Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, the Senate is now debating section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires on Friday. Last week, the Senate resoundingly rejected a bill that would have continued the surveillance status quo.

It is clear the path to 60 votes in the Senate on section 702 runs through real reforms. There is no reason why the Senate can't start moving forward with surveillance reform now.

I and other colleagues have introduced comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral surveillance reform legislation, which would protect both Americans' rights and national security.

We have been championing these reforms for some time, but I understand the Senate is divided on the issue. So Senators are going to need to get to work trying to forge a path forward.

So I am prepared to put some real offers on the table right now. So I am going to start by asking unanimous consent to pass a simple bill that makes one very important reform. It would require government agencies to get a warrant before using section 702 to read the communications of Americans. It contains a number of exceptions, including for emergencies, and our analysis is that it would be very feasible for the executive branch and the FISA Court to implement it.

Most importantly, it would finally bring section 702 in line with the principles of the Fourth Amendment. Law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in section 702 now, and this bill would require that government agencies get a warrant if they want to read Americans' emails, text messages, or other sensitive communications.

And let me note: A number of Republicans in both the Senate and the House have sponsored or cosponsored legislation to create the kind of warrant I am talking about.

This bill is only one part of my comprehensive surveillance reform bill. It doesn't address numerous other concerns related to FISA or other intelligence authorities and the sale of Americans' location data. It is not a long-term solution by itself; it will, however, extend section 702 of FISA for 9 months, well into next year.

So I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4738, 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, I think it is unfortunate what my friend from Texas is saying.

Let me be clear. The warrant requirements that I am talking about are sponsored or cosponsored by Republican Members both in the Senate and in the House. And my bill does not require a warrant to search metadata. A warrant is only required to read the contents of Americans' communications.

Of course.

Mr. President, without continuing this well into the evening, let me just say that I am quite certain that the senior Republicans who have sponsored or cosponsored these ideas understand what this is all about, and I believe we will continue this conversation.

Mr. President, I am now going to move to another unanimous consent request to pass an even narrower bill that is hard to see anybody objecting to. It would not make any changes to surveillance law, but it would significantly increase public transparency about the impact of surveillance on Americans' rights.

It would create some new reporting requirements that would help inform Congress and the public about surveillance activities that impact American citizens. It would direct the executive branch to declassify a March 2026 FISA Court ruling on section 702 that found significant violations affecting Americans. The executive branch is already legally required to declassify the report, and they have had 3 months to work on it; in my judgment, it needs to be redacted and released in the next couple of weeks so they can inform the surveillance debate here in the Senate.

The chairman and the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am honored to serve on, called on the executive branch to redact and release this court ruling by May 15, but the executive branch simply disregarded their request. This bill also extends 702 for 5 weeks.

On this point, 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, I have served on the committee for many years with my friend, and I appreciate him and don't want to give him a hard time. I am a U.S. Senator from Oregon, though, and I think I have been called the Senator from Washington.

Our friendship will continue.

Now, Mr. President, I think, at this point, my colleague has a unanimous consent request that he wishes to make. Then I will respond, and we will complete our business for the night. So my colleague, I would say, ought to make his unanimous consent at this point.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I would only close my remarks by saying every day that section 702 is in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are, unfortunately, under threat. If there is going to be an extension of these authorities, there need to be some guardrails or at least some transparency that would allow Congress and the American people to understand the abuses that have taken place and the need for the kind of reforms that I and, as I say, senior Republicans in both the Senate and the House have been backing.

For those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, just very briefly before I leave the floor, I only want to say to my friend that I am always interested in talking to him about ideas, to bring people together and find some common ground. I have said, as we have gone through this debate, that Ben Franklin summed it up as, basically, liberty and security aren't mutually exclusive.

We can figure this out, but we are going to have to start talking. We are going to have to have some negotiations. I have enjoyed talking with my friend from Texas and would be happy to continue it in the future.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, there is nothing in this budget bill that is as important as holding down prescription drug costs for Americans. Meanwhile, Donald Trump says that he signed a deal with 17 pharmaceutical companies to get, and I quote here ``the lowest priced drugs in the world.''

Now, Trump wants Congress to put his deals into black letter law sight unseen.

My amendment requires the administration to publicly disclose the details on these Trump deals, and to find out what the savings are, and also to protect trade secrets and confidential information.

The Trump prescription drug deals are shrouded in secrecy. If they are what Donald Trump claims, there should be nothing to hide. This amendment gives Congress and the public the specifics on these drug deals once and for all. Patients, families, and taxpayers deserve nothing less.

I urge Senators to vote for this proposal.

Mr. President, very briefly--

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, as of a few days ago, every American taxpayer is subject to audit except for Donald Trump and all the members of the Trump family.

No matter what you think about the Trump family finances, no one can deny that this is a double standard: one set of rules for an ultrawealthy individual--the most powerful person in the world--and another set of rules for everybody else.

This is unjustifiable, and all of us here know it. My amendment would send the bill back to committee so that the Senate can wipe out this egregious double standard.

The same tax rules ought to apply to everybody across the board. That is how you maintain fairness in the tax system. That is what my amendment is about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, S. 2, it is my intention to make the following motions to the bill:

A motion to commit the bill S. 2 to the Committee on the

Judiciary of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would require--

(A) the Department of Justice to evaluate confidential drug

pricing agreements entered into by any Federal department,

agency, or office with any pharmaceutical manufacturer; and

(B) that the provision of law commonly referred to as the

``Freedom of Information Act'' be amended in a manner that

would require the public release of all such agreements,

while protecting proprietary pricing information.