Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every bit-- every bit--of real fraud needs to be rooted out. Unfortunately, the Trump fraud policy is not about that.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have begun to make a habit out of calling any Federal policy they don't like ``undeserving fraud": Medicaid, fraudulent; Affordable Care Act coverage, fraudulent; SNAP, fraudulent; childcare, fraudulent; Social Security, fraudulent; kids with disabilities who need Medicaid for home care, fraudsters; small business owners with ACA plans, fraudsters; families who need help paying for groceries, fraudsters; working parents who need childcare, fraudsters; seniors living paycheck to paycheck, fraudsters.

Americans are struggling to afford necessities--food and electricity and medical care. The Republican solution to these challenges is to create more hoops, more redtape, more cuts. The result is more pain and suffering for Americans in need and higher costs for families.

When it comes to fighting fraud, there are proven approaches that we can use right now.

Earlier this summer, I introduced bipartisan legislation with Chairman Crapo, the senior Senator from Iowa, and Senator Cortez Masto that provides a sustainable funding boost to the cops on the beat at the Office of Inspector General at HHS. This organization is so good at what it does that it recovers up to $12 in fraud for every $1 spent on resources. My view is that is a no-brainer.

Senator Ernst's bill is chock-full of automatic triggers, privacy violations, and power grabs for Trump's false-flag schemes on fraud. It is nothing more than a veiled attempt to make life harder for the working families that I was just talking about, who need help with the rising costs of healthcare, childcare, and more.

For example, an automatic HHS investigation is triggered if a childcare provider's payments increase by 10 percent or more in a 6- month period. That increase could be triggered for reasonable situations: The provider is simply serving more kids, serving kids with disabilities, or creating more slots for infants.

The prospect of a Federal investigation, if they increase their enrollment or care for more infants, would deter many providers from expanding their services, making it even more difficult for families to afford good healthcare and childcare.

The bottom line is this government overreach wouldn't fight actual fraud. It would make it harder and more expensive for families to get the care and support they need.

In addition to funding the cops on the street, I am also squarely focused on going after the greatest source of fraud: sophisticated corporations and the ultrarich using well-heeled lawyers and accountants to flout the Federal laws to avoid paying what they owe or bilking billions from taxpayers.

In my view, that ought to be the focus of Congress' efforts to fight fraud.

For those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I rise to express the strongest possible support for the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act.

Senate Democrats began working on this more than a decade ago when I first became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

This bipartisan legislation contains more than 60 tax reforms to improve tax policy for the American people. It cracks down, in particular, on shady tax prep services that scam low-income Americans to make a quick buck. For too long, taxpayers have been victimized by these shady tax preparers. They file returns that overclaim refunds; they pocket excessive fees from their customers; and then they leave the taxpayers struggling to repay the IRS for the erroneous tax returns the scammer filed on their behalf.

These updates will help ensure refunds get out the door on time. It will improve customer service at the IRS, and it will make it easier for taxpayers to get the help they need during filing season.

The bill contains provisions championed by Members--and I want to emphasize this--on both sides of the aisle. I could stand here all day describing how these provisions are going to improve service for taxpayers, but I am going to name just a few in the interest of time.

The bill includes provisions championed by Senators Warnock and Warner that will digitize tax returns, expand online services, and make it easier for taxpayers to know when they will be getting their refunds. A provision championed by Senator Bennet protects access to the Earned Income Tax Credit. A provision authored by Senator Welch would expand access to critical low-income taxpayer clinic services for taxpayers who have a dispute with the IRS. It includes an important provision by Senator Coons which reduces unnecessary tax burdens on Americans held hostage abroad, and a bill that I worked on with Senator Hassan that helps ensure that whistleblowers will receive the recognition they deserve for blowing the whistle on wealthy tax cheats.

So there has been an extraordinary amount of hard work that goes into this. I wish to yield now to my Northwest partner, and as we say in Oregon: This bill is no small potatoes.

I yield to my friend.

Just last week, it was reported that the Trump administration intends to develop public land in several States, including Oregon, to build new data centers.

Since he took office, Donald Trump and his allies have taken every opportunity--every opportunity--to chip away at what belongs to the American people, all in an effort to boost profits for corporations and secure bigger campaign support for themselves.

