Marsha Blackburn
Senator for Tennessee · Republican · United States
“201 Ex.] YEAS--50 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott…”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4180] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Vote on Westercamp Nomination The PRESIDING OFFICER.”
“What this Constitution, again, tells us when it comes to the role of the Senate: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. No question about that. If the House impeaches, it is our job to decide whether we agree or not. It takes an extraordinary vote to impeach.”
“We asked the Congressional Research Service: Is there any Senate precedent for what the Senator from Tennessee is doing? They responded: There is no Senate precedent for either introducing or passing a Senate resolution condemning a judge's illegal misconduct. What?”
“Well, what the Senator from Tennessee wants us to do is to taint the jury, to get us on record before the House has any impeachment activity, before we sit as a jury as to how we are going to rule. That is why it has never been tried before on the floor of the U.S. Senate.”
“We are condemning this inappropriate sexual misconduct by a sitting Federal judge, and we are condemning her subsequent lying about that misconduct. That is it. I do want to note for the record that there was misconduct in the Eleventh Circuit report that I have not included in the resolution.”
The complete record
Every one of 133 lines we hold for Marsha Blackburn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll.”
“Passing this would have the Senate speak with a unanimous voice against this activity, and I would have encouraged my colleagues to pass the resolution and to make clear that this conduct falls far beneath the high standards we should be holding the Federal judiciary to every single day. It is clear the Senate Democrats are not interested in that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.”
“Mr. President, I think it is clear what Senator Durbin is doing today. He is seeking to protect a Democrat-appointed judge, appointed under President Obama, and trying to distract from her clear misconduct. Now, at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the responsibility of advice and consent. We have the responsibility of oversight. And one thing that I will note: I think the Senator has misunderstood the resolution. It is not an impeachment resolution. It does not call for an impeachment. It explicitly points to the information in the Eleventh Circuit's special committee report and pulls directly from that report what occurred in Judge Ross' chambers, and therefore there needs to be a condemnation of this activity.”
“President, with that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 808, which is at the desk; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Illinois.”
“But I have not included those aspects in my resolution that I am about to ask unanimous consent for. The reason why? As I mentioned at the outset, I believe the Senate should speak with one voice and unanimously condemn Judge Ross' conduct. I don't want to give my Democrat colleagues any reason to object to this resolution. So what I am asking unanimous consent for is simple: a condemnation of Judge Ross' sexual misconduct and subsequent lying during the course of a judicial investigation. The American people deserve Federal judges who uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism on the bench; not those who turn their chambers into a venue for extramarital affairs. There is no reason any Member of this body should object to that resolution today. Mr.”
“We are condemning this inappropriate sexual misconduct by a sitting Federal judge, and we are condemning her subsequent lying about that misconduct. That is it. I do want to note for the record that there was misconduct in the Eleventh Circuit report that I have not included in the resolution. The committee included in its misconduct findings that Judge Ross attended a political function for DA Fani Willis. I find it unconscionable for a sitting Federal judge to have attended a partisan event with a district attorney who weaponized the judicial system in the way that Fani Willis did. I also firmly believe that Judge Ross, by lying to Chief Judge Pryor during the course of the Eleventh Circuit's investigation committed an impeachable offense, and I fully support the House's impeachment efforts.”
“The Judicial Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits the type of conduct that Judge Ross engaged in, specifically Canon 2 states that ``a Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.'' Canon 2A states that ``a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'' Commentary to Canon 2A states: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. The committee's findings, which I have just outlined, show that Judge Ross blatantly violated all three of these judicial canons. Now, I want to be clear, what I have just outlined is all that my resolution is asking that the Senate condemn.”
“Judge Ross told the Eleventh Circuit's chief judge that she ``never engaged in sexual intercourse in [her] office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse'' and that she was ``astounded and confused'' to be accused of this misconduct. Now, based on the committee's findings, we know that Judge Ross' statements to Chief Judge Pryor were patently false. They were knowingly false. We also know that it took Judge Ross nearly 2 weeks to retract the false statements. By the time she finally backtracked, the special committee had already collected substantial evidence that proved Judge Ross had made false statements. In short, once Judge Ross realized where the investigation was going, she decided to retract her false statements and admit to the misconduct allegations.”
