Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, colleagues, what we have seen happening to the Federal judiciary over the last 9 months is beyond concerning; it is corrupting.

We have seen nominees who are deeply partisan and deeply ideological. We have seen nominees who, under any other administration, would be roundly criticized and rejected by this body. And we have seen nominees whose chief qualification is nothing other than loyalty to and relationship to Donald Trump.

So later today, we are going to consider just the latest example of this when the Senate takes up the nomination of Eric Tung to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, colleagues. An appellate court nominee in particular should have the judgment, the independence, and the respect for precedence worthy of the position. But instead, Mr. Tung, the nominee before us, is not here because of his independence or his judicial temperament; he is here because of his ideology.

Mr. Tung embraces an extreme and rigid view of the Constitution that rejects both equality and liberty. He has made it clear that under his constitutional philosophy, there is no protection for rights that most Americans take as fundamental, including the rights to reproductive freedom, marriage equality, and even private consensual relationships. That is not constitutional interpretation; it is a radical blueprint for rolling back decades of progress on individual freedom and equality.

When I gave Mr. Tung an opportunity to explain his history of sexist and anti-labor comments a few months ago in committee, during the confirmation hearing, he deflected. He showed no reflection or evolved thinking, because the truth is Mr. Tung's record and writings reveal a pattern of ideological extremism that calls into question his ability to apply the law fully and fairly.

Now, let me also make it clear that I am not setting out with the goal of denying the Ninth Circuit qualified replacements--far from it. Not just myself, but Senator Schiff, my colleague from California, and I both reached out to the White House months ago to inform them of a couple of things--No. 1, that Eric Tung would be unacceptable.

But, importantly, it is important for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to understand that we signaled a willingness to consider more mainstream Republican candidates whom President Trump had previously nominated for district court judgeships. We were willing to try to find that common ground. But clearly the White House wasn't interested, because whether it is the Department of Justice, the FBI, U.S. attorneys, or the Federal bench, the Trump White House is showing us what they truly care about: unwavering loyalty.

So today, I will remind my colleagues that when we reference the judiciary, it is the American people's judiciary, and all the decisions we make today will affect our justice system, the people's judiciary, for years, if not decades.

For those reasons, I urge all my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing Mr. Tung's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my good friend the Senator from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal for his partnership not just on these issues but in a lot of matters before the judiciary, generally.

But we and others have come to the floor today to celebrate yesterday. Yesterday, Americans in States across the country came out to participate in a tradition as old as the Nation itself: casting their ballots in a democratic election.

And while ballots are still being processed and final results will come in the coming days, it is safe to say that, thanks to the hard- working and unsung heroes known as election workers and volunteers across the country, these elections largely went off smoothly and successfully. Because of their work in States like Virginia and New Jersey, we saw a record turnout. Because of their work in cities like New York, we saw the highest turnout there since 1969 in a municipal election.

From a race for State supreme court justices in the State of Pennsylvania to a statewide proposition in my home State of California, Americans showed up in overwhelming numbers to say in one loud and clear voice that they have had enough.

The question after an election is always: So what message did the voters say? What was the mandate when it comes to a high turnout in an election with larger than expected margins?

The takeaway is this: Enough of the Republican chaos, enough of the power grabs, enough of the corruption, and enough of Trump's billionaire assault on working families.

That is the power of democracy, that we are able to send that type of a message. The people sent that type of a message, that loud of a message, by exercising the right to vote.

But even after the success of last night, let's also be clear about this: One free and fair election does not guarantee the next one. We have to fight to ensure future elections. We have to keep asking ourselves, what do we do between now and next November to protect the next election? Because at this very moment, the President and his allies are doing everything they can to rig the rules of the game.

The reality is that at some point in the last couple of months, the President came to a harsh realization. We have known that his policies have been bad ones. We have known they have been harmful. He has figured out his policies are also very unpopular. Prices on everything from groceries, to housing, to energy bills are going up. Healthcare premiums are spiking. SNAP benefits are being cut. But for the billionaire class, things are just fine because Trump gave them the tax cut that they wanted, and somehow there is now funding for a ballroom.