Public lands are owned and paid for by the American people--our taxpayers. The people get to decide what to do with their public lands, not the big corporations and especially not Donald Trump.

By now, it is well proven that all too often these facilities place massive demands on local utility grids and scarce water supply. In Western States like mine, this is especially troubling as we are facing very serious drought conditions.

My legislation gives Congress a chance to stop these corporate land grabs before they do more damage. This is an opportunity to reject the effective privatization of America's beloved public lands and protect them for future generations of hunters and anglers and hikers and campers.

Congress must not let the Trump administration establish a dangerous precedent, a precedent that our public lands are a fire-sale inventory for development by the highest bidder.

I urge any Member of this body that cares about preserving our public lands and putting a stop to Trump's taxpayer rip-offs to support my bill.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5658, submitted earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I will just be very brief.

The fact is, that can't happen because the reality is, these lands are already being developed in my home State and across the West right now. This is an immediate threat to public lands that we have the opportunity and a requirement to address today in order to protect them.

You can't wait to set something up--the way that my colleague from Kentucky is talking about--while Trump runs roughshod over America's public lands.

I am going to be back in this body again and again until we get a balanced approach to protection with respect to these issues, which we are not getting today because of my colleague's objection.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows in my office be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 119th Congress: Alandrea Harris, Stephanie Meredith, Jada Owens, Dana Moffat, Kathleen Hart, and Jessica Nielson.

Mr. President, I fully support taking tougher action against Russia. They have waged a deadly, years long war on Ukraine, and the United States must do more to tighten the screws on the Putin war machine.

So I am fully in favor of strong sanctions, but this bill, despite its title, is not just a sanctions bill; it gives Donald Trump massive new tariff authority that he will use to threaten our trading partners and raise prices on the American people. I believe Senators will come to deeply regret voting to give Donald Trump this tariff authority. This bill gives Trump so much discretion that he can ultimately decide what countries to tariff or what countries to exempt. He can modify tariffs at his will.

Over the last year and a half, Americans have seen what Donald Trump will do with unchecked tariff authority. They have seen his tariffs raise prices for Americans and their families on everything from food, to housing, to health care. Americans have seen small businesses and family farms shut down because they cannot afford massive new taxes on machinery and merchandise.

The Trump tariffs go on again and off again, disrupting supply chains and making it difficult for businesses to plan, invest, and hire. Our allies, including Canada and the EU, openly question the reliability of our nation and are looking to other countries for more stable trade relationships.

As Trump turns the tariff dial up and down to punish or reward countries as he likes, the process ends up being a corrupt taxing of the American people to settle Trump's personal political scores.

If Congress passes this bill with these tariffs, Members will be condoning the tariff chaos of the last year and a half and inviting more. This bill gives Trump clear authority to put tariffs up to 100 percent on the goods Americans buy from major trading partners around the globe. That includes 100 percent tariffs on things like food, medicine, machinery, and electronics.

Congress would even be letting Trump put tariffs on allies like Hungary, Slovakia, France, Belgium, and Japan. Donald Trump can pick and choose even more countries to tariff every 180 days. That is because there is no mechanism in this bill--none whatsoever--for Congress to roll back the Trump tariffs. Trump can increase or decrease tariffs just by notifying the Congress of his decision. He is not going to be constrained by any kind of paperwork or rules.

Colleagues, this body has been fighting tooth and nail to stop Trump from abusing the laws already on the books. Trump has shown us repeatedly he won't be limited by the spirit of the law. He will use any loophole to slap tariffs on our allies and make life more expensive for Americans. The Trump tariffs are now raising prices, hurting our alliances, and opening the door to corruption. This bill will further increase the cost of living for American families when they are struggling.

To all of my colleagues who have said ``Look, we want to hold down the cost of living; we want to make life more affordable'': this is not going to do that. This is going to increase the cost of living for Americans as we go into the next few months. It would be a nightmare for the Americans who want to see their government tackle the affordability crisis. It would be a dangerous mistake to sign our names on a blank check that gives Trump even more power to indiscriminately use these tariffs.

