first effort in 2025, and we are already hung up on something that is not really our business.

I started to say earlier that this issue has been around a long time, and it has always been resolved by somebody way above me as a chairman. Sometimes it has gone higher than, certainly, the--I don't mean ``certainly.'' There is not much higher than the chairman and the vice chairman of the committee, but even they have struggled in the past to find a resolution to this issue about where the FBI headquarters should be. It has gone to the other

leaders--the two House leaders and to the Senate leaders--to see if they can find a conclusion.

I can't solve the problem even if I wanted to. I shouldn't say it that way. I can't solve the problem as I want to solve the problem for the Senator from Maryland. Perhaps somebody else can in this process. But don't let it affect the work product that the Senator from Maryland and I and members of the committee and this Senate have worked so hard to find common ground on. We were successful and got complimented for the work we did in accomplishing this goal.

I will not modify my request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, today I want to speak on the nomination that we are considering now. That nomination is of retired Army CPT Sam Brown to be the Department of Veterans Affairs Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.

The Under Secretary of Memorial Affairs is responsible for making certain the National Cemetery Administration honors the memory of our Nation's veterans by caring for their final resting places and providing services to their surviving loved ones.

More than 4 million Americans are laid to rest in NCA's 156 national cemeteries. Kansas, my home State, is home to three of those NCA cemeteries where more than 62,000 Kansas veterans and their family members are now buried. We must have an Under Secretary who treats this position with the utmost respect and understands the importance in honoring and remembering those who pay an ultimate sacrifice.

We also need confirmed permanent leadership at the VA filling roles that are critical to serving veterans and their families.

Today, we are voting on a leadership role that has a no-fail mission to make certain veterans' families have a dignified place to grieve and to remember their loved ones.

Our nominee is a West Point graduate, combat veteran, a husband and father of three. CPT Sam Brown understands sacrifices made every day by men and women of the U.S. military and their families as well, and he is well-equipped to undertake this significant responsibility. In his testimony before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Captain Brown shared how he suffered painful burns in the line of duty in Afghanistan. His testimony included how he heard his gunner, who ultimately saved his life. That gunner shouted: Sir, I've got you, in the midst of the flames. That is the same message of hope that I know Captain Brown will take with him to the National Cemetery Administration. That is the same attitude of service that I expect he will instill in an entire NCA workforce as they fulfill our solemn obligation to the families of our Nation's veterans.

I am grateful to Captain Brown for his service to our country, for his sacrifice, and now for his willingness to continue serving his country in this new capacity. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation today.

I thank my colleagues for listening.

Mr. President, I want to speak just a moment before we cast a vote in just a few minutes. I want to speak about the importance of confirming the nomination of Army CPT Richard Topping to be the Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We have had Mr. Topping before us, and he, as the Chief Financial Officer, if confirmed, is responsible for making certain the VA is a good steward of taxpayer dollars, that the VA has the resources to carry out the Department's mission of caring for our Nation's heroes and their loved ones.

We must have a Chief Financial Officer who puts veterans first, prioritizes accountability and transparency, and understands the importance of this responsibility in helping the Department of Veterans Affairs fulfill its mission.

Captain Topping was raised in a military family and served in the U.S. Army, so he is a veteran. In his testimony before the committee, he shared about the important role the VA played in his life, from caring for his sister who become ill while serving in Iraq to enabling his grandfathers, both World War II veterans, to receive a college education through the GI bill.

He also discussed the importance of using his experience as a servicemember and a veteran to advocate to enhance the VA's financial systems to make certain taxpayer dollars are used effectively and transparently and to improve budget forecasting and management, all of which are critical to the Department's success.

I am grateful to Captain Topping for his willingness to continue serving his fellow veterans in this new capacity, and I look forward to working with him to improve the lives of veterans, caregivers, survivors, and military families in my home State of Kansas and across the country in the coming years. I will be voting yea.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor today as we are beginning the process for this fiscal year of considering appropriations bills.

As this process works, there are 12 subcommittees in the Appropriations Committee. We report out 12 bills, presumably, and we are doing that. The first four are potentially being considered this week for consideration by the full Senate.

Sometimes there is criticism about the appropriations process, and people who are not members of the committee feel left out. I am pleased that we are on the Senate floor today, where every Member--all 100 Senators--has the opportunity to add their thoughts by offering amendments, certainly making comments--offering amendments, taking votes. We ought to make certain that every Senator has the sense that they are engaged in the process of determining how taxpayer dollars are spent.