Americans, though, are fired up. They are angry at a President and a party that are looking out for themselves rather than looking out for the country as a whole. But rather than change their policies that are causing such harm, instead of changing their policies before the midterm elections, President Trump and Republicans would rather change the rules.

We have a responsibility to sound the alarm before it is too late.

Let me revisit my home State of California, where voters came out in big numbers to pass Proposition 50 by a wide margin. Why? We are not celebrating a middecade redistricting. Proposition 50 passed because they have been waiting to respond to the madness because Donald Trump is the one who forced California's hand.

In between trying to pile a little gold covering to every square inch of the White House that he can that hasn't been demolished and pardoning billionaire criminals, President Trump has been making some phone calls. So has the Vice President. They called GOP State lawmakers to redraw congressional maps and to silence Democratic opposition.

It began when President Trump called Texas Governor Greg Abbott and told him to find him five more Republican seats.

When I first heard that, it sounded eerily similar to the call we all heard about from 2020 when President Trump called the secretary of state of Georgia and demanded he find him 11,000 more votes.

We knew what Texas was going to do--a midterm partisan redistricting.

Californians knew right away that enough was enough, and that is what yesterday was all about--leveling the playing field.

By the way, at any moment, Republicans can actually end this redistricting arms race altogether, because there is more than just chatter about Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and others. To end that arms race, I invite my Republican colleagues to join me--to join us in supporting true nationwide redistricting reform. Yes, we do have a bill to do just that--independent redistricting once every 10 years after the census, which is when it should be properly done. But, no, Republicans would rather try to cling to power by changing the rules of the game.

It is why just yesterday the White House issued yet another threat, this time a threat to issue another illegal Executive order to ban mail-in voting. It is why, as races were being called last night and Trump knew things were not going to go his way, the President took to social media to demand Republicans kill the filibuster and ban mail-in voting and other laws that are designed to keep our elections secure but make it easier for eligible U.S. citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote, to cast their ballot and have their ballot be counted. That is what we are up against.

But wait, there is more. At the same time, the Trump Department of Justice has its hands full. Boy, do they. The Department of Justice has sent letters to at least 40 different States demanding information about their voter maintenance policies and practices. They filed lawsuits against eight States and probably growing--including California--that have refused to hand over the personal, private information of voters. It kind of reminds me of a game that kids sometimes play: Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

What the administration is saying is, you can give us your voter rolls so we can start systematic purging, or you can choose to protect voter information, but we will see you in court, and we are going to claim voter fraud anyway.

But wait, there is more. Donald Trump is also staffing up the White House with like-minded election deniers and conspiracy theorists, hinting at future actions that would disenfranchise even more voters.

Of course, the President has been slandering places like California and our election practices for years, and he did it once again just yesterday, on election day--his words, not mine. The President lies and shouts ``fraud'' without a shred of evidence. He didn't wait until election day; he started prior to because he knew he was going to lose.

The White House restated its threat to issue a new, even more illegal Executive order to ban mail-in voting despite the fact that the President himself votes by mail.

On top of all these brazen efforts, they are laying the groundwork for the nuclear option once again.

Think about what we have seen over just the last few months--troops deployed domestically into cities in response to pretend rebellions that exist only in Donald Trump's mind.

Going back to this Proposition 50 in California, I was there with the Governor and other State leaders when we first launched the effort. We held a rally to announce a new, legal, democratic ballot initiative-- small ``d,'' democratic--because ultimately it was going to be up to the voters to decide.

The day of that rally, the day of that kickoff--don't tell me it was a coincidence--who shows up at the doors and the perimeter of this building? Armed Border Patrol agents to try to intimidate people coming in to participate in the kickoff and the announcement.

The election deniers in the administration have been lobbying for the White House to declare a fake national emergency to try to seize unconstitutional powers over our elections.