So I urge my colleagues this morning to support the Paul-Wyden amendment, which would strike this new tariff authority. It would make sure that we are not giving Trump power to tax our constituents for the things they buy from trading partners around the world. There is no need to include this new tariff in the bill, and the fact that the White House won't support the bill without new tariff powers should scare every Senator in this room.

Trump has shown over the last year and a half that he can't be trusted with unilateral power on tariffs. Everything he has done suggests that he is going to abuse this power, and I urge my colleagues this morning to vote yes on the Paul-Wyden amendment to prevent this body from handing Donald Trump a new tool for inflation and corruption.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly. My colleague has hit a number of key points. To close, I just want to make a couple of points.

The American people who are following this debate I am sure think that stuff can be corrected, stuff can be changed. And the reality is under this particular bill, Congress has no authority to modify this deeply flawed piece of legislation. So the reality is in the next few months when we have got folks who are walking an economic tightrope here in America, balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against the rent bill and the like, they are going to come to their elected officials and say: I am getting pounded by these new tariffs. I am just getting hit by an economic wrecking ball. Do something about it.

Under this legislation, Congress cannot, you know, modify this bill's tariffs. It is just not possible. So what we are going to have to do is make sure that the American people get some additional attention in other areas of the economy because under this legislation and under these tariffs, they are going to get hit by an economic wrecking ball. It is an unforced error that doesn't have to happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5366 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President and those following the debate, what this is all about is when you lose your home in a wildfire, the last thing you ought to be worried about is being hit by a massive tax bill.

The bipartisan disaster relief bill that we just passed would give Oregonians and westerners affected by these blazes some real peace of mind. It would lift the massive tax burden and deliver financial relief to each American impacted by a federally designated natural disaster. It is going to get rid of totally unfair taxes on settlement payments and ensure disaster victims can deduct losses after disasters. That is an issue the Republicans created under Donald Trump in 2017.

So, this is an important day for my constituents at home in Oregon and folks in the West because we are taking away what really amounts to a wrecking ball that has been hitting them in terms of the form of a massive tax hit.

I urge my colleagues to get the word out about the important relief that has just been passed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, let me say that, for years now, Bill Cassidy and I have worked together in the Finance Committee on healthcare, trying to find bipartisan common ground. And I just want him to know how much I have appreciated working with him.

This is an issue we simply disagree on. And that happens. People have differences of opinion.

The Social Security crisis is a freight train barreling toward our Nation. Social Security will be depleted before the end of the next Presidential administration.

The resolution on offer now claims to be a quick solution to addressing the crisis. Instead, the resolution creates a fast track for Republicans to carry out a long-sought goal of slashing Social Security benefits for retirees and helping billionaires avoid paying their fair share. Each time Republicans get their hands on Social Security, it seems that cuts get made and life gets worse for seniors. Establishing this commission would be a fast track to cutting benefits.

The proposal on offer is a Senate-only process. Under the Constitution, bills raising taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. Because of this constitutional requirement, any Senate-only process, like the Cassidy proposal, could not include a tax increase. This means, under the Cassidy proposal, billionaires could not be required to contribute. We couldn't increase the payroll tax cap or include

any other revenue increase. It would mean that the entire burden of Social Security solvency would fall on the backs of retirees and the disabled through benefit cuts. That is not a fair solution for the vast majority of Americans.

Here is the bottom line. Since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, I have a long record of working on a bipartisan basis to fix this problem and protect retired people from missing out on their hard-earned benefits. We can do that by updating Social Security to reflect the economy of America today, by ensuring that billionaires pay into Social Security with each paycheck, like teachers, nurses, and firefighters.

Supporting a scheme like this--a fast track to rip away Americans' hard-earned benefits while shutting them out of the debate--is just plain wrong in my judgment.

If Republicans had any real interest in wanting to shore up Social Security, they would be putting forth their own ideas and working with Democrats to protect the program rather than to undermine it. Democrats have several concrete proposals to protect and strengthen Americans' earned benefits without raising the retirement age, cost-of-living haircuts, or means-testing benefits. It all starts by finally requiring billionaires to pay what they owe, just like the rest of us.

