Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the retirement announcement of Rich Brierre as the executive director of the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG) in Tulsa, OK. Under his leadership, the Tulsa region has experienced significant change and growth that will benefit generations to come. The transportation, housing, and economic development projects that have come to fruition over the past two decades can often be directly or indirectly attributed to Rich.

Originally from St. Louis, MO, Rich attended college at the University of Tulsa, graduating in 1973. Upon graduation, Rich started as a housing planner at INCOG, and what began as an entry-level planning position evolved into a remarkable career spanning housing, community development, transportation, environmental planning, and regional governance. Rich has worked at INCOG his entire professional career and has shared his passion for transportation, housing, and community development across Green Country.

In his more than 50 years working at INCOG, Rich has worked on countless projects that have improved communities and quality of life for all those living in the Tulsa region. Whether it was Vision 2025, construction of the Gilcrease Expressway, initiating the Tulsa/West Tulsa Levee project, establishing a new interstate, or creating a new county bridge program, Rich was there in the background ensuring that these major initiatives were pushed forward and completed.

Rich was appointed Executive Director of INCOG in January 2008, replacing long-time director Jerry Lasker. Rich assumed leadership of the region's principal planning organization, serving approximately 50 local governments across the five-county Tulsa metropolitan area. Under his leadership, INCOG continued to expand its role as a regional convener, providing expertise in transportation planning, environmental programs, community development, aging services, land-use coordination, economic development, and public infrastructure planning.

Rich's leadership was anchored in the unwavering belief that the best way forward was always when communities work together across jurisdictional boundaries. This belief was perfectly captured through his contributions in the planning and coordination of Vision 2025, an $885 million public investment initiative that the voters of Tulsa County approved in 2003. The initiative involved substantial coordination among local governments, businesses, and citizens that ultimately brought investments in economic development, education, recreation, and transportation.

One cannot recognize Rich without highlighting his passion for transportation projects and initiatives. Throughout his tenure, he has championed projects designed to enhance mobility, support economic growth, and improve connectivity in northeastern Oklahoma. Among the major infrastructure initiatives associated with his leadership are planning and development efforts related to the Gilcrease Expressway, Creek Turnpike, and the region's expanding trail network. He was able to utilize innovative financing programs to help fund the construction of the Gilcrease Expressway with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and Oklahoma Department of Transportation. His work helped advance the concept that transportation infrastructure should not only move people efficiently but also improve quality of life, create economic opportunities, and strengthen community connections.

During his tenure as Executive Director, Rich became a skilled advocate for securing Federal and State funding for regional initiatives. Over the past two decades, INCOG has successfully secured more than $80 million in competitive Federal grant funding. Rich was also able to successfully advocate and secure State funding for projects such as the Tulsa/West Tulsa Levee project, the Rural Economic Action Plan (REAP) program, and a new program dedicated towards structurally deficient bridges. Beyond large infrastructure projects, Rich has also consistently emphasized housing, community development, and neighborhood revitalization.

Rich was never the loudest person in the room, and in fact, he usually was the quietest. However, over the decades, he became a trusted adviser to local elected officials, civic organizations, State agencies, and Federal partners, helping communities navigate growth, infrastructure investments, and long-range planning challenges. When Rich spoke, people would listen because they knew he was a man of integrity and that his ideas and knowledge of the issues would be respected. He became a subject matter expert on transportation, economic development, planning, and State and Federal programs.

As Rich retires, he leaves behind a legacy that will have a lasting impact across northeast Oklahoma. His expertise and institutional knowledge acquired from his 53-year career will be sorely missed. If you ask him, he has plenty of stories he can share about his former neighbor and Senator Jim Inhofe and numerous other Federal, State, and local officials that he has had the chance to interact with over his career.

Rich currently resides in Tulsa with his wife Claudia, a fellow lifelong INCOG staff member. His daughter Catharine lives and works in Tulsa, OK, and his son Will and family live in Fort Collins, CO. He is an avid cyclist, a member of First Presbyterian Church, and a lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan. I know that he will enjoy spending even more time with his children and family in the years ahead. Rich, thank you for your leadership.

Mr. President, a lot of words have been said today about our colleague Lindsey Graham and his passing. As the Presiding Officer knows well, where my desk sits, I literally sit and stand directly behind Lindsey's chair--where right now there is a black drape and white roses--where he should be today, but he is not.

We miss our colleague. We miss his humor. We miss his ideas. We miss his insight on a lot of things, his passion for Israel, his passion for national defense, his passion for the life of the unborn, his passion for this body, for our Nation, and for South Carolina.

As much as we miss him here, we also understand full well there is a lot of grieving in South Carolina and especially with his family and with Darline, who will be here tomorrow, being sworn in to this body as she takes her seat, literally sitting in the same chair he was sitting in 2 weeks ago.

So I thought it would be appropriate that we do more than just talk about him. Many of us have actually shared. We are praying for his family, we are praying for his staff, and we are praying for the folks around him. So I thought it would be appropriate here in this body that we don't just talk about him but that we actually fulfill the words that are on the wall in our building where it says ``In God We Trust'' and just to take a moment to just express that.

I am going to take just a moment to be able to pray for Lindsey's family:

Father, I do ask that You would help Darline and help the whole family right now as they grieve and struggle through this: the 10 million emotions that she has to feel right now with the

loss of her brother and with the responsibility of coming to this body to hold this spot for months.