“This conduct occurred in her judicial chambers during normal business hours within earshot of her law clerks. Now, think about that. On top of that, the Atlanta Police Department, in the words of the special committee, ``undoubtably was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated'' in the Northern District, underscoring how reckless the judge's misconduct truly was. Not only did this misconduct create a possibility of an appearance of impropriety, an affair like this also exposed Judge Ross to the possibility of extortion and blackmail, as the special committee noted. In addition to this egregious behavior in her chambers, the special committee also found an equally disturbing act of judicial misconduct: making false statements material to the committee's investigation.”
“Mr. President, I rise today with a very simple request: I am asking that the Senate speak with a unanimous voice in condemning one of the worst acts of judicial misconduct we have seen in years. Judge Eleanor Ross has been a district judge in the Northern District of Georgia for over a decade, and it is clear that she engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her high office in the Federal judiciary. After a courageous law clerk came forward, a special committee on the Eleventh Circuit was appointed and ultimately made several deeply disturbing findings. First, based on testimony from Judge Ross' law clerks, the committee found that over the course of 2 years, Judge Ross engaged in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police Department.”
“The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action. The Senator from Louisiana.”
“201 Ex.] YEAS--50 Armstrong Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young NAYS--48 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Cramer McConnell The nomination was confirmed.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4180] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Vote on Westercamp Nomination The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Westercamp nomination? Mrs. BLACKBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell). The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No.”
“It has never been done because it would taint the jury pool if there was ever an impeachment action against this judge. That is why I objected. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, before I start, let me offer the Presiding Officer my best wishes for a very, very happy birthday. I might regale you with singing ``Happy Birthday.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order. (Laughter.) Mr. WHITEHOUSE. But I have a terrible singing voice, and so I will spare the Senate the embarrassment of that particular performance.”
“Passing this would have the Senate speak with a unanimous voice against this activity, and I would have encouraged my colleagues to pass the resolution and to make clear that this conduct falls far beneath the high standards we should be holding the Federal judiciary to every single day. It is clear the Senate Democrats are not interested in that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are not judging by this action of objecting the conduct of this judge. That is not for us to judge. Under the Constitution, it is clear. That will be a decision by the House of Representatives and maybe ultimately by the Senate. There is a reason why this has never been done on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and the Senator from Tennessee ignores that reality.”
“He is seeking to protect a Democrat-appointed judge, appointed under President Obama, and trying to distract from her clear misconduct. Now, at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the responsibility of advice and consent. We have the responsibility of oversight. And one thing that I will note: I think the Senator has misunderstood the resolution. It is not an impeachment resolution. It does not call for an impeachment. It explicitly points to the information in the Eleventh Circuit's special committee report and pulls directly from that report what occurred in Judge Ross' chambers, and therefore there needs to be a condemnation of this activity.”
“We should not establish a new precedent here, especially when it could taint the jury pool if the Senate later considers articles of impeachment, if that ever happens. It could also open the door to Senate resolutions about other instances of judicial misconduct. We must have the highest standards for Federal judges, and the alleged conduct in this case is inappropriate, unacceptable, perhaps even indefensible. But the Constitution is clear. It is a matter for the House to consider at this point rather than the Senate. For these reasons, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). The objection is heard. The Senator from Tennessee. Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I think it is clear what Senator Durbin is doing today.”
“Well, what the Senator from Tennessee wants us to do is to taint the jury, to get us on record before the House has any impeachment activity, before we sit as a jury as to how we are going to rule. That is why it has never been tried before on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I also note the resolution contains multiple material inconsistencies on what the Eleventh Circuit found during its investigation of Judge Ross' misconduct. This underscores that the Senate has not engaged, prior to the election of this resolution, in its own investigation or factfinding. The only factfinding we have is from one Senator in Tennessee. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no precedent for the Senate adopting a resolution condemning alleged judicial misconduct. The Senate has never done this before.”