Billionaire wealth has skyrocketed to over $9 trillion this year while working people struggle to scrape enough money together to pay for rent, gas, and groceries. This proposal, in my view, is effectively a wolf in sheep's clothing. It does nothing to protect Social Security and, instead, hands Republicans the key to the castle to start their work of ripping away Americans' hard-earned benefits.

For these reasons, I object.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just to respond just for a brief minute. You can't originate taxes in the Senate. So what that means is this proposal gives the billionaires a free ride.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

I object to the Cruz request, and I want to take note of the floor right now because our proposal

has bipartisan support on the floor this morning. In other words, talking about who has been trying to bring people together and the like, our proposal on this floor--the Senator from Florida, the Senator from California, the Senator from Oregon--is a bipartisan proposal. The Senator from Texas is not on the floor with bipartisan support.

I hope he will work with us over the course of the morning to get this worked out.

That is why I object to the Cruz proposal, and I object again.

Mr. President, I am correcting the record and releasing my hold on Executive Calendar No. PN681-2, the promotion of Lt. Col. Vincent J. Noble.

When I placed a hold on this promotion on March 24, 2026, I had gathered, from public reporting, including a New York Times article from 2007, that Vincent J. Noble was part of a Marine unit that fired at civilians as he and his patrol traveled 7 miles along a highway in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, on March 4, 2007, killing 19 civilians indiscriminately.

Following my initial public statement regarding my concerns about this military promotion, I received additional information from the Department of Defense clarifying the nature of Noble's conduct in March 2007, over which the U.S. Marine Corps Court of Inquiry had conducted an in-depth investigation.

Based on the official documents I have received from the Department of Defense related to Noble's time with the Marines, as well as additional public reporting from the Military Times, I now know that Noble was not involved in massacring civilians on March 4, 2007.

The U.S. Marine Corps Court of Inquiry convened in January 2008 determined the marines defended themselves appropriately and proportionally against the March 4, 2007, ambush, that no punitive or adverse administrative actions were warranted against the personnel of the convoy, and that the findings of the initial investigating officer were inconsistent with the evidence considered by the court.

I had originally received an incomplete and inaccurate representation of Noble's actions. Now, I am relieved to know he was not responsible for these civilians' deaths.

I have also been concerned with Lieutenant Colonel Noble's admission of falsified military records. However, these events have been dealt with by the Commander, Marine Forces Central Command, with Noble having pleaded guilty and admitting his conduct unbecoming an officer.

I remain hopeful that Noble proves to be a better colonel than he had been earlier as a captain, and I am releasing my hold.

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

Mr. President, I speak today in opposition to the nomination of Jay Clayton to be Director of National Intelligence. He has repeated baseless conspiracy theories about American elections, refused to acknowledge who won the 2020 election, and participated in an abusive investigation of American journalists while providing false testimony to Congress about that investigation.

It has been clear for months that, under this administration, the main qualification to be DNI is the willingness to use the position to spread conspiracy theories about elections and to help Donald Trump make it harder for Americans to vote. Even before his nomination, Mr. Clayton decided he would show how eager he is to serve as Trump's election conspiracy wingman.

Now, he is the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Yet we all saw him on television talking about elections in California and insisting, without any evidence, that America was doing a ``terrible job'' with election integrity. I was especially alarmed by his conspiracy mongering about vote-by-mail. That is how my home State of Oregon has been voting successfully for years.

On June 8, just a few days before he was nominated, Mr. Clayton was on television talking about how ``one group'' was using vote-by-mail ``dishonestly.'' That is ridiculous. The first two Senators elected by mail were a Democrat and a Republican.

Vote-by-mail benefits rural voters who live far away from polling stations. Vote-by-mail benefits older people who may not be able to drive. It has never been partisan--certainly not until Donald Trump, aided by people like Jay Clayton, made it a part of the attack on American democracy.

Mr. Clayton didn't offer a shred of evidence to support his conspiracy theories, so I asked him point-blank: Who were these mythical election bandits? In his responses to written questions, he said he was only asking questions. That is the stock-in-trade for conspiracy theorists. The moment they are asked to provide some evidence--any evidence--for claims, they fall back on: I was just asking questions. That is my excuse.