So I raise all these examples as a shocking reminder of how quickly Donald Trump is moving to upend our free and fair elections, but the reality is, none of this should be surprising. I know it is not to me because he has done it before. It has been 5 years since Donald Trump first tried to steal the 2020 election, and since then, he has only grown more extreme.

We all agree it is important to protect the security and integrity of our elections, but even at a moment in history like this, I remind myself that American democracy was here long before MAGA, and it will be here long after MAGA Republicans are no longer in power. But it will not be by accident.

Members of Congress can and must stand up to every one of Trump's unconstitutional power grabs over State election authority. I am committed to doing my part. If the Trump White House tries to declare some fake national emergency to create a pretense for Federal intervention, I will force a vote here in the Senate to stop it.

But no matter what happens, voters cannot lose hope. That is what is most important. We need Americans to keep showing up each and every election and show up in overwhelming numbers--just as they did yesterday, just as they did for hundreds of years prior--and make clear that it will be the people and only the people who will determine the future of our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life of Kent Wong, a champion for working people, defender of immigrants, and tireless advocate for nonviolent protest and civic participation in America.

A fifth-generation Chinese American, Kent Wong was born to Delbert and Dolores Wong and raised in the community of Silver Lake, CA. His mother was a psychiatric social worker, and his father was the first Chinese American judge in the continental United States, which meant Kent spent a lifetime committed to empowering working people and communities of color in California.

After graduating from the People's College of Law in 1984, Kent became the first staff attorney for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center for Southern California and, later, staff attorney for SEIU Local 660. It was then that, alongside other Los Angeles-based activists, Kent began studying nonviolence under a titan of the Civil Rights Movement, James Lawson.

Over the course of the 8 years from 1992-2000, putting his training into action, Kent founded the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance and the Tourism Industry Development Council, cofounded the economic justice and tenants' rights group Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, and helped create the United Association for Labor Education to help promote labor education across the Nation.

But to countless friends and mentees, Kent was best known as professor of labor and Asian American studies, and as the beloved longtime director of the UCLA Labor Center, which he led from 1991- 2023. Under his tenure, he grew the organization from 3 to 42 staff members, helped secure funding for its permanent home in MacArthur Park, and spread the labor center model to seven other University of California campuses.

During his time at UCLA, he also created the first class in the Nation focused on the unique barriers undocumented students encountered in higher education--and went on to work alongside undocumented immigrants to launch ``Dream Summer,'' the ``first paid, national fellowship program for and by undocumented youth.''

In the final months of his life, Kent was organizing--training the next generation of activists to meet hatred and division with peaceful protest. Today, at a time of heightened tensions and division, we should all strive to be more like Kent Wong: principled, passionate, but through it all, peaceful.

Angela and I send our love to Kent's wife Jai Lee; his sons Ryan and Robin; and his siblings Shelley and Marshall.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate an extraordinary milestone in the democratization of public information, as the Internet Archive marks their one-trillionth web page archived.

Founded by digital librarian and MIT alumnus Brewster Kahle, the Internet Archive first launched in San Francisco in 1996 with the goal of providing ``Universal Access to All Knowledge'' by creating a ``shared digital library of humanity's online history.'' In 2001, they launched the ``Wayback Machine,'' making their archives easily accessible to the public.

Coordinating with governments, nonprofits, institutions, and individuals to grow their digital collection, for nearly three decades, the Internet Archive has worked to preserve everything from academic research to personal blogs, local news stories to international breaking news, and troves of official government records--including the archival of websites from every Presidential administration since 2008. Information from its archives has even been cited by every Circuit Court in the United States and the Supreme Court.

Working to prevent and repair broken web links, the Internet Archive has become a modern-day, digital Library of Alexandria and given billions of people the tools that once only professional archivists had at their disposal.

On a personal note, earlier this year, it was my honor to help designate the Internet Archive as a Federal depository library, allowing the Internet Archive to digitize and expand public access to Federal Government publications for years to come.

For their outstanding commitment to the public good and tireless preservation of public information, today we celebrate San Francisco's own Internet Archive. Here is to the next trillion.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the distinguished career of Stacey Mortensen, a dedicated leader who has helped transform public transportation in California's Central Valley and strengthened rail systems all across our State.

