John Thune · TranslatePolitics.com

Senate

Legislative Session

2026-07-29

“I want this bill to pass. It will help the President put pressure on Russia and Iran. Russia is fighting a war. They get money from oil and gas sales. China buys a lot of oil and gas from Russia. The bill will put tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas. It will also sanction people and banks that help Russia sell oil and gas. This will make it harder for Russia to pay for the war. Lindsey Graham worked hard on this bill. He was a good man. I want to honor him by passing this bill.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, yesterday, we said goodbye to our friend and colleague Lindsey Graham. But though we said farewell, Lindsey's work continues. Last night, we began consideration of the bill to which he devoted so much of his time and energy over the last year. He had worked on it with world leaders and Members of both parties here in Congress, and he was working on it on the day he died. That bill is now known as the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act. It will give the President important tools to hopefully end the war between Russia and Ukraine and bring peace where there has been war for too long. Russia invaded Ukraine 4\1/2\ years ago. Back then, many believed Ukraine would fall in less than a week. But Ukraine has denied the Russians the quick victory that they had expected. This war continues because Vladimir Putin wants it to continue. Over the course of the war, Russia has suffered 1.4 million casualties. By one estimate, Russian casualties are now 30,000 per month. Ukraine has slowed Russia's advance. They have gone on the offensive within Russia's borders. And with the war reportedly taking up a significant share of Russia's budget, Putin is seeking to quash the opposition to it in his own country. But the war continues, as I said, because Putin wants it to continue and because he is able to keep it going. Russia funds its war effort in no small part through oil and gas sales facilitated by its so-called shadow fleet of ships flying under false flags. What the Graham Russia sanctions bill does is go after that source of funding. It gives the President authority to levy tariffs of up to 100 percent against the largest purchasers of Russian energy, of which China is the largest. You might recall that before the Russian invasion in 2022, the leaders of China and Russia declared a ``no limits'' partnership between their two countries. Today, that partnership is most evident in China's financing of the war by purchasing Russian oil and gas. This bill doesn't stop with the purchasers of Russian energy, however; it also sanctions the government officials, private individuals, and banks and other enterprises that facilitate the sale of Russian gas and oil. In short, it takes direct aim at a key source of funding for Russia's war effort because this war will not end until Putin is forced to come to the negotiating table in a real way. This bill is about denying Putin the ability to continue to prolong this war. President Trump has made his commitment to ending this war and bringing peace to Ukraine very clear. This bill will help him do that. They say you can know a man by the enemies he has made. Lindsey Graham didn't have many fans in the Kremlin, nor was he liked in Tehran or Beijing, for that matter. I don't think this bill has many supporters in those places either. This is a bill that aims to shut off a key source of strength for Russia's war effort. It targets China's source of cheap energy. It ensures the President can continue putting maximum economic pressure on Iran as well by extending for another 5 years the legislation that underpins many of the sanctions that are in place against the Iranian regime. We may have said farewell to Lindsey yesterday, but his work goes on. He believed in America, and he saw its promise in the hopes of men and women around the world who want their own democracies and freedom in their homelands. There was no greater friend to freedom-loving people than Lindsey Graham, and this bill is a part of that legacy--a legacy that will echo for many years to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Legislative Session