“The Senate sits as a jury and decides whether or not the impeachment goes through. That is why this resolution needs to be defeated. Senators serve as jurors in impeachment matters. Passing this resolution--passing this resolution, calling on the Senate to condemn this judge before there has been any effort at impeachment in the House of Representatives--is going to do what they call ``taint the jury.'' He would have already taken a position on the case as to who is right and who is wrong. You can't do that. Voir dire in the courtroom is the judge asking the basic question of potential jurors: Do you have any prejudice against this case that stops you from finding the truth? And people say: I don't. I have an open mind, and I will listen to the evidence and the law.”
“What this Constitution, again, tells us when it comes to the role of the Senate: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. No question about that. If the House impeaches, it is our job to decide whether we agree or not. It takes an extraordinary vote to impeach. And, also, let me be clear, this is critical: When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. That is a pretty high standard, isn't it? You have to swear that what you are doing is constitutional or to the best of your ability. So it is an awesome responsibility. We sit like juries in criminal courts and civil courts across the United States, and we make bottom-line decisions as to whether the House impeachment shall be sustained. So the action starts in the House. If they vote to impeach, it comes to the Senate.”
“So why is that stopping us from this condemnation? Well, let me explain. Under the Constitution, Congress does not respond to judicial misconduct in the form of a Senate resolution. It never has. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, specifically the House Judiciary Committee, to investigate the allegations of misconduct and consider the next steps, including impeachment. But here is the critical element: Who is the jury? Where is the trial? It is right here. After someone has been impeached in the House of Representatives, for example a President, the case comes to the Senate for trial. I have sat through at least three of those, [[Page S4175]] maybe more. So we are juries; the U.S. Senate is a jury.”
“We asked the Congressional Research Service: Is there any Senate precedent for what the Senator from Tennessee is doing? They responded: There is no Senate precedent for either introducing or passing a Senate resolution condemning a judge's illegal misconduct. What? Out of thousands of judges in the United States at the Federal level, surely in history, someone has done something wrong that should be condemned, but it has never been done. Well, it gets down to some basic elements of constitutional law. You start with this, the Constitution of the United States. And the Constitution of the United States says in article I, section 2, the House of Representatives shall have the ``sole power of impeachment''-- removal from office. The sole power of impeachment is in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.”
“President, with that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 808, which is at the desk; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Illinois. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, you heard her lay out the case of wrongdoing by a judge. I am going to ask for the Senate to take action to condemn that conduct. Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Turns out, it would be the first time in the history of the Senate that we do something like this.”
“But I have not included those aspects in my resolution that I am about to ask unanimous consent for. The reason why? As I mentioned at the outset, I believe the Senate should speak with one voice and unanimously condemn Judge Ross' conduct. I don't want to give my Democrat colleagues any reason to object to this resolution. So what I am asking unanimous consent for is simple: a condemnation of Judge Ross' sexual misconduct and subsequent lying during the course of a judicial investigation. The American people deserve Federal judges who uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism on the bench; not those who turn their chambers into a venue for extramarital affairs. There is no reason any Member of this body should object to that resolution today. Mr.”
“We are condemning this inappropriate sexual misconduct by a sitting Federal judge, and we are condemning her subsequent lying about that misconduct. That is it. I do want to note for the record that there was misconduct in the Eleventh Circuit report that I have not included in the resolution. The committee included in its misconduct findings that Judge Ross attended a political function for DA Fani Willis. I find it unconscionable for a sitting Federal judge to have attended a partisan event with a district attorney who weaponized the judicial system in the way that Fani Willis did. I also firmly believe that Judge Ross, by lying to Chief Judge Pryor during the course of the Eleventh Circuit's investigation committed an impeachable offense, and I fully support the House's impeachment efforts.”
