James Lankford

Madam President, reserving the right to object--I would like to reserve the right to object on this.

My friend came with a proposal to try to ban the sale and ownership of stocks by Members of Congress. I am pretty confident of why this came up today, because earlier today, we had a vote in this body to ban Members of Congress from owning stock--or, I am sorry, buying and selling stock on it. But it also included what the vast majority of Americans also want and that is voter ID.

It is pretty simple and straightforward. It is a very short bill. It just mandated voter ID, and it also banned Members of Congress from buying and selling stock: short bill, straightforward, easy to read, uncomplicated language.

Now, every one of my Democrat colleagues voted against that bill, and their complaint was: It is because it is going to rig elections if you require voter ID.

Well, I would like to remind this body, the Chair, that 36 of our 50 states already have voter ID; exactly what we voted on. There is only 14 States that don't, which means 72 Senators in this body already serve in a State that has voter ID. This is not a complicated, highly politicized, red versus blue issue. This is Americans that just say: Hey, we show ID to do everything. Why don't we show an ID to vote?

In fact, the vast majority of countries around the world are completely confused by Americans, that we don't show ID to be able to vote, when most countries around the world do. It is not diminishing people's right to vote. This is acknowledging the reality of where 36 States already are--red and blue--that we show voter ID. It shouldn't be an issue.

But this particular bill that is being brought today, and the response that Democrats voting against the bill earlier today, it is different. This is not just a ``can't buy and sell stocks''--which I, by the way, totally agree with. That is why I wholeheartedly voted for the bill earlier today.

This one has some additional features in it that have not been discussed here on the floor that I think we should actually put out onto the floor. This bill itself also includes requirements for the Ethics Committee--which I happen to chair--which is a bipartisan, equally represented group here in the Senate that has to evaluate all this. So I am pretty attentive to bills that actually deal with this to know: How are we going to implement this?

So this includes a requirement for small businesses and family farms and all those, that the Ethics Committee has to come and evaluate every single one of those from every Member to determine if there is going to be a conflict of interest from them owning a family farm.

So let me give you an example. If you own a family farm, you can't be on the Agriculture Committee because that becomes a conflict of interest. So the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. Senate suddenly becomes a group of people that don't know anything about ag because this bill would force them to divest from their family farm or it becomes a conflict of interest in the Senate.

I, personally, don't want everybody on the Ag Committee to not be farmers. I would like to have some farmers on the Ag Committee and some people that know something about this.

If you own a family-owned business that is not a family farm, that is just an LLC--which it is typical for most family businesses to be incorporated as an LLC--this puts an additional requirement on them on any kind of securities ownership, which is pretty common in an LLC that anyone who serves in this body that has a family business, multigenerational business, may have to divest from that to be able to come into the U.S. Senate.

That would mean Senators can't come from a small, family-owned business. That puts out a lot of Americans that suddenly wouldn't be eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate.

This bill also prohibits what is called a qualified blind trust. It is one of the most misunderstood aspects of this. A QBT--a qualified blind trust--any Senator that is here that has a stock portfolio that is larger has the ability to be able to take all of those assets, put it into a qualified blind trust, and they are prohibited by law from talking to that person that is actually doing all the investments. They can't know what is in it; they can't get updates on it; they can't have any interaction. And it is called a qualified blind trust because we actually have to qualify that.

In fact, the Ethics Committee actually engages with everyone who has a qualified blind trust and the person that is there to actually get all communications. So we literally monitor that to be able to make sure there is no interaction on that. Well, this bill would actually prohibit this.

This bill would also prohibit digital assets. Well, I understand that for investment in cryptocurrency and Bitcoin and everything else, but there is also a digital asset called stablecoins, and this body actually passed that. Stablecoins aren't an investment piece; stablecoins are just a dollar in digital form. That is all that it is.

This bill would prohibit Members of the Senate from actually having a digital dollar because it would be now considered a new investment asset, when it is not an investment asset at all.

I wish this bill would have gone through committee. There is a lot we could have discussed in committee to be able to work this through. But this

bill skipped all the committees and has had no hearing in committees to actually talk through it because there is even a section in this bill where it talks about one section where the Secretary of the Senate does the reporting, or another aspect where the Ethics Committee is doing the reporting. Some of those little pieces could be worked out in committee. That is not controversial at all; it could be worked out.

But it hasn't actually gone through committee to actually have any kind of oversight to try to figure out how to be able to perfect some of these areas.

Listen, this is not a bill that is just about ownership of stocks and buying and selling stocks. It is much larger. It gets into family farms. It gets into small businesses. It gets into stablecoin. It gets into all those different aspects on this.

This is the reason that, when we brought a stock bill earlier today, it is a short couple-of-pages bill to be able to make it very clear what it is and what it is not. It was not this 31-page very complicated bill that is actually being brought to the floor today.

So my challenge to all of my colleagues are: We should not be trading stocks. And if you have got stocks, those need to either be divested or put into some blind trust so that Americans have full trust that Members of this body are not looking at their portfolio all the time; they are actually looking at the people that live in their State and what they can do best to be able to serve them. That is where my colleague and I adamantly agree.