2026-07-27

“You play games instead of confirming this nominee. He has done many things. Some people said he was good before. You don't like the other guy. But you won't vote for this guy either. You just play games. I want you to stop so we can pass my bill. That is your real job.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, this afternoon, we are going to move on the nomination of Jay Clayton to be Director of National Intelligence. Amid a heightened threat environment, having a proven leader in this role is especially important, and Jay Clayton fits this mold. During the first Trump administration, Jay Clayton served as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission for almost 4 years, and under his leadership, the SEC went after financial crimes and fraud and aimed to protect Main Street investors. He also worked with the intelligence community on national security issues that intersected with our financial system. That included efforts to address Chinese influence and exploitation of our markets. And, of course, he worked to maintain economic stability after the onset of the pandemic, as well. So, Mr. President, with that record, it is no wonder that President Trump wanted Jay Clayton to serve in his second administration, this time as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, an important law enforcement post. And for the past year and a half in that role, Mr. Clayton has been busy. He has supervised the prosecution of terrorists and the drafting of the indictment against Nicolas Maduro on drug trafficking and terrorism charges. Now President Trump has nominated him for a Cabinet post to lead our Nation's intelligence community. Jay Clayton's record inspires confidence in the type of DNI he will be, and Democrats have previously recognized his abilities. He has earned bipartisan support in the past. The Democrat vice chair of the Intelligence Committee even said after Mr. Clayton was nominated for this position ``I have known and respected Jay Clayton for many years and believe he is a capable public servant''--that, again, from the Democrat vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So one might think that we would be seeing some bipartisanship from Democrats on this nominee, but Democrats are playing the same partisan games with this qualified nominee as they have with so many of President Trump's picks. And it is a funny thing because Democrats have made no secret of their disdain for the current Acting Director of National Intelligence. In fact, Democrats were so worked up over the President's temporary choice for this position that they allowed our Nation's most important counterterrorism tool to go dark for the first time ever. That is right. Now Democrats have the opportunity to replace that acting official, but they are in no apparent rush to confirm a permanent Director of National Intelligence. They have opposed his nomination in committee. They have delayed things here on the floor, and I don't expect we will see a lot of Democrat support for him in the final rollcall. It doesn't matter how qualified the nominee or even that Democrats supposedly want to see the current Acting Director replaced. For our colleagues across the aisle, everything--everything--takes a back seat to the political games. Well, I have run out of words. It is shameful. We are going to move forward with the Clayton nomination this week. We will have a permanent Director of National Intelligence in place shortly, and I hope this will encourage my colleagues to stop blocking the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Cloture Motion (Executive Session)

2026-07-27

“I want to end debate and vote on this nomination.”

Senate

Legislative Session

2026-07-23

“I went to my high school reunion. I grew up in a small town. People helped each other. I think about that when I make laws. I try to make laws that help farmers and ranchers. I want to cut taxes for working families.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, over the weekend, I headed back to Jones County, South Dakota, for my high school reunion. It has been a few years since high school--just a few--but it is amazing how the years roll away when you head back and see some of the people who shaped your high school years. Some of them are missing now, of course: teachers; coaches; my parents--my dad, who was a teacher at my high school, a coach at my high school, and the busdriver at my high school; and my mom, who served as the school librarian. Needless to say, we Thune kids didn't get away with much in our high school years. My high school reunion this year happened to coincide with the 120th anniversary of the town of Murdo, where I grew up--current population, roughly, 500. And being back in Jones County and in Murdo really got me to reminisce about growing up in smalltown South Dakota, about how blessed I was to grow up in a small town in South Dakota. People discuss the loss of community today that can result from the circumstances of modern life. That was never something we had to worry about in Murdo. In Murdo, you knew you were part of a community. Rural South Dakotans are sturdy, independent people, but they also know from experience that you can't get by in a small town on the prairie without the support of your neighbors. And when someone was in need in Murdo, the whole town rallied around to help, whether it was an unexpected death in the family or the collapse of a barn roof. We celebrated with each other, too, whether it was the harvest, the Fourth of July, or pheasant season. And the whole town swelled with pride at one of its kids' achievements. I carry the sense of community and belonging I had growing up in Murdo with me to this day, and I carry those smalltown South Dakotans with me in a special way in my work here in Washington. When we look at a government regulation, I think about what impact it will have on smalltown South Dakota, on the people in our State, like the ones that I grew up with. Is it going to lighten their burden, or is it going to add new challenges on top of those they already face? Agriculture is the life blood of our State. It was the life blood of Murdo as well. Farmers and ranchers have a tough job: backbreaking work in all weathers--work that can be destroyed in an instant by a storm or a flood. I want to ensure that Washington isn't making their life even tougher than it is already. That is why I fought for things like the elimination of the death tax, so that the farmers and ranchers can hand down the family enterprise to their kids and don't have to spend time and money on costly estate planning. It is also why I fought to ensure that Federal farm programs are actually serving farmers, that they take into account the realities of farm life and keep pace with changes. You can bet that I had smalltown South Dakota in mind when I fought to pass tax relief for hard-working Americans in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and then when we made that new tax relief permanent in the Working Families Tax Cut just last year. I think a lot of my political beliefs have their roots in growing up in Murdo: from the belief that government ought to be limited--and if a matter can be handled at the State or local level, it should be--to my understanding of the importance of freedom, and the individual responsibility that comes with the freedoms we enjoy. I am grateful every day, Mr. President, for the blessings of growing up in a small town, in smalltown South Dakota, and I am proud to be a son of Murdo. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Government Funding (Executive Session)