For more than three decades, Stacey has championed transportation and rail infrastructure in California. As a native of the region, she knows firsthand how important these investments are for families and businesses in our communities.

Thanks to Stacey's work, thousands of Californians have enjoyed better transportation options. Among these is the Altamont Corridor Express, which launched in 1988 with just two weekday roundtrips. Thanks in no small part to her vision and determination, ACE now serves 10 stations and nearly 3,000 riders every day.

In the mid-2000s, Stacey spearheaded a Memorandum of Understanding among 20 different agencies in Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Sacramento Counties to coordinate and streamline planning for service expansions between Merced and Sacramento. These collaborative efforts laid the foundation for what is now known as the Valley Rail Program. She also played a pivotal role in the creation of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, establishing a regional governance model for service in the San Joaquin Valley.

Throughout her more than 30 years of service in Stockton, Stacey has held an unwavering belief in the extraordinary potential of the Central Valley and its people.

Stacey's work has led to one of the largest rail infrastructure improvements in the Nation--exceeding $500 million--and helped secure nearly $2 billion in funding for the Valley Rail Program, which will ultimately connect with California's high-speed rail network in Merced.

Her leadership advanced key agreements with Valley Link and the California High-Speed Rail Authority, formally designating the rail commission and the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority as prospective operators for future rail services.

And in 2024, Stacey supported the creation of the Rail Academy of Central California, a vital workforce development initiative designed to train the next generation of rail professionals.

Throughout her career, Stacey has demonstrated a unique ability to unite people around a shared vision and inspire others to deliver meaningful, sustained progress and change.

As Stacey retires from her role as executive director of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, on behalf of all Californians, I thank her for her outstanding commitment to public service. I also thank her spouse Leah for supporting Stacey over all these years.

As she transitions to the next chapter of her life, I thank my colleagues for joining me in recognizing Stacey and applauding her outstanding contributions and her exemplary service.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues--the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Peters; along with Senators King, Gallego, and Slotkin--in support of the immediate passage of a clean and bipartisan reauthorization of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, which has been introduced by Ranking Member Peters, along with Senator Rounds, this session.

This law is critical for public-private information sharing and cyber threat mitigation. But due to the objections of a couple of Republican Senators, this essential tool has now expired, leaving our private sector partners in a lurch.

I want to come to this debate with a very, very specific focus. I also serve as ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, with oversight of Federal elections administration issues. I am also California's former secretary of state. So I have seen firsthand how this cyber security law and the resulting public-private partnership provide State and local elections officials with the crucial support they need to mitigate threats to election administration, including the combating of misinformation and disinformation.

It is timely because voting is already under way in this country in several important State elections, as we speak, including in my home State of California; and voting will soon begin in several other key elections in 10 days.

Private sector partners will be more hesitant to report cyber security threats to our elections if they are left exposed or feel like they are left exposed during this lapse in the authority provided by the law.

It is especially dangerous that this law has expired, as President Trump and many members of his administration, for that matter, continue to try to sow doubt about the integrity of our elections, including undermining the cyber security of our election systems.

Now, following the original passage of this law in 2015, Congress actually went a step further to provide better Federal coordination by establishing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, better known as CISA. This was coupled with the Department of Homeland Security's designation at the time of election infrastructure as critical infrastructure, which has helped ensure that elections offices received security assistance. And I should specifically point out that these elections offices are not just State offices; they are local elections offices throughout the country.

Now, CISA has been the leading Agency to fight against cyber threats that can impact key industries and infrastructure, and I know that State and local election officials appreciate and use the resources and support that CISA provides in fending off bad actors. But instead of prioritizing the reauthorization of the law and supporting CISA's important election security work, the administration has actually been undermining it.

Secretary Noem, DOGE, and Elon Musk have permanently cut over 1,300 staff at CISA--not added capacity; they have cut staff at CISA--while halting all election security activity and terminating funding for the election infrastructure center at CISA.