I commend the majority leader Senator Thune for his commitment and his keeping of a commitment that appropriations bills would be considered on the Senate floor in his tenure as the majority leader. We are off to a start today, and I am pleased that is happening.

The subcommittee report--the appropriations bill that I want to speak just a moment about before we commence a vote at 11 is the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. It is one of the bills that fund a number of segments of the Federal Government.

As the name of the subcommittee suggests, it funds the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, and it has the word ``science'' in its title--Commerce-Justice-Science. Science is generally thought of as NASA, NOAA, and NSF, the National Science Foundation.

Our legislation that has been reported out of the subcommittee and reported now out of the full committee passed with every member of the committee on the Republican side voting in favor of it and about four-- I think the number is four--members of the minority party, Democrats, voting for this bill as well.

The attempt has been made to--as it takes 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation on the Senate floor by our rules--the attempt has been made to make certain that this is a bill that has bipartisan support, and it does.

This legislation is important to the country for a number of reasons, but I would highlight a few.

The Department of Justice in particular is where law enforcement--our battle against fentanyl, for example, our battle against crime that is rampant in many cities across the country,

and our efforts to defeat the battle against violence in our country are directed at the Federal level by the Department of Justice. They do so with the various Federal agencies--the DEA, the ATF, U.S. Marshals, and the FBI. But they often work--and I am glad they do--in conjunction with our local sheriffs and police departments across our country.

This bill funds law enforcement at the Federal level and continues to encourage and provide resources for law enforcement--police departments in our local communities, sheriffs' departments in our local counties-- for their efforts to work together with the Federal Agencies--the DEA, the FBI. That is the way we fight crime and have success in this country, is State, local, and Federal law enforcement working together.

This bill also funds the efforts at the Department of Commerce, particularly in this case related to trade, as President Trump is negotiating with various countries for resolution of tariff issues. The Department of Commerce--and we know that Secretary Lutnick has been engaged in those negotiations--the Department of Commerce houses the Agencies that are responsible for trade policy and trade legislation in this country, including the actual trade Ambassador who negotiates trade agreements on an ongoing basis.

So this bill funds the Department of Commerce in a number of ways, but I highlight for my colleagues the importance of trade, learning just this morning--yesterday--that the United States--President Trump-- and Japan have come together in an agreement with regard to tariffs.

It also invests in science. It helps us meet our mission to get to the Moon, the Artemis Program. We have a goal of making certain the United States of America is on the Moon before the Chinese--returns to the Moon before the Chinese. This legislation funds NASA in a way to continue the efforts to support the Artemis Program and then reach further, as the President has indicated his desire to see the United States travel to Mars and explore further regions of outer space.

I highlight and offer my concerns and condolences to my colleagues from Texas in particular but across the country who have had weather- related circumstances that have caused tragedy across our Nation.

This Commerce-Justice-Science bill, in the science category, funds NOAA. We are making certain they have the resources to make certain we preserve and save life.

This all was done in a way that was designed to make certain that we met our responsibilities to the American taxpayer and that we were fiscally responsible.

Overall, with regard to the budget authority--the ability to obligate funds from the General Fund to the Treasury--what most Americans would consider to be Federal spending--because of offsetting credits and fee collections and rescissions--and we removed those. If they were there, we would have been able to spend at higher levels. But because we rescinded those opportunities, the decline in--let me say it differently.

Accordingly, as a result of those things being the case, the real increase in spending power at the Commerce-Justice-Science-funded Agencies is only a $270 million increase--or 0.037 percent--above the fiscal year 2025 levels. Almost all of the increase went to the census. Commerce-Justice-Science is responsible--the Department of Commerce is responsible for the decennial census, and we have begun our process of gearing up for the next census to take place, so we had to appropriate money for the census.

In addition to that, we found savings--reduced spending--by reducing bureaucratic and workforce funding at both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice.

My point is that within the allocation that we were provided by the full committee--by the chairman and vice chairman of the committee-- Commerce-Justice-Science is within its funding levels, of course, that they allowed us. While we prioritized the things we thought were most important, we also did so in a way that the increase in spending is less than 1 percent and certainly way less than last year and certainly less than the rate of inflation.

I know that the 11 o'clock hour has come. I am pleased to have conversations with my colleagues about moving this bill forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory and mourn the tragic passing of a young Kansan, Phillips County Sheriff's Deputy Brandon Gaede.

