Historic Greenwood District—Black Wall Street National Monument Establishment Act

Mr. President, last year this body, the United States Senate, passed 41 bills from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. And 25 of those bills have been reintroduced. They all have bipartisan support. They all have been vetted in committee. They all are ready to move.

Today, I am asking that we pass four of them at the same time as a modest step forward for the kind of open, Member-driven process for which the Senate was built and has long existed.

The first, from Senator King of Maine, would expand access to the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument--something that passed this body unanimously last year.

The second, from Senator Cornyn of Texas, would adjust the boundaries of Big Bend National Park--again, a commonsense proposal with bipartisan support.

The third, from Senator Gillibrand of New York, would establish a national historic park at Fort Ontario--the site of the only Holocaust refugee shelter in American history.

And fourth, from Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, would designate the Historic Greenwood District, also known as Black Wall Street, as a national monument.

The Greenwood District in Tulsa was once a thriving community of Black-owned businesses, professionals, and families until the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 tragically burned it to the ground.

Hundreds were killed, and thousands were left homeless. Designating this site as a national monument is long overdue. And this month, May 31--in fact, just a few days from now--marks the anniversary of that tragic, tragic massacre.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: S. 282, the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument access from Senator King; S. 1051, the Historic Greenwood District--Black Wall Street--National Monument from Senator Lankford; S. 432, Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historic Park Establishment Act from Senator Gillibrand; and S. 1112, the Big Bend National Park Boundary Adjustment Act from Senator Cornyn; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words from my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

I know my time is short, but I need to respond to a couple of points. First, the bills to which my Democratic colleagues are referring have been cleared. They have been cleared through what is known as our hotline, cleared for passage on the Republican side--not one objection from one Republican.

It is the Democrats that are holding it up here. We are not the ones.

Secondly, I want to make very clear: This is a very unfortunate occurrence in the Senate. It is a bad habit that we have gotten into, and it is a habit that we must break.

The habit involves raising an objection. One of the things you did not hear from my friend and colleague from Oregon is a single objection, not on the merits, not on any legitimate procedural ground to any of the bills that I just mentioned--not a single one. No, these bills are drawing an objection today, not allowed to pass the Senate today--even though they passed in the past unanimously, and they don't have any substantive objection.

They are objecting to these not because they are unpopular but because they are popular. When they are popular, when the need for them is due and undisputed, when there is no legitimate argument against them, when the House delegation, the local population, the Senate delegation is all supportive of them, they use them and take them as hostages.

And they use them so that the way these things can happen is they will cuddle together a whole bunch of bills, and these bills all accomplish similar things. They have a lot of commonalities. They do similar things. They enjoy similar amounts of support. They have passed in the past. The local communities overwhelmingly support them. It makes sense to offer these up together. We opt to do them individually as often as we can.

But what they want to do is what has been done in the past, is you cuddle together a whole bunch of bills--sometimes a dozen or more, maybe dozens of them--and then time the introduction of that package to a moment just before a major holiday or long-scheduled recess, they bring them forward, and they say: Take them or leave them.

You must take all of them or have none of them. And what that does to public land States like mine, where 67 percent of the land is owned by the U.S. Government or beholden to everything, is it puts us in an impossible decision.

Usually, these deals are put together by two or three people in secret, and they bring it forward at the last possible minute when there is no time for debate, no time for amendments, no time to say, OK, this one doesn't belong, the others are fine.

Take it or leave it. It is extortion. We have got to end that process. There is not one legitimate reason why we shouldn't pass any one of these four bills. Let's get it done today. I find it tragic that this drew an objection.

Mr. President, I have got colleagues ready to speak, and I just need 10 seconds here.

I respect and appreciate my friend and colleague from Oregon. It is not to him, personally, about taking bills hostage. But this is a process that has happened in the past over and over and over again. This is how it is playing out.

As to these bills, I reiterate there is not one Republican Senator objecting to them. Bring them forward. Let's pass them now. If there are problems, I don't know what they are, why they would arise. They are on the Democrat side, not ours.

But that is not our problem. It shouldn't be an impediment for Senator Cornyn's bill or Senator Lankford's bill or Senator Gillibrand's bill or Senator King's bill that the Democrats can't get their act together, that, for some reason, they are not willing to support that legislation. This is unfortunate. We have got to fix it.

Mr. President, before I talk about digital assets, I want to take a moment to remember Sarah Lynn Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, who were tragically, senselessly murdered last night at the Capital Jewish Museum.

May their memory be a blessing for their families, their friends, their community, and their faith.

Let me be very clear. Anti-Semitism and this kind of hate-fueled violence have no place in our country, no place in the world.