It is fundamentally dishonest. It is also behavior that shouldn't be tolerated in someone responsible for providing Congress and the public assessments based on actual intelligence.

Now, as we all saw during his disastrous nomination hearing, Mr. Clayton also refused to acknowledge the simple fact about Joe Biden winning the 2020 election. Everybody knows the truth here. The only reason to avoid the question is to satisfy the Trump ego. But that is what Mr. Clayton did, signaling to Donald Trump and the whole country that he is never going to stand up to Donald Trump--not ever.

I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Clayton's role in the abusive subpoenas issued to the journalists at the New York Times. Mr. Clayton is the U.S. attorney for the Southern District. He signed the subpoenas. He is responsible for this effort to intimidate the press. He is also responsible for the numerous mistakes and errors committed by the attorneys under him, which even included a subpoena to a journalist's mother. This whole mess came out in a court hearing last week, where not only did the judge criticize the government attorneys, but the government itself--the government itself--acknowledged its numerous errors and mistakes before eventually withdrawing the subpoenas.

All that is bad enough, but it also raises serious questions about Mr. Clayton's testimony to the Intelligence Committee that I sit on.

Eight days before that court hearing in which the government acknowledged its mistakes, Mr. Clayton testified repeatedly that the government had followed all the required procedures.

That was obviously false. The only question is whether Mr. Clayton knew it, at the time, that his testimony was false. If he didn't know, then he had no idea what his own office is doing, despite having signed the subpoena, which isn't a great justification for somebody to lead the intelligence agencies.

If he did know, then he may have willfully misled Congress. This is a vitally important question that the Senate should continue to look at, rather than rushing to confirm Mr. Clayton.

Now, there are other examples of how Mr. Clayton is willing to say anything in defense of Donald Trump. In May, he went on television and defended the decision to immunize Donald Trump and his family from a tax audit. He said: It was a ``pretty good deal for the government.''

Well, it was certainly a good deal for Donald Trump and the family, but it wasn't so great for everyday Americans who don't control the IRS. And it wasn't a good deal for government either.

In fact, a judge recently found that the so-called ``settlement'' was ``improper,'' had ``no viable basis in law or fact,'' and was an abdication of the government's ``responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States.''

Yet Mr. Clayton was happy to go on television and defend the corruption.

Finally, as U.S. attorney, Mr. Clayton has been the lead of the administration's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. He was responsible for the inexcusable release of information on Epstein's victims.

As for his other actions related to the investigation in the Epstein files, he has refused to say. Someday, there will be transparency about how this administration handled the Epstein case, and Mr. Clayton's full role--his full role--is going to come out.

Jay Clayton has no business being confirmed for this role. He has repeatedly demonstrated his eagerness to support Donald Trump's conspiracy theories and corruption. He participated in the abuse of the justice system to try to intimidate the press, and he has provided false testimony to Congress during his own confirmation hearing.

Tonight, I urge Senators to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 4979, the PROMISE Act of 2026.

I support my colleagues' efforts to address one of the most pressing issues for Americans: the future of Social Security. However, this bill creates a fast-track process to change Social Security in just 5 months, limiting the public's ability to participate and provide input on the future of their earned benefits.

This bill would direct the Social Security Advisory Board to produce a legislative proposal that extends Social Security's financing at least 50 years in less than 2 months. The Social Security Advisory Board is a seven-member advisory body appointed by Congress and the President to provide advice and recommendations of matters related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs and policies.

Producing a solvency proposal in such a short timeframe would be a herculean task for an Agency with hundreds of employees. However, Trump, Russ Vought, and DOGE's crusade against career civil servants has slashed the Board's staff down to three full-time employees.

Following the Board's work, Congress would have to deliberate and pass a bill during a lameduck session with limited opportunities to amend the proposal. In contrast, the 1983 Social Security solvency reform package--the last comprehensive solvency bill passed by Congress--was the culmination of 2 years of debate, dozens of days of hearings and markups, hundreds of amendments in committee and on the floor, and a full conference committee to further amend the bill. Limiting debate in the open pushes debate behind closed doors.

Finally, the Finance Committee has not had an opportunity to hold a hearing on the legislation or the underlying policy issue. It is premature for the full Senate to debate this legislation.