Colleagues, that is not government efficiency; that is government negligence.

For those who are still, by the way, on CISA's payroll--still employed, still staff at CISA--who joined the Federal Government with the aim of helping to protect the homeland from cyber threats, many of them are now being reassigned to support the President's mass deportation efforts. And those who don't agree to that assignment--what happens to them? They are being terminated from their jobs as we speak during President Trump's government shutdown.

Now, I know that since day one, this administration has not even tried to hide their contempt for CISA, and it is using any opportunity it can to gut the pivotal Agency and, in doing so, leaving our cyber defenses exposed.

As with many other areas where the Trump administration is pursuing dangerous and unpopular policies, they are ignoring our legitimate oversight requests. Since we first heard about the first round of job cuts back in March, several of us have requested a briefing on CISA's election-related activity, without any real answers or substantive response from CISA. Meanwhile, the Director of National Intelligence, Director Tulsi Gabbard, has spread baseless claims of election systems vulnerability and vote manipulation, including at a White House Cabinet meeting.

The vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner, and I have requested that Director Gabbard provide Senators with an intelligence briefing to clarify her remarks on voting systems security--so far, to no avail.

This reckless spread of election conspiracy theories--from the head of the intelligence community, no less--demonstrates that this administration is not serious about election security and instead embraces and spreads misinformation to undermine public confidence in elections and in election results.

So why has this law been allowed to lapse? Because a few Senate Republicans agree with Trump and want to ban CISA from doing its important election security work on disinformation and misinformation. It is a position I personally find very, very hard to believe, and I hope they will reconsider and move off of that dangerous position.

No, colleagues, we should not codify the Trump administration's approach to election security, and we certainly should not codify it permanently. We have a responsibility, an obligation, to support election officials and provide all the resources we can to keep U.S. elections secure and allow Americans to vote both freely and securely, including the disbursement of election security grants, as Congress has approved on a bipartisan basis, and including the clean reauthorization of this critical cyber security law.

Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, S. 2983; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, disappointing but not surprising. And I hope, as the days go on, and not just next year's midterm elections and not just next year's midterm primary elections but elections in numerous States this November--literally, just a few weeks away--will be a reminder of the urgency to revisit this topic, address it, reauthorize the law, and provide CISA with the funding and proper guidance, as we have over the last decade. The work is simply too important.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify his request and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 178, S. 254, and Calendar No. 169, S. 318; that the committee-reported substitute amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc; the bills, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am very glad that we were able to find a bipartisan approach to the Commerce Committee bills that were passed just a few minutes ago, not just because I know it is important to my colleague from Alaska and to his constituents, but so that Native Alaskans know that this side of the aisle also supports them as well.

But as it pertains to these bills, I think we need to find a similar bipartisan approach on the Energy and Natural Resource bills that the Senator from Alaska is suggesting that we approve by unanimous consent. I am more than happy and eager to sit down with my colleague and the chair and ranking member of the committee to put together a larger package of bills to ensure that both Republican and Democratic priorities reach the President's desk and get signed into law.

I think, historically, we have been successful at avoiding a piecemeal approach, instances where only one party's priorities or one Chamber's priorities reach the President's desk and get signed into law.

And so I look forward to continuing to work in that spirit to continue the conversation with my colleague from Alaska to arrive at a balanced, bipartisan package of bills and work together to advance them. Therefore, I must object at this time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the HOV Lane Exemption Reauthorization Act, which I introduced today.

The HOV toll lane authority for alternative fuel vehicles, in place since 1998, gives States the ability to allow alternative fuel and low- emission vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This authority provides flexibility for State departments of transportation to manage congestion, encourage cleaner cars on the road, and give drivers more options. It is now in use in more than 10 states, including California, Utah, and New York, and has been renewed on a bipartisan basis in each subsequent surface transportation reauthorization bill.

However, due to a drafting error in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the extension expires in September 2025 rather than September 2026 as originally intended. Without congressional action, these programs lapse at the end of this month, creating uncertainty for motorists, consumers, and State transportation officials. It also deprives States of the ability to make their own choices about how best to manage HOV lane access in ways that fit their unique transportation needs.