2026-07-22

“I want the Senate to pass a bill to keep the government open. We should vote on it soon. I don't want a shutdown. Shutdowns are bad for Americans. Government workers need their paychecks. A shutdown would cause problems. The other party caused two shutdowns before. We should not do that again.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, the Senate is in the middle of a busy work period, and we have a lot to accomplish in the coming weeks and months. We have some great opportunities for bipartisan collaboration: market structure legislation; the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act; the National Defense Authorization Act; FISA. But at the top of the list right now is funding the government. If there is any responsibility we have as Members of Congress, it is that. And our country cannot afford another shutdown like the two shutdowns we have experienced over the course of this fiscal year. Shutdowns take a toll on our economy, on our national security. They create havoc at airports. And, of course, they take an incredible toll on hard-working Americans inside and outside the government whose paychecks depend on the government being open. I think a lot of Americans remember pretty clearly what things looked like during the Democrats' two recordbreaking shutdowns this past year: government workers lining up at food banks, charging essentials on credit cards, and taking up any work they could find in hopes of being able to make ends meet; government services reduced; national security Agencies strained. I don't think any American who traveled will forget the effect those two shutdowns had on air travel: hourslong TSA lines snaking around airport concourses and out airport doors; canceled and delayed flights; a nationwide reduction in air traffic, when our air traffic control system could no longer safely maintain regular flight schedules. The list goes on. We cannot--cannot--have this again, and that is why I have asked Appropriations Chair Collins to draft a bipartisan and clean continuing resolution to fund the government until after the November election. I intend for the Senate to vote on that before we head to our States to work during August. The Senate Appropriations Committee is hard at work reviewing anomalies from OMB to ensure we have a bipartisan product ready to move quickly. No one is served by our waiting until the last minute to take this up. And after all that our country has been through with the past two shutdowns, the American people deserve to have confidence that the government will be open and running, not to mention the fact that government employees--like our own staffers and the Capitol Police officers standing guard around this building--deserve to know that their paychecks will be coming. It was not a good year on the government funding front, with two recordbreaking government shutdowns, but we have an opportunity now to chart a new path. I am encouraged that, so far, my Democrat colleagues have signaled that they do not want to force another government shutdown, and I appreciate Chair Collins' work to engage with Democrats and produce a bipartisan continuing resolution. No one--no one--is served by a shutdown, not either political party, and most of all not the people that we represent. So I look forward to bringing up a bipartisan CR in the coming days, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and give the American people the certainty that they deserve. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Working Families Tax Cut Act (Executive Calendar)