I encourage you all to join me in keeping these families in your prayers in the coming weeks. I am proud to stand in support of Israel during this time.

GENIUS Act

Mr. President, now I will switch to the GENIUS Act.

The GENIUS Act is a watershed moment in how we approach digital finance while also preserving the institutions that have served our Nation for decades.

Digital assets are the future, and it is our responsibility to ensure the United States continues to lead the way. The uncomfortable reality is that our payment system is outdated. Many of our financial rails date back to the 1970s and 1980s, before the internet transformed how we live and work.

When a small business owner in Cheyenne uses a traditional payment system to send a payment to a supplier overseas, they face delays up to 10 days and 2 to 5 percent transaction fees. This isn't just inconvenient; it is a competitive disadvantage to American businesses.

But digital assets change all that. Stablecoins can complete these same transactions in seconds, at a fraction of the cost, 365 days out of the year. The GENIUS Act not only revolutionizes the way we do business but preserves critical financial institutions, and they need this opportunity.

For more than 150 years, our country has maintained both State- chartered and national banks. There are about 5,000 banks; 4,000 of them are chartered at the State level and only 1,000 at the Federal level. This system has been the engine for American economic growth, providing businesses of all sizes with diverse financial services tailored to local needs.

In Wyoming, we have seen firsthand how State-chartered banks serve the specific needs of ranchers, energy producers, and Main Street that might otherwise have been overlooked by larger institutions. We have also seen how the dual banking system permits States, as laboratories of democracy, to thoughtfully integrate new products and services into our banking system.

Wyoming and other States were the first to provide legal clarity for digital assets and show, in great detail, how they can thoughtfully be integrated into our payments and contracts. The GENIUS Act thoughtfully preserves the dual banking system by creating clear pathways for stablecoin issuance under both State and Federal oversight. The legislation also protects and builds upon Wyoming's regulatory framework for digital assets that both protects consumers and promotes responsible innovation.

This legislation, the GENIUS Act, is thoughtful, and it is a balanced approach America needs to maintain and grow our influence in financial advancement, and history will remember how we capitalize on or squander this moment.

American leadership in digital finance is a privilege. Let's ensure it stays in America and not Europe, not Singapore, not China. Let's lead in this innovation, this technology, this advantage to individuals and small communities. We need American values and American leadership to ensure prosperity in the next generation.

Let's get the GENIUS Act passed and secure America's financial future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to make a comment on the lands bill, my frustration of where things have gone today on things.

I do want to just pause for a moment and recognize that two staff members of the Israeli Embassy were murdered last night here in Washington, DC, simply because they were Jewish.

The murderer literally hovered outside of the Jewish museum here in Washington, DC, waiting for someone to walk out to murder--just a random person, apparently just to be able to kill a Jew. And then later screamed at the front door ``Free Palestine.''

This is anti-Semitism at its worst, and I want my Jewish friends to be able to know we are praying for you; we are speaking out on your behalf today; and we have not forgotten. And this kind of hatred and anti-Semitism cannot continue in America.

Historic Greenwood District-Black Wall Street National Monument

Establishment Act

Mr. President, today, I am also disappointed. There is a bill that is a very simple bill that literally every single Republican has released and said: We want to be able to move this.

This is recognition of a national monument for the Historic Greenwood District in North Tulsa. In 1921, on May 31, overnight to June 1, there was the worst race massacre in American history. It is a stain on our American history, but it is also a moment to be able to look back to and learn from.

Over 100 years ago, this race massacre, when it occurred, was pushed under the rug and was told for generations to forget about it. We are pulling that thread and saying: There is some benefit to not losing track of that moment.

This particular bill is a designation as a national monument for that Historic Greenwood District. Now, it is written very carefully and in very close cooperation to make sure there is no eminent domain for the Federal Government; there is no Federal takeover;

private property rights are all protected. But it puts a recognition in this area that it is a Federal designation, just a recognition, no property is taken over, but to say: We as a nation remember.

It is important to the people of North Tulsa because the families and communities and the businesses in North Tulsa are literally turning tragedy into triumph. They are looking back on that time and saying that is what happened on that day, but don't look at just that day, look at who we are; look at who we have been; look at who we are now and where we are going.

This is an important piece that literally every single Republican cleared. No struggle with this bill at all. And then my Democrat colleagues came today, of all weeks and this day, to be able to say they were going to block it.

So my challenge is to my Democratic colleagues, I don't know what the fight and struggle is on this, and I don't know why this is difficult to be able to do. We should all have agreement on this. So whatever struggle is happening among their conference, I would encourage them to be able to work it out so we can pass this because in the past, in this body, this has been a unanimous issue. This should not be controversial to say: We, as a nation, recognize what happened on that day, and we honor the people of North Tulsa for what they are working to still create there in the Greenwood District.