Our bipartisan bill corrects this oversight and extends the authority through the next fiscal year. This is not a sweeping change or a new mandate; it is a straghtforward, commonsense fix that ensures States can continue a longstanding program that encourages the adoption of low-emission and alternative fuel vehicles and helps ease congestion on our busiest roads. By extending the program, we provide clarity for drivers, predictability for States, and continuity for a policy with bipartisan support.

I want to thank Senator Curtis and Senator Gillibrand for co-leading this bill with me, and I urge our colleagues to join us in ensuring that States like ours are not unfairly penalized for a simple Federal oversight.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the HOV Lane Exemption Reauthorization Act, which I introduced today.

The HOV toll lane authority for alternative fuel vehicles, in place since 1998, gives States the ability to allow alternative fuel and low- emission vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This authority provides flexibility for State departments of transportation to manage congestion, encourage cleaner cars on the road, and give drivers more options. It is now in use in more than 10 states, including California, Utah, and New York, and has been renewed on a bipartisan basis in each subsequent surface transportation reauthorization bill.

However, due to a drafting error in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the extension expires in September 2025 rather than September 2026 as originally intended. Without congressional action, these programs lapse at the end of this month, creating uncertainty for motorists, consumers, and State transportation officials. It also deprives States of the ability to make their own choices about how best to manage HOV lane access in ways that fit their unique transportation needs.

Our bipartisan bill corrects this oversight and extends the authority through the next fiscal year. This is not a sweeping change or a new mandate; it is a straghtforward, commonsense fix that ensures States can continue a longstanding program that encourages the adoption of low-emission and alternative fuel vehicles and helps ease congestion on our busiest roads. By extending the program, we provide clarity for drivers, predictability for States, and continuity for a policy with bipartisan support.

I want to thank Senator Curtis and Senator Gillibrand for co-leading this bill with me, and I urge our colleagues to join us in ensuring that States like ours are not unfairly penalized for a simple Federal oversight.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his comments and commitments regarding improving Member security. I know that he, Leader Schumer, Chairman McConnell, and I all share the same goal. I think all 100 Senators share that goal.

We continue to see an unprecedented rise in threats targeting Members of Congress, with the Capitol Police on track to investigate over 14,000 threat cases in 2025. That represents a 50-percent increase over the nearly 9,500 threats Capitol Police reported in 2024.

We are witnessing disturbing incidents of politically motivated violence across the Nation, targeting elected officials and high- profile individuals associated with both political parties.

Whether it is the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk at a college campus in Utah or the tragic assassination of former speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home, it is tragic; it is unacceptable. And we would be foolish not to take notice.

The House acted on a bipartisan basis to provide new funding for enhanced Member security this past July. Even before the June shooting of Minnesota State officials, the Senate Sergeant at Arms proposed a program for enhanced security options for Senators. Bipartisan Senate Appropriations leaders have expressed support to fund that effort.

Unfortunately, progress has been slow despite strong interest from Senators of both parties. So today's resolution is a step in the right direction.

And the majority leader's statements about the further progress we need to make soon were very important--because, on its own, today's action is not nearly enough.

First, unlike the bipartisan House plan, there is no new funding provided by today's resolution. On the other side of the Capitol, bipartisan House leaders announced that Members will receive an additional $10,000 per month to help with security. This resolution-- without further action--requires Senators to choose between either paying for office staff and operations or paying for their own personal security.

The Senate has two great security agencies: the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police. They do a great job with their existing programs, and they are ready and able to do more if we give them direction and funding.

So while I am ready to support adoption of this resolution today, I do so based on the commitments from the majority leader and Democratic leader, namely: First, we will work on new security options from the Sergeant-at-Arms, in coordination with the Capitol Police; and second, we will see real funding to support enhanced Senate security; and finally, that we will see more progress in the coming weeks.

