Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up the Wicker-Reed substitute amendment No. 3748, as modified, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3427 to Senate amendment No. 3748, as modified, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 4 p.m. today.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to take up this year's National Defense Authorization Act. My colleagues and I on the Senate Armed Services Committee have worked hard to bring this bill to the floor for consideration by all of our fellow Senators, and we bring it to our colleagues with a resounding committee action.

In our committee markup, we voted in a landslide--26 yeses and only 1 nay--to advance the bill--a nearly unanimous endorsement of this legislation. My colleagues and I have spent

the past 7 months listening to the Nation's top military officials. These officials from command stations all over the world have detailed the dangerous threat environment facing the United States. This NDAA is a direct response to their testimony. In our overwhelmingly positive committee vote, we send a clear message: We agree with the testimony of our military officials. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that we are not where we need to be on national defense. This bill helps close that gap.

The committee's fiscal year 2026 NDAA is focused on two things: rebuild and reform. Again, by a vote of 26 to 1, we adopted a bill with a $924.7 billion top line--an increase that recognizes the urgent need to rebuild our military. We also adopted numerous reforms to the Pentagon's antiquated business processes captured in my FoRGED Act--the most significant acquisition reform proposal in decades.

This NDAA will help rebuild the U.S. military so that our servicemembers are better equipped for the threats of the 21st century. This bill makes investments in cutting-edge technology, such as artificial intelligence, cyber defenses, drone production, and the means to defend ourselves against drones. We authorized a 3.8-percent pay raise for servicemembers, and we expanded programs to continue President Trump's successful military recruitment surge. This NDAA supports the DOD's role in border security and rolls back statutory requirements for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the Pentagon.

Throughout, we sought to give the President the tools needed to keep the homeland safe. This NDAA helps equip the United States to counter the Chinese Communist Party. The committee included authorizations to replenish munitions used earlier this year against Iran, to accelerate shipbuilding, and to support the Golden Dome initiative and many other important initiatives.

This National Defense Authorization Act would bring the Pentagon's acquisition process into the modern day. As one example, in just a single provision of this bill, we repeal 86 outdated or unnecessary acquisition policies. Actions like that help turn the page on an outdated system as we look to the future.

This bill streamlines decision-making processes at the Pentagon and brings more competition to the procurement process. The committee recognizes that America is full of innovators who are developing exactly the kinds of technologies that dominate the battlefields of the 21st century. We have produced an NDAA that taps into that talent.

Our deliberations resulted in an overwhelming vote count. Perhaps one reason for such a consensus was that our drafting process was collaborative and involved. The bill contains 985 items that were driven by Members of this body. Of that, 78 items were Member requests for military construction. Another 136 items came from Senators requesting budget increases for procurement operations and maintenance and research and development, and 771 items were policy ideas directly responding to Member requests. In total, those 985 items totaled 60 more than last year and are a sign of a strong, bipartisan consensus that we need to move quickly to modernize our Armed Forces. As those statistics bear out, this is a highly Member-driven bill.

Our committee markup was characterized by that same collaborative spirit. We conducted 49 votes on amendments, working from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., only 10 hours--perhaps a record--and I am certain it was an efficient and effective process.

As I look at that 26-to-1 committee vote--have I emphasized that enough, a 26-yes, 1-no committee vote?--I want to thank my colleagues on the committee.

My dear friend, the ranking member, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, has already spoken. He deserves credit. He and his colleagues contributed thoughtful and decisive ideas to this bill, and our staffs worked closely throughout the process.

As I prepare to conclude, may I stress that a regular order process will always yield the best results. I regret that, last summer, the NDAA was not given full consideration on the Senate floor. This is our opportunity to correct that. I am confident that Leader Thune will want to do things differently this week and next. We need an open amendment process undertaken in the light of day. My fellow Senators have already filed hundreds of amendments. The American people deserve to see how their elected officials are voting on important national security matters.

It has not been that long since we have had an open amendment process with multiple managers' packages and dozens of votes. As recently as 2023, we considered 900 amendments during floor debate, and we adopted 121 of them--the most amendments adopted to the Senate NDAA in years. We can do it again, and I ask my colleagues to join us in showing this great body by working as the Founders intended.

In an increasingly dangerous world, this is our moment to provide a strong national defense. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee stand fully behind this bill. We are eager to begin working with the rest of our colleagues in the Senate as we consider this year's National Defense Authorization Act on the floor. Let's have a resounding ``yes'' vote in just a few minutes, and then let's get to work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote commence immediately.

Mr. President, this month, Mississippi said farewell to Col. Carlyle ``Smitty'' Harris--a war hero, a family man, and a community leader who left a storied legacy.