“The Judicial Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits the type of conduct that Judge Ross engaged in, specifically Canon 2 states that ``a Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.'' Canon 2A states that ``a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.'' Commentary to Canon 2A states: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. The committee's findings, which I have just outlined, show that Judge Ross blatantly violated all three of these judicial canons. Now, I want to be clear, what I have just outlined is all that my resolution is asking that the Senate condemn.”
“We also know that it took Judge Ross nearly 2 weeks to retract the false statements. By the time she finally backtracked, the special committee had already collected substantial evidence that proved Judge Ross had made false statements. In short, once Judge Ross realized where the investigation was going, she decided to retract her false statements and admit to the misconduct allegations.”
“Not only did this misconduct create a possibility of an appearance of impropriety, an affair like this also exposed Judge Ross to the possibility of extortion and blackmail, as the special committee noted. In addition to this egregious behavior in her chambers, the special committee also found an equally disturbing act of judicial misconduct: making false statements material to the committee's investigation. Judge Ross told the Eleventh Circuit's chief judge that she ``never engaged in sexual intercourse in [her] office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse'' and that she was ``astounded and confused'' to be accused of this misconduct. Now, based on the committee's findings, we know that Judge Ross' statements to Chief Judge Pryor were patently false. They were knowingly false.”
“After a courageous law clerk came forward, a special committee on the Eleventh Circuit was appointed and ultimately made several deeply disturbing findings. First, based on testimony from Judge Ross' law clerks, the committee found that over the course of 2 years, Judge Ross engaged in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police Department. This conduct occurred in her judicial chambers during normal business hours within earshot of her law clerks. Now, think about that. On top of that, the Atlanta Police Department, in the words of the special committee, ``undoubtably was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated'' in the Northern District, underscoring how reckless the judge's misconduct truly was.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S4174-S4175] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 808 Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I rise today with a very simple request: I am asking that the Senate speak with a unanimous voice in condemning one of the worst acts of judicial misconduct we have seen in years. Judge Eleanor Ross has been a district judge in the Northern District of Georgia for over a decade, and it is clear that she engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her high office in the Federal judiciary.”
“It is imperative--imperative--that we pass these bills in order to preserve the integrity of our electoral system. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. SAVE America Act”
“Just prove that you are who you say you are. When you go to the poll to vote, prove that you are who you say you are when you request a mail-in or absentee ballot. We also have the Election Security Partnership Act, which I led along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and this is something that would incentivize States to submit their voter rolls through that SAVE system at DHS. This is basically: We are going to pay you to do the right thing. We are going to actually incentivize and give you more money on your grants if you will do the right thing and obey the law. Now, we have many more bills that we can do to secure our elections. Every Member of Congress should support these measures, and Republicans are going to do everything possible to get them across the finish line as we are celebrating our Nation's 250th anniversary.”
“They just don't agree with them when the people are saying: We want the SAVE America Act. So I just have to ask: What are they afraid of? What are they really fearful of? Are they afraid, if it is only citizens voting, that they are not going to win? Do they think they have to have people that are not citizens registered to vote in order to win an election? Now, when we talk about the SAVE America Act and talk about it in total, we have said: Look, whatever it takes to get this passed--if we have to pass it one piece at a time, that is what we will do. And our friends on the other side of the aisle need to explain to the American public why they are so opposed. Now, Senator Husted's bill, for example, would enact only the voter ID provision of the SAVE America Act. That is a good thing. That is a great first step.”
“According to a DHS review of State voter rolls, there are approximately 278,000 noncitizens registered to vote in our elections. The last three Presidential elections were decided by fewer than 270,000 votes. The President noted that this figure is likely an undercount because Democrat States refused to share their voter files with the administration. Democrats do not care. They are perfectly content with voter fraud. Indeed, as we have said many times: Let's make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. And the Democrats continue to fight us on this. Their leader Chuck Schumer claimed that the legislation, the SAVE America Act, was dead on arrival here in the Senate, meaning not a single one of them--not a one of them--agrees with 71 percent of the Democrats, 83 percent of the American public.”