So my encouragement is, let's work out our differences today on this. Let's get this passed and get this done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the pending item.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I would say to my colleague, I very much wish that I was not in this position. This morning, I was--like Chairman Lee, I was chairman of the committee, and I know this is a challenging process to put these measures together.

Chairman Lee and I have worked very closely for years on these issues and a host of others, and I look forward to having plenty of opportunities in the future to continue our good work.

So the reason I am here is I requested that two additional, strongly bipartisan measures that already cleared the Chamber last Congress and had no objections be individually included in the request.

One of those bills was S. 356, the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025, that for years I have championed with my friend and colleague from Idaho Senator Crapo.

Across the West, this legislation has had bipartisan support because it would reauthorize a crucial lifeline--particularly for schools and law enforcement and roads throughout the West.

I was in Grant County recently, a small community in eastern Oregon, and they are basically hanging by a thread if they don't get the Secure Rural Schools money restored. That is why I am here on the floor today.

I am clear that I want us to work together and to get this done as expeditiously as possible. I am committed, as I have been over the years, working with Chairman Lee to advance these bipartisan proposals swiftly.

I deeply regret being out here and having to express my concerns today and to object, and I just hope we can be back on this floor very, very quickly to pass this good package of bills and make sure the Secure Rural Schools legislation is included.

Therefore, I object.

Just to briefly respond because we are hearing about hostages and extortion and all this kind of thing. I just want my colleague to know because he and I have worked together for years and years and we have never had a difference of opinion that was based on somebody trying to take hostages and these kinds of things.

This is about something that is really, in my communities, a question of whether they are going to make it in terms of keeping the schools open. There are no objections to what Senator Crapo and I have been doing here.

Let me repeat that: No objections.

And throughout the West and in the Federal Government, like in my colleague's State, the Federal Government owns much of our land. People are waiting to see if we will work together and fix this.

I want to tell my colleague, I am happy to join him in 20 minutes if we have worked this out, and we will be done, and if my colleague says we will go home and say we got something else done that was constructive.

So I want to renew my point: This is not about politics. It is bipartisan. There are no objections. I stand willing, with my staff, to join the Lee staff right now. We can work together over the next few minutes. We have a unanimous consent request, and we are done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate will vote on my resolution to overturn the EPA's waiver for California's Advanced Clean Trucks.

First of all, I would like to thank my friend and colleague Chairman Capito for her strong leadership and work on this very important issue. This heavyhanded regulation imposes unrealistic emissions requirements for heavy-duty trucks and heavy-duty diesel engines. This government mandate handed down to vehicle manufacturers demands that they sell zero-emission trucks at an increased rate from 2024 to 2035. We aren't under any illusions as to what this means. We know that the goal is to effectively end the sale of internal combustion engines.

Now, I am not here today to disparage electric vehicles, and I am certainly not here to discourage the manufacturing and the purchasing of EVs either. What I am concerned about is the Federal Government dictating which cars and which trucks are acceptable and which are not. If Americans want to drive an electric or a hybrid car, that is fine. However, the government--the government--should not pick winners and losers in the vehicle marketplace. I believe in the power of America's free markets, and I believe we should allow the markets to determine the viability of clean trucks.

Here is the truth: This California waiver and subsequent regulation is simply not based in reality, and it will have real-world consequences on us. By requiring truckers to meet California's standards, even while working outside of the State, operator costs increase, fleet upgrades would be impacted, and interstate commerce would be disrupted. And American consumers would bear the brunt of increased costs. Hard-working families are already dealing with the high cost of everyday goods and services, and they cannot afford this regulation.

Let me be clear. This action is necessary to stop one State from dictating emission policies for the entire country. Prior to this waiver being granted, California's own Air Resources Board readily admitted this action would extend beyond its own State borders, and several States have already followed suit.

I would also like to address the eligibility of Congress disapproving rules. A few weeks ago, I questioned the Government Accountability Office Comptroller during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing. The Comptroller explicitly stated that GAO's role is just an advisory one and that it is up to us--it is up to Congress--to determine what constitutes a rule. Again, let me be clear. We are reclaiming our congressional authority under the Congressional Review Act.

I will be proud for this body to vote on and pass my resolution, which is a commonsense step to keep government overreach at bay, protect consumers, and support America's free markets. With the passage of the House version of this resolution and with the passage of the Senate's version today, it will head to the President's desk to be signed into law.

I yield the floor.