Where we disagree is on this text and what it does that is far beyond what is actually being advertised that it does.

So I would be very willing to be able to work with my colleague to be able to figure out how we can get this right because I think it is an incredibly important issue, but this needs more work back in the kitchen.

So with that, I object.

Madam President, I appreciate the conversation from my colleague.

I look forward to getting a chance to be able to work on the bill that is actually complete.

He asked where I got my information from that I actually listed out on this. I got it from a ``secret source,'' the 31 pages of the text of his bill. There was no outside group. I appreciate the conspiracy theory that some secret group must have manipulated it somehow and given me the information. I just read the text.

There are issues with the text. Again, we are back to--we can't have farmers on the Ag Committee and small business owners who may have to get rid of their family businesses to be able to run in the Senate. That is a problem.

As far as the accusation of the qualified blind trust and that there is someone who has said to my colleague that they talk to their qualified blind trust person every quarter, I would encourage my colleague to submit that to the Ethics Committee because that is a violation of current statute, if that is actually occurring, and it is already a violation. So, if my colleague knows of someone who is interacting with their broker and they have a qualified blind trust and they are interacting, as he claims, every month or every quarter, please let us know because that is something the bipartisan Ethics Committee would address immediately because that is already against Federal law to be able to do that.

My simple statement for today is: Listen, there is a right way to be able to do this. Let's do it. Let's go through the process. Let's actually figure out how to be able to get this done and get it done right, but this is not it. The way this bill is written has so many problems within the bill that I have to come down as the chairman of Ethics to say I would have to be the one charged to actually enforce this, and there will be major problems with this.

As far as the voting issues, I was listening with wonder on all of the issues about problems with voter ID. Apparently, my colleague believes that, if you have voter ID, you are Jim Crow 2.0; you are a racist State. Well, I am confident the folks in Rhode Island would be shocked to hear that.

I do not relent the floor. I do not relent the floor. I do not have to yield. I do not yield.

Madam President, I do not relent the floor.

This is an issue when we start talking about voter ID, and it is an accusation that comes at Republicans that all we want to do is be able to block people from voting. Rhode Island has voter ID. Delaware has voter ID. Connecticut has voter ID. Wisconsin has voter ID. Colorado has voter ID. New Hampshire has voter ID. Michigan has voter ID. I could go on and on and on. This is not a red State or a blue State issue. These are States that have said: If we are going to make sure we have secure elections, we are going to have voter ID.

Now, I happen to live in a State with a very high Tribal membership-- 7.5 percent of my State are Tribal members. We also have voter ID in my State. And do you know what? We welcome Tribal members to vote like every other Oklahoman.

We have voter ID in my State, and as shocking as this may seem, married women still vote in my State. This sudden accusation that married women will not be able to figure out how to do voter ID and get an ID I find offensive as a dad of two very smart daughters and one brilliant wife.

The issue today is not all this. Obviously, we voted on that earlier today. The issue is about this particular bill. This particular bill has problems that are solvable if we will actually get to committee and be able to work through the process, but as it is currently written, there are problems in the bill.

So I object to the bill, and I hope that we can work this out in a nonpartisan way in the days ahead to be able to resolve it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to be able to slip in and do a quick history moment on the floor of the Senate. It is an interesting day, the 30th of September 2026.

Fifty years ago today, there was the passage of an appropriations bill that was just another appropriations bill, except this one was a little harder because it was actually a veto override.

Let me set the context for you. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on something called Roe v. Wade. For the previous 200 years as a country, every State made a decision about abortion. That was the way it worked. In 1973, the Supreme Court stepped in and said: Nope, every State has to allow abortion across their State, and changed what we had been as a nation for 200 years to a nation that required an abortion in every single State.

Well, that was in 1973. In 1976, Congress--both House and Senate--had a serious conversation about are we going to fund abortion with Federal dollars. At the time, just to give you some history context on this, Carl Albert was the Speaker of the House. A Democrat from Oklahoma was actually the Speaker of the House. The majority leader of the Senate was also a Democrat. This was a Democrat-led House and Senate.

They debated it, and out of the House came an amendment called the Hyde amendment. It was named after Henry Hyde, who worked across the aisle and said: We may disagree on this issue of abortion that just came from the Supreme Court 3 years ago, but we should agree that we shouldn't allow Federal funding for abortion.

So a Democrat-led House of Representatives passed an amendment in the appropriations bill in 1976 which we still call the Hyde amendment today. It is interesting to be able to think about, at that time, in Congress, of the 535 Members of Congress, there were 100 pro-life Democrat Members of Congress. Now, 50 years later, there is one pro- life Democrat Member of Congress. A lot has changed in that time period.

But this simple agreement that we should not use Federal dollars to pay for elective abortions; that when I pay my taxes on April 15, it shouldn't be to pay for someone's abortion down the street--that was the agreement that was set in 1976.