I look forward to continuing to work on a bipartisan basis to get that done.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025. This bill would transfer 584 acres of Federal land, administered by the Forest Service, to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the Pit River Tribe, California.

The Pit River Tribe consists of 11 autonomous bands traditionally inhabiting the area surrounding the Pit River and its tributaries. They are known for their deep spiritual connection to the land, with a rich cultural heritage centered around fishing, hunting, and seasonal gatherings. Today, they continue to preserve their traditions while engaging in efforts to reclaim ancestral lands and promote tribal sovereignty.

The proposed land to be transferred is known as the Four Corners Property, located in Shasta County. Today, the Four Corners Federal land is located in the ancestral territory of the Tribe, which the Tribe has historically used and has an ongoing relationship with.

This legislation is a commonsense step forward that will empower the Tribe to better serve their communities and empower Tribal self-growth. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and I also want to thank Republican Congressman Doug LaMalfa for introducing companion legislation in the House.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Ackerson Meadow Land Exchange Act. This legislation will facilitate a simple land exchange between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service in the Sierra Nevada.

This bill would transfer 160 acres of Stanislaus National Forest land to the National Park Service to be managed as part of Yosemite National Park and transfer 170 acres of National Park land to the Forest Service to manage as part of Stanislaus National Forest. The land in the exchange is known as Ackerson Meadow.

Ackerson Meadow is one of the largest midelevation meadows in the Sierra Nevada. It is an ecologically and regionally critical wildlife corridor, and the scenic meadow is an important habitat for the State endangered great grey owl and little willow flycatcher, as well as a suite of additional at-risk wildlife species. In 2016, a coalition of conservation groups donated Ackerson Meadow to Yosemite National Park; however, it is almost completely surrounded by Stanislaus National Forest and only partially contiguous to the rest of Yosemite National Park.

The current configuration of land management presents logistical challenges to both NPS and Forest Service; therefore, both Agencies, as well as local stakeholders, support this land exchange.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this straightforward legislation to better manage the land in and around Ackerson Meadow.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2025. This bill would transfer 584 acres of Federal land, administered by the Forest Service, to the Secretary of the Interior to be held in trust for the Pit River Tribe, California.

The Pit River Tribe consists of 11 autonomous bands traditionally inhabiting the area surrounding the Pit River and its tributaries. They are known for their deep spiritual connection to the land, with a rich cultural heritage centered around fishing, hunting, and seasonal gatherings. Today, they continue to preserve their traditions while engaging in efforts to reclaim ancestral lands and promote tribal sovereignty.

The proposed land to be transferred is known as the Four Corners Property, located in Shasta County. Today, the Four Corners Federal land is located in the ancestral territory of the Tribe, which the Tribe has historically used and has an ongoing relationship with.

This legislation is a commonsense step forward that will empower the Tribe to better serve their communities and empower Tribal self-growth. I want to thank Senator Schiff for cosponsoring this bill, and I also want to thank Republican Congressman Doug LaMalfa for introducing companion legislation in the House.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Ackerson Meadow Land Exchange Act. This legislation will facilitate a simple land exchange between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service in the Sierra Nevada.

This bill would transfer 160 acres of Stanislaus National Forest land to the National Park Service to be managed as part of Yosemite National Park and transfer 170 acres of National Park land to the Forest Service to manage as part of Stanislaus National Forest. The land in the exchange is known as Ackerson Meadow.

Ackerson Meadow is one of the largest midelevation meadows in the Sierra Nevada. It is an ecologically and regionally critical wildlife corridor, and the scenic meadow is an important habitat for the State endangered great grey owl and little willow flycatcher, as well as a suite of additional at-risk wildlife species. In 2016, a coalition of conservation groups donated Ackerson Meadow to Yosemite National Park; however, it is almost completely surrounded by Stanislaus National Forest and only partially contiguous to the rest of Yosemite National Park.

The current configuration of land management presents logistical challenges to both NPS and Forest Service; therefore, both Agencies, as well as local stakeholders, support this land exchange.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this straightforward legislation to better manage the land in and around Ackerson Meadow.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.