Senate Fails to Advance Stop Insider Trading Act (53-47) and Ratepayer Protection Act (57-43); Confirms Secretary of Labor and Ambassadors

The case for

Mr. THUNE argued the bill is a "commonsense" measure to ensure Members of Congress and their families do not benefit from insider knowledge by prohibiting stock purchases while in office and requiring advance public notice of sales. He also highlighted the voter ID measure as having "overwhelming support of the American people," including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, noting that 13 House Democrats supported it.

The case against

Mr. SCHUMER called the bill a "permission slip for corruption, not a stock trading ban," arguing it is a "toothless" measure that allows Members to continue owning and selling stocks and trading in privately held companies, creating conflicts of interest. He also criticized the bill for exempting the President from the ban, citing President Trump's extensive stock trades. Mr. SCHUMER further stated that the voter ID provisions are "poison pills" designed to make voting more difficult, being "more extreme than any law in any State" and threatening to suppress votes. Mr. VAN HOLLEN echoed these concerns, stating the bill is a "political scam" that uses "figleaf new ethics rules to pass a sweeping, unrelated voter suppression law," and that it fails to adequately address congressional stock trading while undermining the right to vote.

The case for

Mr. THUNE and Mr. HUSTED argued the bill is "common sense" and "as common sense as it gets," designed to protect hard-working Americans from increased energy costs by requiring data centers to shoulder the electricity costs associated with their operation and construction. Mr. HUSTED highlighted its overwhelming bipartisan passage in the House (417-3) as evidence of its broad support and urged Democrats to stop blocking it to lower electricity rates for American ratepayers. Mr. HAGERTY emphasized the need for more energy for AI development but stressed that costs should not be borne by American families or businesses.

The case against

Mr. SCHUMER called the bill "toothless" and a "flimsier" messaging bill, arguing it does nothing to mandate data center companies pay for rising costs or mandate safety standards for AI. He stated that it doesn't even apply to all data centers and that Democrats want mandatory, not suggested, coverage of costs. Mr. HEINRICH stated the bill "simply does not protect Americans from high utility bills" because it has "no—zero—requirement that data centers actually pay for their own grid upgrades," calling it a "messaging bill on the eve of an election." Mr. VAN HOLLEN criticized the bill for lacking enforcement mechanisms and relying solely on states to "consider" implementing rate classes, arguing it's an "empty gesture" that leaves Americans shouldering Big Tech's costs.

The case for

Mr. SULLIVAN argued the bill provides greater certainty for responsible resource development on the North Slope of Alaska, benefiting Alaskans and America. He characterized it as the "third prong" of a strategy to prevent future administrations from shutting down Alaska's resource development, protecting existing oil and gas opportunities from being reversed. He highlighted that the bill is strongly supported by Native people in Alaska and would lead to jobs, hospitals, and improved life expectancy in the region. He criticized the objection as hypocritical, given New Mexico's increased oil and gas production under the previous administration.

The case against

Mr. HEINRICH objected, stating the bill would prioritize oil and gas over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of America's "wildest and most untouched places." He argued the bill bypasses the legislative process, is "deeply unpopular," and waives revenue requirements and environmental laws, deeming environmental studies complete. He asserted that the bill would cause "devastating impacts on that landscape" and the wildlife, and that transferring public land to a state without fair exchange or compensation for the public is unacceptable.

The case for

Mr. SCHMITT and Mrs. MOODY argued the bill would make the National Fraud Enforcement Division a permanent part of the Department of Justice, addressing systemic fraud against taxpayers. They cited billions of dollars in fraud uncovered by federal investigators and the need for a dedicated, permanent division to find, prosecute, and stop fraud. They emphasized that this mission should transcend party politics and that the House passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The case against

Mr. WHITEHOUSE objected, arguing that the Trump administration has used the White House for "political fraud and corruption on an epic scale" and dismantled existing mechanisms to deter and investigate fraud, such as the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). He stated that the new division is a "perfect vehicle" for weaponizing the Justice Department against political enemies, noting its current head is a former cochair of the "Weaponization Working Group." He proposed restoring OCDETF as a more meaningful approach to combating fraud and organized crime.

The case for

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, co-sponsor with Mrs. BLACKBURN, emphasized the bill's focus on "product design, not blocking content," to make online platforms safe for children. He stated it imposes "standards of accountability that every other industry faces" and gives kids and parents tools to protect themselves from addictive content and harms like anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. He argued that tech industry lobbying has delayed the bill, costing lives, and that the bill explicitly protects free speech and does not involve censorship.

The case against

Mr. PAUL objected, arguing the bill is a "Pandora's box of unintended consequences" that would lead to "the stifling of First Amendment protected speech." He cited concerns from a pro-life organization that KOSA could silence pro-life speech if it's deemed to cause anxiety. He stated that "government mandates and censorship will not protect children online" and that "free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online."

The case for

Mr. MERKLEY and Mrs. MURRAY argued the bill is necessary to address President Trump's "illegal and unconstitutional" use of "pocket rescissions" to cancel nearly a billion dollars in congressionally authorized and funded programs. They cited the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) finding that such actions are unlawful and a "usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers." They emphasized that the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, not the President, and that these actions undermine bipartisan agreements and the ability to negotiate future spending bills.

The case against

Mr. JOHNSON objected, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act is "very poorly written" and that the GAO's position is a reversal of previous stances. He stated that every President since Ford believed they had the ability to do a pocket rescission. He also expressed support for reducing spending, regardless of the President's party, and noted that 70 percent of the $810 million in rescinded funds was for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance Program, which he argued was unnecessary due to President Trump's border security policies.

The case for

Mrs. BLACKBURN argued the resolution celebrates the positive impact of athletic participation on young girls, recognizes the importance of Title IX, and calls on sports governing bodies to protect women and girls in sports. She cited the increase in female athletes since 1972 and stated that "biological men have displaced women and girls from over 2,000 medals they should have rightfully won." She referenced President Trump's Executive Orders affirming biological sex in sports and Supreme Court decisions upholding state laws protecting female athletic competition.

The case against

Mr. MARKEY objected, stating the resolution is "yet another salvo in the relentless, escalating attacks on Americans' freedom that MAGA Republicans are waging." He argued it is a "senseless, cruel, hateful" effort to demonize a small group of people and distract from the President's "disastrous policy agenda." He emphasized the moral obligation to defend the rights of trans people and stated that politicians should not decide who belongs in society or what sports kids can play. He also pointed out that the resolution is a distraction from pressing economic issues.