2026-07-21

“I want this bill to pass so the government can claim it is helping families. Our government will spend money on your children's future. Your family will get less taxes. Your family will get an app. Your family will get more money when your children grow up. We will spend money to make college cheaper. We will spend money to train workers. Our government has a plan. I'm filling time to say nothing much about anything.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, every parent wants to give their kids a better life than they had. So parents spend a lot of time making sure their kids are ready when opportunity comes their way. In many cases, that involves putting money aside for their future. Opportunity is one of the pillars of Republicans' Working Families Tax Cut. That means both creating opportunity and helping more Americans to seize those opportunities to get ahead. And one of the ways this bill does that is by helping parents to save and invest in their children's futures. That starts with lower tax bills so parents can keep more of their hard-earned money. And on top of that, we made it easier for parents to support their kids' dreams with things like the bill's new Trump Accounts. These new tax-advantaged investment accounts can be a powerful tool for parents and other family members to give the next generation a brighter future because Trump Accounts can be used for a broad array of expenses. Money from a Trump account can go toward education expenses, buying a first home, starting a business, or buying the family farm or ranch when the time comes. Kids can even opt to use the accounts as retirement savings when they reach adulthood, a financial priority for every American. Trump Accounts will help bring big dreams closer within reach. Parents of children born between 2025 and 2028 can opt in to receive an initial $1,000 balance in their Trump Account from the government. On top of that, numerous companies have already made pledges to contribute to the Trump Accounts for their employees' children, and some philanthropists have made similar commitments. Plus, as I indicated earlier, any member of the family can contribute to a Trump Account. So an aunt or an uncle, grandma or grandpa can add money to a Trump Account as a birthday gift or Christmas gift, further boosting the amount a child will have available when he or she reaches young adulthood. Even $20 per month can build to a substantial sum of money by the time a baby born this year turns 18. And the Trump Accounts app even includes modules and other resources for parents and children to learn about investing and grow their financial literacy, which will help them throughout their lives. Trump Accounts are a significant tool for parents and their kids. But it is far from the only thing that we did in this bill to help the next generation get a headstart on their American dream. The Working Families Tax Cut also made some significant improvements to the traditional 529 education savings plan, allowing those savings to be used for a greater variety of education expenses: tutoring, home- school materials, and vocational and continuing education. Plus, we doubled the withdrawal limit for 529s to $20,000 per year. Mr. President, I am also proud of how the Working Families Tax Cut strengthens pathways to meaningful career options for the next generation. On the higher education side, we implemented accountability and reforms to put downward pressure on the cost of college degrees. We also made permanent a policy I authored that allows employers to pay off a portion of their employees' student loans without the employee having to pay taxes on the repayment amount. For Americans who are interested in learning a skilled trade, this bill is transformative. As I mentioned, it allows 529 savings to go toward vocational education. It also created the Workforce Pell Program, which will provide financial assistance to Americans in shorter term skills and career- training programs--whether they are just starting out or looking to switch careers or develop new skills in their current field. States are just beginning the process of identifying programs that will qualify for Workforce Pell, and it is already generating excitement. One community college president in New York said of Workforce Pell: ``The potential is absolutely huge.'' Another community college administrator in Oregon hailed how Workforce Pell will provide assistance for the college's truckdriving certificate program, a popular program that leads to high-paying jobs but for which financial aid is hard to come by. Workforce Pell will change that. And Workforce Pell will also be a game changer for midcareer professionals. As Colette Atkins, who works at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, said, ``we have students that are working already, and they can't step away for 2 years, but can they step away to do that 8 to 15 weeks to get that training? They sure can. And now there's financial support to help them do that.'' Suffice it to say, Workforce Pell will open new pathways and create a lot of opportunities for a lot of Americans, and it is getting started thanks to the Working Families Tax Cut. Putting more money in Americans' pockets, helping them seize opportunities to get ahead, and creating new pathways to success--that is the Working Families Tax Cut at work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Democrat Party Priorities (Executive Session)