Many Mississippians know the story of Colonel Harris. In April 1965, during a mission over North Vietnam, Colonel Harris' F-105 was shot down by enemy artillery. He became the sixth American prisoner of war in that conflict and would spend nearly 8 years in captivity. Colonel Harris approached imprisonment with courage and resilience. He introduced his fellow POWs to the now-famous ``Tap Code,'' which allowed them to communicate with one another. His ingenuity helped sustain morale amid vile prison conditions.

Colonel Harris maintained a sharp mind during and after his military deployment. He was committed to a lifetime of learning and had a resume to prove it. While serving on the faculty of the Air War College, he completed two degrees. He continued his education at the University of Mississippi Law School and returned to the classroom several years later for a degree in banking.

Colonel Harris had a demanding work schedule, but he made time to volunteer. He approached numerous local leadership roles with the same dedication he gave to his Air Force and civilian careers. For years, he committed much of his spare time to philanthropic causes, including the Tupelo Rotary Club, the North Mississippi Medical Center, and the Boys and Girls Club.

Although Colonel Harris lived a remarkable life, those who knew him recall a man with a down-to-earth character. Despite his professional accomplishments, he was most proud of his role as a loving husband, father, and grandfather.

I join my fellow Mississippians in saluting Colonel ``Smitty'' Harris, remembering with gratitude and admiration his life of sacrifice and leadership.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

What the Chair has just said is that we have--there is a rescission package which has been sent to us by the administration. It is in the committee now. The next vote would discharge the committee and bring that rescission package to the floor. At that point, if I am not mistaken, we would then have another vote to proceed to that bill; is that correct?

I don't want to leave my colleagues in suspense. I intend to vote for the motion to discharge after much contemplation and to vote to then proceed to the bill, and I do so with reservation.

First of all, I applaud the administration for asking for rescission of $9 billion in unnecessary spending. I have made the statement that I would vote for a bill that was twice that size and even larger. I think we can find that much waste. But this is an unusual procedure. It hasn't been done by the Senate and the House. It hasn't been successfully done by an administration since the George W. Bush administration in 1992.

Nine billion dollars is a tiny fraction of what we spend, no question about it--a fraction of a fraction, actually. But there is a big difference that has troubled me, and it is the reason I come to the floor tonight expressing concern in spite of the fact that I will vote in the affirmative on these two motions tonight.

When George W. Bush proposed rescissions back in 1992, he listed specific programs that would receive specific amounts of cuts, and it was a rather thick proposal. But Members on both sides of the aisle in both Houses had exact information about what programs would be targeted and where the cuts would be made and by what amount.

That is not present in the proposal before us tonight, and that troubles me because it concerns me as, perhaps, approaching a disregard for the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch under article I. Congress has the power of the purse; the President has the power to enforce.

In this situation, there is a specific amount stated that will be rescinded, and then, basically, we are given a number of areas where the cuts will come from, but this Congress will not be allowed to choose those specific cuts. They will be done by somebody in the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. And in this situation, it will amount to the House and Senate basically saying: We cede that decision voluntarily to the executive branch.

And so I have expressed concern about this. And in meetings that I have been in attendance with our team on this Republican side of the aisle, I am not the only one who has expressed those concerns. There are Members of my party who will vote no tonight--I think a relatively small number--and I don't fault them for voting no. There are also Members who are very concerned, as I am, about this process and who are requesting of the administration: If we do this again, please give us specific information about where the cuts will come. Let's not make a habit of this. Let's not consider this a precedent. But if you come back to us again, Mr. Director of the OMB, if you come back to us again from the executive branch, give us the specific amounts and the specific programs that will be cut. And that has been my concern.

Nevertheless, I choose to be mindful of those concerns, but to answer to a larger imperative at this moment, and that is to realize that we are in a budget crisis and that we have an unsustainable national debt and the amount of this bill is a small step toward addressing that. And so, at this moment, I think that imperative outweighs my concerns about the lack of information that this Senate and our brothers and sisters in the House have about where the cuts will be made.

I hope in conversations with the executive branch today, I hope in conversations over lunch between the OMB Director and Members of the Republican Senate caucus, that the point has been made: Next time give us the specific information.

And so I come tonight to express to my colleagues the reason that I have been so concerned about this, the reason that I understand why some of my colleagues will choose to vote no.

But realizing that we are about something larger and, in this instance, I think the message that we send to our fellow countrymen, to our colleagues in the House, and, yes, to the executive branch, is that the need for the cut in $9 billion overrides the specific objections that I have. And for that reason, I will vote yes.

I expect the first motion to pass, and then we will proceed on. And perhaps, for the information of our staff and our pages, we may be here late tomorrow night.

But I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns and my reason for overcoming those concerns in this instance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is the eighth motion to recommit that our friends across the aisle have offered. Each one of these would actually have the effect of ending this process and prohibiting this bill from being passed, and that is the reason they keep offering them.