On Friday, June 27, Kansas lost one of its finest in the line of duty. Responding to a call in Phillipsburg, Deputy Brandon Gaede arrived promptly at the scene, and as he was attempting to make an arrest, the suspect revealed a concealed handgun and opened fire. Despite being struck several times, Brandon returned fire, neutralizing the assailant in order to protect innocent bystanders and prevent any further harm to his fellow officers. First responders and EMS quickly arrived at the scene to perform lifesaving efforts, but sadly, Brandon did not survive.

I am heartbroken by this tragedy. Words cannot describe the devastating loss felt by Brandon's family, friends, and loved ones. Brandon is survived by his wife Karlye and their three young children. This senseless act of violence has forever robbed the Gaede family of their father and husband and the Phillips County community of a dedicated public servant.

When we lose someone in a Kansas community, it is not simply just another name. It is someone we have seen at our children's school activities, stood beside at community gatherings, and gotten to know as a neighbor and friend.

Brandon's life was an example of what it means to truly serve, and I have come to learn there are many examples of Brandon's selflessness. I attended Brandon's funeral in Phillipsburg. The outpouring of love and support I saw for Brandon was incredible. Over 100 law enforcement agencies traveled to northwest Kansas to show their support for their brother in blue.

In addition to this support, law enforcement has a tradition of escorting a fallen officer to their place of rest, and as the motorcade was headed from Wichita to Phillipsburg, it passed through my hometown of Plainville. The videos I saw showed hundreds of first responders and community members lining the streets, waving American flags and saluting a fallen hero. This moment serves as a reminder to all of us that we more in common than we have apart.

Our men and women of law enforcement, officers like Brandon, put their lives on the line every day in dedication to serving their community. They selflessly stand between those they have sworn to protect and those that wish to do them harm, sacrificing much for the sake of their families, friends, and communities. While we can never repay the sacrifice of Brandon, we have a responsibility to honor his memory and make certain his sacrifice is never forgotten.

To Brandon's family, friends and loved ones: I am sorry for your loss. May God comfort you during your time of grief and be a source of strength during this difficult time.

Brandon served his community with integrity, honor, and respect. May we never forget his memory and his service, and may we each strive to live up to the values he swore to protect.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I was pleased to see President Trump say that his administration will resume sending weapons to Ukraine. It is my understanding that they signed an order to do so. He was going to do that using the resources and flexibilities that Congress has provided to him, to his administration.

This commitment is vital, ensuring that Ukraine has capabilities to meet the needs to protect its people and its territory against ongoing aggression.

America's security is closely linked to the stability of the free world. If Ukraine fails to repel Russia's invasion, the consequences will extend far beyond Eastern Europe, threatening the safety, economic strength, and global leadership of the United States of America.

If we allow a dictator to redraw borders by force, then what message does that send to other authoritarian regimes watching closely around the globe--including China? This is a message of weakness that invites further aggression, and it threatens our allies and partners around the globe.

The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the likelihood of a direct confrontation between Russia and a NATO ally dramatically increases, and that would mean far greater costs--not just in resources but potentially in American lives.

The President has tried to negotiate a peace agreement, but Putin has indicated, in almost no uncertain fashion, lack of interest.

The Ukrainian people have demonstrated incredible courage and resilience. They are fighting for their freedom and, by extension, for the principles that underpin global peace and security.

Our response to what we are seeing in Ukraine and across the globe should be to build more capacity and ensure that we have a resilient industrial base, with an ability to handle all the possible threats that the United States faces now and into the future. And 90 percent of the aid we will provide also goes back directly into the American economy, expanding capacity and resources for our own defense industrial base and creating jobs right here at home.

Expanding that industrial base is hugely important to the future, the well-being, the national security of our Nation. By aiding Ukraine, we are replenishing our own stockpiles with new, more advanced equipment and demonstrating American leadership on the global stage.

President Trump also secured a recent agreement at the NATO summit in which members of the alliance agreed to increase defense spending from 2 percent to 5 percent by 2035. This commitment to the defense of Europe and the NATO members is a tremendous development and will bolster our collective strength in an alliance, bringing our allies' spending up to the same levels of the United States.

We need to make certain Ukraine has the equipment necessary to win a just and lasting peace. We are interested in that peace. We want that peace.

The United States must continue our resolute support for Ukraine, showing our adversaries that we are a reliable partner and that attacks on democracy will not go unanswered.

We need to prove, particularly after our withdrawal from Afghanistan, that our allies can rely on us and our adversaries should fear us.

Mr. President, I thank you for your engagement today and, in the past, the things that you have secured to see that there is a bright future for the people in Ukraine.

And I thank you, Mr. President, for my time on the floor.