2026-07-20

“Democrats are out of touch. They don't share voters' priorities. Democrats are too far left on gender, abortion, and immigration. They even shut down the government to spite Trump! Democrats block military funding now too. Socialists are winning elections. That's bad. It's all Democrats' fault.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, at the beginning of last year, the New York Times took a poll of the American voters, and the headline captures their results. This is what it said: ``Many Americans Say the Democratic Party Does Not Share Their Priorities.'' Let me repeat that, Mr. President. ``Many Americans Say the Democratic Party Does Not Share Their Priorities.'' That is right. A New York Times poll taken weeks after voters rejected Democrats at the ballot box suggested that one of the reasons for Democrats' loss was that Americans don't think Democrats share their priorities. The story went on to say: But when the poll asked Americans to identify Democrats' most important priorities, Americans identified issues like abortion and climate change, among others. Our Democrat colleagues have found themselves out of power for 18 months now. And we have given them plenty of opportunities to show some evolution--perhaps even moderation--to voters. But as the record shows, Democrats are still in thrall to the far left of their party. They still have the same priorities that turned voters off from Democrats in the last election. Mr. President, for starters, radical transgender ideology remains an article of faith among Democrats. Democrats have repeatedly opposed efforts to keep biological men out of women's sports. And when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month that State laws protecting women's sports are allowable under the plain language of title IX, one Democrat Senator called the ruling unjust. ``Unjust,'' Mr. President. As if a young woman working hard all season, only to lose to a man with an inherent biological advantage, is somehow just. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that biological men should not be playing women's sports, but that doesn't seem to matter to Senate Democrats. And their commitment to transgender ideology doesn't end with supporting the presence of men in women's sports. Democrats have also tacitly--or not so tacitly--endorsed radical gender transition procedures being performed on minors. Procedures, I might add, with no substantial medical evidence to support them and plenty of reason to believe they are extremely dangerous for children, but apparently Democrats are fine subjecting children to those risks. And of course, Mr. President, Democrats are still proudly pro- abortion. And when I say pro-abortion, I mean pro-abortion. How else do you describe a party that wouldn't even support legislation to provide medical care to a baby born alive during a failed abortion? A party that can't bring itself to support a bill to ensure that a pregnant college student knows that there are resources available to help her finish her degree and have her baby. The party that directed small business COVID relief funds to Planned Parenthood, even though they were legally ineligible. A party that is doing everything it can to eliminate pregnancy resource centers simply because they won't recommend abortion. As I said, Democrats are in thrall to the far left of their party, and it is not just on those issues. Far-left activists seem to be the audience for almost everything Democrats do these days. Take, for example, Democrats' two--that is right, two--record-long government shutdowns. Last fall, Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government for a record 43 days to show the far left that they were fighting President Trump. And while TSA lines snaked outside of airports and Americans were visiting food banks because they had to work without pay, the Democrat leader was quoted as saying: Better, that is, for Democrats seeking the approval of the far left. Then earlier this year, Democrats shut down the Department of Homeland Security because they didn't want to fund law enforcement. That is right. Defunding law enforcement--once a fringe position in their party-- became the official position of the Democrat Party as they tried to completely--completely--defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. Once again, it didn't matter to Democrats whether Americans would be less safe with open borders. Their audience, far-left activists, wanted them to defund border security and immigration enforcement officers, so they did. And Democrats weren't done. Last week, Democrats here in the U.S. Senate blocked the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that authorizes funding for our military. That is right. Democrats voted against authorizing funding for our military. It is a sad day when Democrats are playing politics with everything all the way up to our national security, but that is where we are. Democrats have had numerous opportunities in the last year and a half to work with us on things that matter to the American people. And, again and again, they have chosen to follow members of their far-left base, in some cases--see New York City's mayor--follow them directly into socialism. That is right. Self-identified Democrat socialists have been winning elections across the country. So what is next? Will the Democrat Party adopt the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America? To quote the New York Times again, ``Many Americans say the [Democrat] Party does not share their priorities.'' A year and a half later, it is obvious that that is still the case: men's and women's sports, abortion up until the moment of birth, open borders, defunding law enforcement. Instead of moving toward the middle, Democrats are just getting more extreme. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Adjournment Until 3 P.M. Monday, July 20, 2026

2026-07-16

“I want the Senate to take a break until Monday. I move to adjourn.”

Senate

Orders for Monday, July 20, 2026

2026-07-16

“I want the Senate to take a break until Monday afternoon. Then Senators can speak for a bit. Later we will hold a vote on the Flowers nomination.”

Senate

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

2026-07-16

“I want to change the rules for this one vote. I want the vote to happen even though it doesn't follow the normal rules.”

Senate

Executive Calendar

2026-07-16

“I want the Senate to quickly approve these nominations all at once without objection or further debate.”

“I want the Senate to quickly confirm a big list of military nominations. No more debate or motions. Tell the President right away.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 718, Calendar No. 783 through Calendar No. 812 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Space Force, Air Force, with the exception of PN970-2; Army, with the exception of PN1061, Theresa M. Long; PN1015, Mark R. Berube and Mandi A. Samples; PN1017, Joel A. Arends and Michael D. Thompson; PN1072, Phillip T. Buckler; PN1065, Samuel A. Smith; Marine Corps, with the exception of PN681-4; Navy, with the exception of PN835; PN925, PN990, Robert J. Moreno and Joshua Q. McCright; and PN1029, Kelly Cruz; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

America 250 (Executive Session)