Now, interestingly enough, it passed in that appropriations bill in the House. It was sent over to the Senate and passed in the Senate. It went to the President of the United States. It was a Republican President--Gerald Ford--at the time. He vetoed it, and it came back to Congress. And with 313 votes in the House of Representatives, they overrode President Ford's veto to pass that appropriations bill, including the Hyde amendment, on September 30, 1976, 50 years ago today.

I just thought, for just a moment, in all the chaos and of all the stuff and lots of important things that we are trying to be able to resolve today, for just a moment, we should just pause and remember the 50 years that we have had this simple agreement. Every single year since then, we have had this simple agreement: We will not use Federal dollars that come from taxpayers to pay for elective abortions across the country.

Some of us are still crazy enough to believe every child is valuable. We don't believe and I don't believe that some children are disposable and some children are valuable. I think they are all valuable. And I think there is some great value in telling the American taxpayers: You don't pay for the taking of human life; you pay for research from NIH and other things to be able to protect human life. That seems to be a better value.

Interestingly enough, studies have been done showing that 2.5 million children are alive today because of the Hyde amendment that passed 50 years ago. Those are folks teaching in schools; those are police officers; those are folks working in manufacturing; those are small business owners all across our country--2.5 million of them--that are alive today, just living life, doing their stuff, because the Hyde amendment passed 50 years ago. And it still gets passed every year.

I just thought for just a moment, in the Senate, we should pause and remember that day.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career of a good friend, retiring Tulsa Police Chief Dennis Larsen.

A native of Tulsa, OK, Dennis graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in political science while also serving our Nation in the U.S. Air Force. Dennis joined the Tulsa Police Department in 1979 and spent the better part of the next five decades in public service. During his stellar career, he patrolled the streets of Tulsa, arrested drug dealers while working undercover, and served as a bomb technician.

Dennis earned the rank of deputy chief in 2007. As deputy chief over operations, he was responsible for over 500 officers in all four uniform divisions, as well as budgeting and the personnel and payroll offices. He then became deputy chief over investigations, where he had command over the investigations bureau, which consists of the detective and special investigations divisions, the forensic laboratory, and fleet management.

Chief Larsen's distinguished career is highlighted by multiple certifications and advanced training. He is a graduate of the FBI's 185th National Academy and the 42nd FBI National Executive Institute. In addition, he holds certifications in FBI Hazardous Devices, FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction, Domestic Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security Infrastructure Protection, and U.S. Secret Service Dignitary Protection. During his years serving Tulsa, he earned three Chief Awards, four Departmental Commendations, and the Life Saving Award.

Dennis was also recognized by the Department of Justice as the third- longest serving bomb technician in the United States. Notably, he coordinated the Tulsa Police Bomb Squad's immediate response to the tragic Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and personally spent more than 100 days on site at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, where he assisted the investigation into the worst act of domestic terrorism in our Nation's history. The Federal Government later called on him to serve with a hand-picked group of hazardous devices technicians who developed an anti-terrorism strategy that has since protected millions of Americans across the country. As chief, he represented Tulsa in a variety of key law enforcement issues on a national level through the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

With this immensely successful career, it would have been easy for Dennis to retire early or exit public service. But his loyalty to the Tulsa Police Department and the city of Tulsa caused Dennis to answer the call to serve as Tulsa's 41st chief of police in 2024. Dennis always maintained that the safety of his officers was paramount, and he proved this by ensuring they had extensive training and the equipment they needed to protect citizens and themselves. As a leader, Dennis was known both for the care he showed his officers and the professionalism, fairness, transparency, team building, and strategic planning he exhibited at every level to ensure Tulsa continued its tradition of policing excellence.

Under Chief Larsen's watch, the city of Tulsa saw a notable, double- digit drop in crime. Tulsa is a better, safer community because of Dennis's courage, leadership, and service. Standing beside Dennis throughout his career has been another remarkable Oklahoman, Karen Larsen. Married for 37 years, Dennis and Karen share a deep love and faith and are the proud parents of three. In her own right, Karen is a legend in northeast Oklahoma, where she spent 30 years serving the community as an evening news anchor and reporter. A six-time Emmy award winner, Karen's sharp journalism and compassionate reporting won her the respect and appreciation of countless Oklahomans. Dennis and Karen share a true and admirable partnership.

Though he has earned the title of chief, I am extraordinarily grateful that during my time in office I have simply been able to call Dennis ``my friend.'' To me and to my staff, Dennis has always been there when we needed him. Night or day, when a problem arose, Dennis was only a phone call away, and I was always able to rely upon his word when he said something would be done. He is a man of uncompromising integrity and character. It has been my honor to work alongside him all these years. While I will miss calling my friend to ask about law enforcement issues, I look forward to calling him to ask about the trips and adventures he and Karen will take together. They have more than earned a long, peaceful, and blessed retirement with plenty of time spent with the kids and grandkids. Hopefully, for Karen's sake, there are quite a few destination vacations already planned.

Dennis and Karen, thank you my friends for all that you have given to the people of Oklahoma. We are all grateful, we wish you the very best, and we know that our State is better today because of all you have done for us. May God continue to bless you both in your many days ahead.