The solution to addressing Social Security's solvency challenges is to address Social Security's solvency challenges. Democrats have put forward several proposals that would strengthen Social Security's finances and extend the program's funding into the next century. Republicans have yet to put forward a single proposal.

For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, colleagues, at the beginning of this year, the Trump administration empowered unaccountable AI companies to delay and deny certain types of care in traditional Medicare.

Now, Donald Trump promised--promised--that he would not touch Medicare, and, today, it is clear that that Trump promise has been broken.

Seniors paid into Medicare out of every paycheck during their working years, and they did so with an expectation they would have an ironclad guarantee of affordable healthcare.

Today, seniors in six States across America are discovering that care their doctor has recommended for them has been slowed or halted by a shadowy AI-driven third party.

The consequences are not abstract. Seniors with severe back pain have to wait weeks for relief, upending their lives and leaving them suffering because of the bureaucracy of healthcare.

The types of care that are subject to these restrictions are not frivolous: knee arthroscopies, nerve stimulations, steroid injections, cervical fusion. These types of procedures are the care that seniors rely on to stay mobile and pain-free in the aging process.

Now, decisions between doctors and patients are overridden by for- profit AI contractors. The Trump administration's only defense of this model has been to point to the rapid rise of skin substitute procedures to justify their flawed experiment.

The Trump administration's work doesn't pass the smell test. First, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services already have now lowered payment rates for this procedure; in doing so, closed the loophole driving the dramatic increase.

(Mrs. CAPITO assumed the Chair.)

Second, the skin substitute procedures only account for a tiny fraction of care under the model. In the case of Oregon's neighbor to the north, Washington State, skin substitutes account for less than 1 percent of services--less than 1 percent of the services, Madam Chair-- subject to the prior authorization under this model. So the excuses hold no water.

Prior authorization has run rampant in the American healthcare system. For-profit insurance companies are increasingly using this business tactic to block and deter care in order to increase their profits.

I want to put a fine point on this. In 2024, insurance companies that sell Medicare Advantage plans denied more than 4 million prior authorization requests--just think about that: 4 million prior authorization requests. Of those denials, only 1 in 10 were appealed by a senior or their doctor. But when the denial was appealed, it was overturned 8 times out of 10. What this tells me is that prior authorization is being used to deny legitimate care, often acting as a bureaucratic hurdle meant to discourage seniors and their doctors from pursuing a course of treatment that might impact insurance company's bottom line.

It is bad enough that this is the state of affairs in Medicare Advantage, but now the Trump administration is trying to import insurance company tactics into traditional Medicare. And that would mean that seniors who selected it precisely because they don't want to deal with the headaches and complexity of an insurance company would suffer.

This is not a partisan issue. Many of my Republican colleagues have expressed concern about prior authorizations and the state of Medicare Advantage. I hope that they will stand with those of us today who want to tell the Trump administration to abandon an ill-advised experiment that seniors don't want. They didn't ask for it. It doesn't make sense.

There is a lot of work to be done to improve both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage for seniors that count on the Medicare guarantee.

And I have been working on that Medicare guarantee since the days when I was a codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. Let's work on that together, and we can start by ending this AI-driven prior authorization experiment. It is a mistake. We can't run the risk of it being sent to other parts of the healthcare system. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of fighting inefficiency, fighting fraud. We have been working on those issues, as the chair of the Finance Committee knows, together wherever possible.

Unfortunately, what we have seen in this experiment is that we are not dealing with inefficiency and fraud. We are forcing patients to come back again and again and again. That just defies common sense.

And on the issues like skin substitutes, that has been addressed through a payment process, payment policy reform, to get at the incentives and wasteful utilization.

So on the points that the minority is making, the reality is patients are not going to get care, and we are not going to make sensible changes as we have in other areas to deal with fraud and inefficiency.

That is why we ought to be voting for what we are trying to do today on the Democratic side.

I yield back and hope we will have a bipartisan vote.

Fortunately, for--let me say to Senator Murray that I so appreciate your presentation, and particularly talking about the algorithms. And, also, the fact is that under what you have described very clearly, the big winner under this flawed experiment is a bunch of middlemen who are trying to profit off denials, and not the people who really desperately need care.