2026-07-16

“It is America's birthday. Our country is special. We said all men are created equal. Rights come from God. Government should protect rights. Our ideas are unique. People like us. That's because our ideas are good. We are friendly because we think all men are created equal. I went to an event in my state. I like it. God bless our country.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, we recently celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence--the 250th birthday of our country. On July 4 in 1776, the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration. The document laid out the causes which impelled the colonists' separation from Great Britain. But more than that, it laid out the political beliefs that would govern a new nation. Unalienable rights--rights inherent in man, given by God; rights that exist before government; and that it is the job of government to protect--government not by divine right or military might, but by consent; a government that represents the people, not the will to power. A revolutionary document--pun intended. Many of the ideas in the Declaration, of course, were not new. It was a document built on the wisdom of the ages, on the tradition of British common law, on the inheritance of Christianity, and the colonists' own experiment in self- government in the colonies. Jefferson himself, writing in 1825, said of the Declaration: While many of the ideas in the Declaration were not new, the document was nevertheless, as I said, revolutionary because the Declaration marked an event essentially unique in human history. There had been philosophical treatises on laying out principles of government, but this was not a philosophical treatise. It was the founding of a government, of a new nation, based on philosophical principles--a nation inaugurated not by conquest but on a set of ideas. And what ideas: All men are created equal. Where before in the history of governments do we find that? All men are created equal. No one is given special dignity by nature; no man has a divine right to rule over any other. No, all men are created equal--created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, rights that are not the gift of government but of nature and of nature's God, rights that government must defer to and defend. As everyone knows, the United States is currently hosting the World Cup. The media has been filled with stories on how much visitors to this country are enjoying the United States. They are encountering the American character: generous, optimistic, big-hearted, friendly. And they are embracing it. And it occurs to me that that American character almost unquestionably has a lot to do with our founding principles. When you believe that all men are created equal, when you believe that they have God-given rights and dignity--well, that has consequences. All men are created equal. There is no class of divinely appointed rulers, no hereditary aristocratic class, no barriers set to prevent you from rising. Those principles have consequences. So I don't think it is surprising that Americans are generous and big-hearted and optimistic and friendly. I think it is the natural consequence of the principles that we espouse. Every Fourth of July is a day of celebration, but this one--marking 250 years--was particularly special. South Dakota was honored to welcome President Trump to our fireworks at Mount Rushmore--a truly spectacular event. There is no better place to reflect on the majesty of this great country. It is fitting too, though, that along with the celebrations--along with the fireworks and the parades and the hotdogs and the hamburgers-- that July 4 be a day of thanksgiving for the Declaration of Independence and the Nation it founded, for the blessing of liberty, and for all those who have pledged their lives to its defense, from the founding of our country to the present day. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his ``Concord Hymn,'' referred to the opening shot of the battles of Lexington and Concord as ``the shot heard round the world.'' If I may borrow his phrase, I think it is fair to say that the Declaration was the ``statement heard round the world.'' It is still--still--heard round the world to this day, and I pray it will be heard until the end of time. May God bless our beloved country and keep us faithful to the principles for which we stand. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

National Defense Authorization Act (Executive Session)