I just want to point out there is nothing in this reconciliation bill about Presidential aircraft, the current one or any future ones.

Our colleagues have worked on the specifics, and I know my friend from Connecticut knows this because he is a senior member of the committee. We have specifically outlined every purpose for which the $150 billion is to be used by the administration. And not only that, I have received an assurance from every witness we have who has come before the committee to become a member of this administration that they will follow our directions, without exception.

So given the fact that there is no funding in this bill for any Presidential aircraft and that the Department of Defense portion of this reconciliation is accompanied by specific language as to where it should be spent, I ask for another ``no'' vote on these dilatory motions to commit.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Mississippi, I commend Gifford H. Ormes, Jr., for his military service and lifelong dedication to his community.

Mr. Ormes served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force for 24 years. He was deployed primarily in the Far East, completing multiple tours in Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam, and he completed a unique assignment in the Khyber Pass near the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Ormes was later retrained as a cost analyst. He worked briefly in that capacity before being called back into a special assignment, this time to the Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. To this day, Mr. Ormes bears the marks of his sacrificial service. During his career, he was exposed to Agent Orange. The Department of Veterans Affairs recognized him as 100-percent disabled from his exposure to the toxin.

After retiring from the Air Force, Mr. Ormes remained active. He earned a degree from William Carey University and transitioned to a civilian role at the Navy Seabee Base in Gulfport, MS, where he worked for 16 years before retiring once again.

Mr. Ormes military service is complemented by his dedication to his family and community. At Keesler Air Force Base, in Biloxi, MS, Mr. Ormes met the woman who would become his wife. To this day, they have shared 57 years of marriage. Mr. Ormes is an active member of the Bridge United Methodist Church in D'Iberville, MS, where he leads courses to introduce people to the Christian faith and to strengthen marriage. He is also involved with the Backpack Buddies program, supporting food-insecure children by organizing and delivering nutritious food through church outreach efforts.

I join my fellow Mississippians in thanking Gifford Ormes, Jr., for his exceptional service to his country and community.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commend the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, MS, on the occasion of its 40th anniversary of commercial operation. As the largest single-unit nuclear power reactor in the United States, Grand Gulf stands as a pillar of reliable and resilient nuclear energy production, for Mississippi and for the entire region.

Since beginning operations on July 1, 1985, Grand Gulf has delivered nearly 1,500 megawatts of carbon-free electricity, enough to power over 800,000 homes. It is the only nuclear power plant in the State and currently supplies approximately 16 percent of Mississippi's total power generation. Its legacy is not only measured in megawatts but also in its role as a driver of economic development, technological excellence, and environmental stewardship.

Grand Gulf's contributions to Mississippi's economy are substantial. The plant pays nearly $30 million in State and local taxes annually and brings in an additional 800 skilled contractors during routine maintenance and refueling periods--supporting local jobs and businesses. The Mississippi State Senate recently passed a resolution honoring Grand Gulf for its sustained service and economic impact to the State of Mississippi.

At the heart of Grand Gulf's success are its people. I would like to recognize the team of over 750 highly trained nuclear professionals that operate and service the plant. Grand Gulf's team has cultivated a culture of safety, continuous improvement, and community service. The station maintains some of the highest safety standards in the industry, with redundant safety systems and rigorous employee training.

Beyond its critical energy mission, Grand Gulf is also a valued community partner. In 2023, the plant donated more than $120,000 to local causes and logged nearly 4,000 hours of volunteer service. In 2024, more than 1,600 students visited the station to learn about careers in nuclear energy, opening doors for the next generation of skilled professionals.

In an era when reliable, resilient, and emissions-free electricity is more critical than ever, Grand Gulf continues to lead by example. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Grand Gulf team on 40 years of excellence and thanking them for their enduring service to Mississippi, our communities, and the Nation.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

I know of no further business and suggest we proceed to the vote.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Mississippi, I commend Dr. Sam Polles, a public servant who has worked tirelessly to benefit the State.

A native of the delta, Dr. Polles is a lifelong learner. He graduated from Clarksdale High School and continued his education at Delta State College, as it was known then, earning a degree in premed and predental studies. He received both a masters and a doctorate at Mississippi State University. After graduating, Dr. Polles took roles in several organizations focused on agriculture and the outdoors. In 1992, his life's vocational calling came into focus. Dr. Polles began working at the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, and he went on to serve as the agency's executive director for 29 years.

In his position, Dr. Polles touched the lives of almost every citizen across the Magnolia State. He made sure the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks fulfilled its primary mission: to provide quality outdoor recreational opportunities for residents and out-of-state visitors. On a practical level, he implemented point-of- sale systems for purchasing licenses, boat registrations, and reservations at park facilities.