So I very much appreciate it, and Oregon is proud to be a partner with Washington State in leading the country to get rid of this very flawed idea. And I thank you for your remarks.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to object to this bill, which would restrict access to vital healthcare coverage and make healthcare more expensive for many Americans.

Thirteen States, including my home State of Oregon, have passed laws that require insurance companies to cover reproductive care, including abortion services. If this became law, this proposal would override those State laws. It would let insurance providers deny women coverage for care they need.

Women should make their own healthcare decisions, not politicians, not State governments, and certainly--certainly--not insurance companies.

For all of these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I rise now to offer my legislation with Senators Tina Smith and Patty Murray to restore funding for Planned Parenthood.

That funding was gutted under the Republicans' budget bill passed nearly a year ago. In that time, 23 Planned Parenthood clinics have closed, and 75 percent of those were in rural or underserved areas. Breast cancer exams fell by 25 percent.

Planned Parenthood, unfortunately, has become a scapegoat for many Republicans. In reality, these clinics provide lifesaving primary care. They provide cancer screenings, annual exams, and testing. The majority of these clinics serve areas where there is already a shortage of providers. The fact is that they are a lifeline for rural Americans.

As our country faces a nationwide healthcare provider shortage, this body should be doing everything in its power to expand access to care and bring down costs. Instead, many Republicans remain laser-focused on forcing their agenda on the American people--an agenda that results in closed clinic doors, fewer providers, and higher costs.

The legislation that I now offer, this evening, would restore funding for Planned Parenthood clinics. It would restore lifesaving healthcare for millions of women, especially those living in rural areas and healthcare deserts.

Mr. President, therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 2524 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object is particularly relevant here, because I am sure my colleague is aware that the bill--the 3-week bill--was just defeated in the House on a strong, bipartisan vote this morning.

The House is not back until the 23rd. So my understanding is you can't do anything.

Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate have now rejected what I consider to be the surveillance status quo. I believe there just have been too many abuses of Americans' rights across multiple administrations, and Members of Congress are now standing up and saying: No more.

The only viable path forward is one that leads to real reforms. The Congress has already punted on section 702 twice this year. Every day that 702 is in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are under threat. I believe Americans deserve new guardrails. If Congress is going to extend these authorities--and that is what we are talking about--those guardrails are essential. And, at a minimum, Americans deserve transparency about how these surveillance powers have been abused.

For those reasons, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, again, like yesterday, I am making what I believe is a real offer now. I am offering, again, to extend section 702 of FISA for 5 weeks and give the public more facts about how these surveillance powers have been abused.

Defenders of the status quo seem to think that there is already enough transparency around government surveillance. So let me be very specific about what the bill that I am now proposing would do. It would require more public disclosure about violations of our surveillance laws, including section 702.

It would require more public disclosure about warrantless searches targeting politicians, journalists, and religious leaders. This particular category of searches more than tripled in 2025, and the FBI has refused to explain why.

It would require more public disclosure about warrantless surveillance of Americans outside of FISA, which the public knows virtually nothing about. And it would require the executive branch to redact and release a March 2026 FISA Court ruling that found serious violations affecting Americans' rights.

The executive branch is already required to release this ruling eventually. The chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, in fact, asked them to release it by May 15. But, unfortunately, they just brushed off the chairman and the vice chairman's request.

Mr. President, so as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4740; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, just very briefly on this last point, the proposals I made yesterday and the proposals I made today are longer than anything else on offer--5 weeks--and I think that is the relevant fact.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, as the majority leader knows, the bill that came up in the House had a strong bipartisan vote this morning. It was not something that one party simply tried to jam something through on the other; it was a strong bipartisan vote. It was defeated. The House is gone until the 23rd, so they can't do anything.

Now, with respect to a couple of the details made by the majority leader, I have already indicated that on offer is my proposal, which is longer than anything that has come up in the last day. It is a real offer.

By the way, it is not changing any surveillance powers at all. All my proposal does is offer some transparency, and I think transparency information is relevant when there has been evidence of Americans being spied on, and I think that is why it is important.

So for those reasons, Mr. President, I object.