2026-07-15

“You can't trust Democrats on defense. Democrats voted against our bill for military spending. The bill had some good things for the military. It had more money and ships and planes. Democrats still voted against it. Democrats don't care about security. Democrats shut down the government before. They didn't fund Homeland Security before. They don't care if our country is weak.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, Americans tend to trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to national security. And, boy oh boy, do Democrats seem determined to demonstrate why that is the case. Yesterday afternoon, Democrats voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual bill that authorizes spending for our Nation's defense. Their ostensible excuse was the conflict in Iran. Well, in case they were operating under a misconception, I am happy to tell them that this year's National Defense Authorization Act is not an Iran funding supplemental. It is the annual--annual--legislation authorizing the basic needs of our military and the basic needs of our men and women in uniform, needs that exist no matter what is happening in Iran. Let's just talk about what the Democrats voted against yesterday. They voted against a pay increase for our troops. They voted against quality-of-life improvements for our troops. They voted against the reform of the Pentagon's acquisition process. They voted against funding for unmanned systems like drones and counter-drone measures, an essential--essential--security need in this day and age. They voted against shipbuilding efforts to strengthen our naval fleet. They voted against measures to maintain our Nation's airpower. They voted against including 38 of their own amendments. I could go on here, but you get the point. Once again, Democrats are playing fast and loose with our Nation's security. I say ``once again'' because Democrats have been playing fast and loose with our Nation's security all year. First, there was their recordbreaking full government shutdown last fall, which affected our military and all of our Nation's security Agencies, to say nothing of the impact that it had on air travel. Then there was their recordbreaking shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which lasted a staggering 76 days. Then, after that, Democrats refused to reauthorize a critical intelligence-gathering tool, which the Democrat leader himself has described as ``a very important tool for ensuring our national security.'' And now they have blocked the Senate from considering the National Defense Authorization Act. And who knows what is next? In either a fit of self-delusion or an attempt to distract from their actions, Democrats are trying to peddle the narrative that somehow they can't agree to anything because Republicans are trying to make things partisan. That is right. Well, let me spend just a minute correcting the record here. The National Defense Authorization Act the Democrats voted against yesterday? Bipartisan. That is right. The National Defense Authorization Act is bipartisan legislation. Four Democrats voted for the bill--for the bill--at the committee markup. Democrats' recordbreaking full government shutdown in the fall? Well, that was because they wouldn't accept a nonpartisan, short-term, clean government funding extension to allow bipartisan negotiations to continue. The Democrats' recordbreaking Department of Homeland Security shutdown? Well, that was also because Democrats couldn't take yes for an answer. Democrats and Republicans had agreed on a bipartisan DHS funding bill. Democrats reneged on that agreement because they wanted to negotiate for more, and Republicans said yes to negotiation. And then Democrats shut down the Department anyway, even though Republicans were willing to negotiate further--even though the White House repeatedly offered a robust package of reforms. So as I said, I don't know whether it is self-delusion or deliberate deception, but I have heard few things more ludicrous than Democrats' narrative that they can't agree to legislation because Republicans are being partisan. Here are the facts: Democrats can't bring themselves to authorize funding for our Nation's security, whether that is security at our border, funding for our military, or paychecks for our troops. It doesn't matter how bipartisan the bill is; Democrats can't bring themselves to support our Nation's security. Is it politics? Do Democrats think that voting against our national defense and our Nation's military will gain them points with their base or do they simply think they can afford to ignore our Nation's defense needs until some hostile actor takes advantage of our weakness? I don't know, but I do know that our Nation is less safe because of Democrats' actions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