“So, free of charge, any State can log into this system--President Trump has made it easy for the States--and then they can take their voter roll, and they can check it against the SAVE system. States that do this have found thousands of individuals. Maybe they have got a driver's license, and maybe, during that process, they registered to vote. But they are not entitled to vote. So those are the individuals that need to be removed from this system. I will point out that there is no other--no other--developed nation that leaves their elections so vulnerable to fraud and manipulation. So to defend themselves, Democrats claim that voter fraud is very rare. Well, President Trump's Thursday night address on election integrity showed just how much voter fraud we have.”
“So you have got these States that require no ID, and you have got other States that will have nonphoto ID that they will accept. Now, at the same time, two dozen States--and, again, they are overwhelmingly blue--that is, 24 States refuse to work with DHS to compare their voter rolls with the Federal SAVE database, which verifies the immigration status of registered voters. Now, that is a system--that is a database--at the Department of Homeland Security, and this SAVE system has that listing of noncitizens who were in our country--people that are on student visas, people that are on work visas, people that are permanent legal residents, people that are in the country illegally. But do you know what? Not a single one of those individuals is entitled to vote.”
“Tennessee, my home State, leads the Nation in election integrity. Now, if every State was like Tennessee, there would be no need for the SAVE America Act. But for years, we have seen blue States practically invite fraud into their elections. Fourteen States--including California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Minnesota--do not require any form of ID to vote. Many more States accept ID that is nonphoto. Now, think about that. In 14 States, if you live in one of those States, you do not have to prove anything in order to go vote in their elections. It is open season. So my question would be: How does that type of system--no ID required, just come on and vote. Everybody welcome. The polls are open. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen or a noncitizen. Come cast your ballot.”
“It would require voters to present an ID to cast a ballot. Now, as I said, this is overwhelmingly popular. You have got 83 percent of all Americans. Now, for my colleagues across the aisle, 71 percent of the Democrats support this. They want people to have to prove that they are indeed who they claim to be. Also, our legislation would require people to be a U.S. citizen in order to vote in our elections, and it would require the States to remove noncitizens who have somehow ended up on their voter rolls. These are all common sense, every one of them--common sense. There is nothing objectionable about these measures. It is common sense. And these are sensible, easily understood, and easily implemented ways to make certain that we are protecting our electoral system. Many Republican States already enforce these safeguards.”
“Mr. President, several of my colleagues and I are going to talk tonight about the importance of passing the SAVE America Act, and this is an issue the Senate should willingly take up. Having voter ID is something the vast majority of Americans support. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents or Libertarians, everyone thinks you should have to show an ID when you go to vote. It is incredible that we are on the floor having to make the case for this legislation. The bill's provisions are really common sense, and, as I said, this is something the American people have said: We want this. We want to preserve one person, one vote, and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. Now, the legislation that is before us would really accomplish three major objectives in securing our elections.”
“Just a few months ago, Lindsey and I filed the 287(g) Expansion Act to encourage State and local law enforcement to partner with ICE and accomplish President Trump's goal of deporting criminal illegal aliens and keeping our communities safe. Last month, we also introduced the Election Security Partnership Act to get more States to submit their voter rolls to DHS through the SAVE Program and secure our elections. On that issue, Lindsey was a champion of the SAVE America Act to ensure that only American citizens vote in American elections. The Senate should put election integrity measures on the floor for a vote and honor his legacy. That is exactly what he would encourage us to do. It was so moving to see his sister Darline sworn into office yesterday to complete his term.”