Dr. Polles is a family man. He spent over half a century married to the late Mary Margaret Humber Polles, and he is the father of three sons and the grandfather of seven grandsons. In his retirement, Dr. Polles has continued spending time outdoors with his sons and grandsons, enjoying his favorite outdoor activities, duck and turkey hunting. I join my fellow Mississippians in thanking Dr. Sam Polles for his service and for sharing his love of the outdoors with us all.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report

favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to add my voice to the many who are commending President Trump as he works toward peace in Ukraine.

The President recently gave the aggressor, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, every chance to put down his guns and end the killing. He has done that over and over, but our President is now showing that he will not wait on Mr. Putin forever. Every time Ukraine and the United States have extended the hand of peace, President Putin has responded with aggression. With one hand, Vladimir Putin always makes a show of participating in peace talks. With the other, he has repeatedly bombed civilians--a clear war crime, a war crime--including just on Sunday of last week, Palm Sunday, when he bombed worshipers and children who were playing on a public playground.

On Saturday, the day before yesterday, the President took Mr. Putin to task for this brutality, and I commend the President for doing that.

The President said:

There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into

civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days. It

makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war--

he's just tapping me along--and has to be dealt with

differently.

Thank you, Mr. President, for saying that.

One of the President's staunchest supporters in this body echoed that statement just yesterday.

Senator Kennedy of Louisiana said:

[P]utin thinks that America has taken the bullet train to

chump town.

Chump town.

The President is right, and Senator Kennedy of Louisiana is right. There is one man to blame for this war. If Vladimir Putin puts down his guns, there will be no more war. If Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine put down their guns, there will be no more Ukraine. That is the simple truth, and I appreciate the President expressing that forcefully.

Then, today, GEN Jack Keane, a very respected observer and officer and official in the Institute for the Study of War, expressed essentially the same sentiments as Donald Trump expressed the day before yesterday and as Senator Kennedy expressed yesterday. On FOX News this morning, General Keane gave the President due credit for pursuing peace in Ukraine. The general noted that President Trump, understandably, seems to be running out of patience with Putin's intransigence.

I know that many Members of this Chamber are running out of patience too.

General Keane then asked a simple question: Which side has shown that it wants a peace deal? Both sides claim they want peace, but what is the evidence?

And here is the truth: The truth is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has shown that he is interested in peace. He has negotiated at length with the administration. Ukraine and its President agreed to a 30-day cease-fire. Vladimir Putin rejected the idea. Instead, Putin initiated an agreement to halt attacks on energy infrastructure, and then he immediately violated that agreement. Mr. Putin did.

Worst of all, throughout these so-called peace talks, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly taken the lives of noncombatant civilians and pummeled residential neighborhoods with bombs. Every statement Mr. Putin makes should be viewed through that lens.

President Trump is right. Too many people are dying, and that includes the Russian people who are also suffering.

The Russian people do not deserve to live under a vicious, larcenous, trillionaire president-for-life like Vladimir Putin. So far, only one side has worked to end violence.

This weekend, the Trump administration set a timeline for Vladimir Putin to choose peace, and I commend them for it. I commend Secretary of State Marco Rubio who said the President will decide soon whether Putin is interested in actually working toward a just end to the war.

All signs indicate the answer will be no. The real answer from Vladimir Putin will be no. Just this morning, the Russian Foreign Ministry published words straight from the mouth of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In no uncertain terms, this high-ranking Russian official rejected President Trump's peace deal.

So this is a pivotal week. I look forward to the President's decision. I would remind him and my fellow colleagues: Putin cannot be allowed to drag the United States along.

The U.S. Senate is ready to back President Trump as he stands up to Putin, on a bipartisan basis; 50 Senators--25 Republicans and 25 Democrats--recently introduced a bill called the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. Who says there is not bipartisanship in the Senate? Recently, 25 Republicans and 25 Democrats have introduced legislation that would introduce primary and secondary sanctions against Russia and against actors supporting Russia's aggression in Ukraine, imposing real consequences on Putin if he continues refusing to engage in good-faith talks with Ukraine and the United States. And he has never engaged in any talks that were in good faith.

Putin repeatedly bombs civilians. He has forged a trail of broken promises. He, and only he, chose--unprovoked--to start the largest land war in Europe since World War II. Putin, and only Putin, did that. Where in any of this has there been a showing of good faith?

On Saturday, the President suggested that Putin ``has to be dealt with differently.'' I applaud this. My Senate colleagues applaud this. Experienced military professionals like General Keane applaud this. The President has been exceedingly patient, but he is correctly stating that there should be an end.

It is time to treat Putin like the deceptive, cunning war criminal that he is.

I yield the floor.