National Defense Authorization Act

2026-07-14

“I am proud that our colleagues have reported out a strong National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. It puts a heavy emphasis on unmanned systems, especially drones and counterdrone measures. It also continues shipbuilding efforts to strengthen our naval fleet. This year's NDAA supports a 3.6 percent pay raise for our troops, and it invests in a number of quality-of-life improvements for them and their families: investments in education, housing, healthcare, and childcare. Republicans are ready to go. The question is: How will Democrats vote today? Are there enough Democrat Senators who support moving forward with a bipartisan--bipartisan--defense bill? I see no reason that there shouldn't be.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, like many of us, I represent a State with a rich heritage of military service, and South Dakota continues to punch above its weight in our Armed Forces. Our National Guard is frequently called up for critical deployments at home and around the world, and Ellsworth Air Force Base is a key asset to our national defense. In fact, today Ellsworth is the largest construction site in the Air Force as it prepares to host the first B- 21 bombers next year. During the recent State work period, I was glad to welcome Air Force Secretary Troy Meink--a South Dakota native--to Ellsworth. We met with the base leadership and some of the airmen stationed there, and we saw the progress the base is making as it prepares for its important new mission. Whether responding to a natural disaster at home or fighting our enemies abroad, the men and women in America's Armed Forces stand ready to answer the call. They are our most important national security asset, and we have an obligation here in Congress to ensure that they have everything they need for whatever the mission may be. I know Senators on both sides of the aisle take that obligation seriously, and we must. As I have said so often before, if you don't get national security right, the rest is just conversation. If we don't make national security a priority here, we run the risk that Americans serving in uniform won't have what they need when they need it. That is why the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important bills that we do each year. It is the bill that helps ensure our military is ready today and prepared for tomorrow, and I am proud that our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee--with the leadership of Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Reed--have reported out a strong National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027. For the 66th year in a row, the Armed Services Committee has produced a bipartisan NDAA. And later today, we are going to have a vote to proceed to this important bill. We have had regular reminders over the last few years that we live in a dangerous world, that America still has enemies--enemies that want to attack us, our allies, and our interests. We have seen too how quickly warfare evolves in this day and age. This year's NDAA will not only help ensure that America can keep pace with those challenges but also that we can outpace our adversaries. It puts a heavy emphasis on unmanned systems, especially drones and counterdrone measures. It also continues shipbuilding efforts to strengthen our naval fleet. As for our airpower, this year's bill will help ensure we maintain a force of at least 1,800 fighters and supports the new B-21 long-range strategic bomber. There is a lot I could talk about in this bill--from investing in our nuclear deterrent to supporting munitions production--but I will mention just two more important aspects of this year's bill. First, it builds on efforts in last year's NDAA to reform defense acquisition. That includes allowing multiyear procurement contracts that allow the Pentagon to do business more efficiently with greater predictability and savings for taxpayers. I need to mention what this bill does for the men and women serving our country and their families who serve alongside them. This year's NDAA supports a 3.6 percent pay raise for our troops, and it invests in a number of quality-of-life improvements for them and their families: investments in education, housing, healthcare, and childcare. Our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have put forward a strong bill--a strong bill for our national security and for the men and women who defend our Nation. It is my hope that we will be able to pass this bill out of the Senate soon and begin the process of working with our counterparts in the House and with the White House on a final bill. Republicans are ready to go. The question is: How will Democrats vote today? Are there enough Democrat Senators who support moving forward with a bipartisan--bipartisan--defense bill? I see no reason that there shouldn't be. But then again, Democrats have allowed the politics of obstruction to determine so many of their actions for the last year and a half. I certainly hope that Democrats won't now put politics ahead of support for our men and women in uniform, but that is up to them. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Swearing in of Darline Graham

2026-07-14

“I want to talk about our new Senator from South Carolina. Her name is Darline Graham. She is replacing her brother Lindsey Graham. I think Darline will work hard. I want to say welcome.”

Senate

Orders for Tuesday, July 14, 2026

2026-07-13

“I want to tell everyone the plan for Tuesday, July 14. At 2:30 p.m., we will make Darline Graham a Senator. After that, we will vote on a motion to proceed to the defense bill. The defense bill is S. 4784.”

“I want the Senate to have a schedule on Tuesday, July 14. The Senate should start at 10 a.m. with a prayer and pledge. Then we should do some other things. At 12 noon, the Senate should vote on the Schwartz nomination. After that, the Senate should take a break until 2:15 p.m. Then we should start again and vote on a motion to proceed to S. 4784 at 2:30 p.m.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Schwartz nomination, postcloture; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate execute the order of June 24 in relation to the Schwartz nomination; that following disposition of the Schwartz nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.; further, that when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume legislative session; and finally, that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 4784 ripen at 2:30 p.m.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Honoring the Life and Legacy of the Honorable Lindsey Olin Graham

2026-07-13

“I don't want any debate or objections. Let's pass this resolution quickly and move on.”

Senate

Recognizing the 125th Anniversary of Pollock, South Dakota

2026-07-13

“People in a small town in my state are having a party. The town is old. The people there like to farm. They moved the town long ago when a dam was built. They didn't give up. I want to say good job to the town.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, today I recognize Pollock, SD. The town of Pollock will be celebrating its quasquicentennial July 17-19, 2026. Pollock will host quasquicentennial events, including live music, fishing tournaments, parades, class reunions, and much more. Pollock is located in Campbell County, situated along the shores of Lake Oahe in north-central South Dakota. Like many communities in the area, Pollock originated from the Soo Line Railroad's southern extension and drew in farmers, ranchers, and settlers who were eager to build a life in the northern plains. Pollock's early residents embodied perseverance and resilience by relocating the town to higher ground when the construction of the Oahe Dam threatened to flood the original town site in the 1950s. Pollock is a close-knit community known for its deep agricultural roots and strong ties to the land and the river. Since its founding 125 years ago, Pollock continues to embody the South Dakota values and traditions that make communities thrive. I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Pollock on their town's quasquicentennial and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