“He believed in robust, respectful bipartisan debate, and he knew that, in Washington, you can only solve problems by building a big tent and inviting people to join you. He did it time and again, across more than three decades in public office, working to protect our national security, strengthen our military, secure our border, protect kids online, and save our elections. I had the honor of serving alongside him on the Judiciary Committee, including during his time as both chair and ranking member. He knew that peace and prosperity are only possible under the rule of law, and he fought to defend the rule of law.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4100] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Remembering Lindsey Graham Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, America lost a fearless patriot in our friend Lindsey Graham. He devoted his life to serving the people of South Carolina and this Nation. He never shied away from a difficult fight, and he always stuck to his principles. It has been so moving to see all the tributes to his life and his legacy pour in from each side of the aisle. It speaks to who he was as a leader, statesman, and a public servant.”
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. [[Page S4100]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.”
“Just a few months ago, Lindsey and I filed the 287(g) Expansion Act to encourage State and local law enforcement to partner with ICE and accomplish President Trump's goal of deporting criminal illegal aliens and keeping our communities safe. Last month, we also introduced the Election Security Partnership Act to get more States to submit their voter rolls to DHS through the SAVE Program and secure our elections. On that issue, Lindsey was a champion of the SAVE America Act to ensure that only American citizens vote in American elections. The Senate should put election integrity measures on the floor for a vote and honor his legacy. That is exactly what he would encourage us to do. It was so moving to see his sister Darline sworn into office yesterday to complete his term.”
“He believed in robust, respectful bipartisan debate, and he knew that, in Washington, you can only solve problems by building a big tent and inviting people to join you. He did it time and again, across more than three decades in public office, working to protect our national security, strengthen our military, secure our border, protect kids online, and save our elections. I had the honor of serving alongside him on the Judiciary Committee, including during his time as both chair and ranking member. He knew that peace and prosperity are only possible under the rule of law, and he fought to defend the rule of law.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)] [Senate] [Page S4100] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] Remembering Lindsey Graham Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, America lost a fearless patriot in our friend Lindsey Graham. He devoted his life to serving the people of South Carolina and this Nation. He never shied away from a difficult fight, and he always stuck to his principles. It has been so moving to see all the tributes to his life and his legacy pour in from each side of the aisle. It speaks to who he was as a leader, statesman, and a public servant.”
“COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing. SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. ____________________”
“AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. COMMITTEE ON FINANCE The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.”
“``(6) The term `Secretary concerned' means-- ``(A) the Secretary of the Army, with respect to matters concerning the Army, National Guard Bureau, and units of the Army National Guard without regard to whether such units are operating under the authority of this title or title 32, provided such intergovernmental support agreements serve a military purpose of the Department of Defense; ``(B) the Secretary of the Navy, with respect to matters concerning the Navy and Marine Corps; ``(C) the Secretary of the Air Force, with respect to matters concerning the Air Force, and the Space Force, and units of the Air National Guard without regard to whether such units are operating under the authority of this title or title 32, provided such intergovernmental support agreements serve a military purpose of the Department of Defense; ``(D) the Secretary of Defense, with respect to matters concerning the Defense Agencies not otherwise covered by the Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, or Space Force; and ``(E) the head of any other Federal agency without regard to whether such agency is operating under the authority of this title, provided such intergovernmental support agreements will serve the best interests of the Department of Defense.''.”
“(e) Modification of Authority of Department of Defense for Installation Support [[Page S4077]] Services and Intergovernmental Support Agreements.--Section 2679 of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(2)-- (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon; (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and (C) by adding at the end the following: ``(C) may include, as an additional partner in the agreement, any other Federal agency.''; (2) in subsection (c)-- (A) by striking ``Funds available'' through ``for that year'' and inserting ``The Secretary concerned may use funds from any Department of Defense source to pay for installation-support services''; and (B) by striking ``such an agreement'' and inserting ``an agreement under this section''; and (3) in subsection (f)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``including the repair, construction, maintenance, and operation of a facility on or near an installation,'' after ``and support''; (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``public agency, public joint powers agency, government corporation,'' after ``public authority,''; and (C) by adding at the end the following: ``(5) The term `Department of Defense source' includes any appropriations made available by Congress to the Department of Defense and excludes permanent appropriations, revolving funds, previously unavailable balances, or third-party financing arrangements.”