I pray that You give her the strength that she needs, the insight that she will need in the days ahead, and that You would comfort her as she grieves.

For all of Lindsey's family and so many friends, for his staff, God, we ask that You would fulfill what Your word says in Psalm 34:18, where it says that You are ``[near] to the brokenhearted,'' and You ``[save] those who are crushed in spirit.''

We count on that today, Father, because this body will need Your help. Lindsey's family needs Your nearness. The people of South Carolina and so many friends will need that. So, Father, help us as we grieve and help us to be able to honor You in the days ahead. God, I am grateful that You are the One who cares for each of us and that You can be trusted every day. So we are grateful for that. So help us, guide us in the days ahead to do things well and to be able to honor You in our work. That is what we ask in the Name of Jesus. Amen.

I remember the first week that I came into this body. Lindsey caught me just in a random conversation, and he said: You and I are the only Southern Baptists that are in the Senate now. Then he smiled at me and said: You should probably talk about that more than I do.

And I have never forgotten that whole conversation. That was just classic Lindsey. He is a person that loved this body. He loved the country. He loved the people of South Carolina, and it showed. And as we grieve, I pray that we grieve together and that we go again and again and again to the source that hears our grieving and that meets us in our pain.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is toward the end of June, and 250 years ago today Thomas Jefferson was in the third floor of a rented space in Philadelphia, literally by himself, working at a desk that he had built himself writing a declaration--250 years ago literally today he was by himself writing away on that.

Within about 4 days from now 250 years ago, the Committee of Five-- the four others that worked with him--all determined: No, this is the document that we are going to present to the Continental Congress. It is kind of remarkable to be able to think about that kind of history.

They determined that they were going to end that simple statement at the introduction to say:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, [that] they are endowed, by their Creator,

with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It was a much-debated statement, and they made several different changes to it, but that same statement 250 years later still rings true as a core value of who we are as Americans.

Today I rise to be able to mark the fourth anniversary, though, of the Dobbs decision--a decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion and when life begins and who we are going to be as a people on this issue of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness back to the elected representatives from the States and to the people.

Today we are remembering 60 million children who died under the 49- year time period under Roe v. Wade and the conversation that is still happening all over the country. We the people are still having a dialog about the value of every human person and whether life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness still applies to everyone. Does it apply to only people that are a certain height, a certain weight, a certain age? Or does it apply to every single person?

I am one of those crazy people that actually believe that children are valuable--all of them. And I know it is much maligned in our culture currently, and it is very vogue to be able to say some children are valuable and some children are disposable and those children that are disposable, we shouldn't even discuss. But, honestly, I think we should continue the conversation, the dialogue that has been going on for 250 years, to determine: Does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply to all of us? Are all people created equal, or are some people more equal than others?

Just because a child cannot defend themselves, just because a child doesn't weigh very much yet doesn't mean it is not a child.

Science would say that life begins at conception when the cell division happens. Every single cell in the woman's body has the exact same DNA except when she is pregnant--then there are certain cells in the womb that have different DNA. Do you know why? Because it is a different person.

And there is cell division happening in the woman's body because she is alive, and there is cell division happening in that child's body because so are they, and they are a uniquely different God-created person. They are not inconvenient. They are a child. And we are still having this conversation as a country to try to determine what are we going to do about that.

So me and my colleagues have come to the floor today on the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision and said: Let's keep the dialogue going. Let's keep talking about this issue of when a child is a child. Do they have to be a certain weight? Do they have to be a certain age? Do they have to be a certain height? Or is it when basic science would say that child is a child?

What is interesting about this is I am not even bringing a bill tonight to be able to deal with the issue of abortion of a child. I am actually bringing a bill tonight to be able to talk about conscience of individual healthcare providers.

You see, most doctors and healthcare professionals share a common science-based belief that a child in the womb is just like the children they care for outside the womb. The only difference is time.

A child at conception and a child outside the womb are no different. It is just 40 weeks older. That is it. I am 40 weeks older than I was 40 weeks ago. That child is 40 weeks older from conception to birth, but it is still the same child.

The millions of Americans who believe this same truth, we have conscience protection laws on the books, and we have had them on the books for a long time. In fact, there are 25 Federal conscience protection laws right now that are already the law of the United States. Many of these have just flatout not been controversial. Let me give you a couple of them.

The Church amendments. These laws protect the conscience rights of individuals and entities that object to performing or assisting in the performance of an abortion or a sterilization against their religious or moral convictions. When that passed Congress--right after Roe v. Wade--when that passed Congress, it passed 92 to 1. It was not controversial.

In 2004, when Congress created the Weldon amendment--which is in all of our annual appropriations bills still. The Weldon amendment bars the Federal Government and State and local government recipients of Federal funds from discriminating against healthcare entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage, or refer for abortions. It wasn't controversial. It passed overwhelmingly. It still continues.

The conscience protection bill that I bring tonight is also very straightforward. It is already in Federal law that individuals have the right of conscience. The challenge is, those individuals only are protected in the right of conscience if the Federal Government actually goes and prosecutes individuals that violate their conscience. So if the executive branch chooses not to enforce the law--they just ignore it, though it is federally against the law but no one prosecutes--then nothing happens and that individual has rights that are actually not protected by their own government.

This conscience protection bill is very simple. It says if their rights of conscience have been violated, according to Federal law, that individual has a private right of action to bring their own suit. If the Federal Government won't defend their rights under Federal law, they have the ability to be able to bring it on their own.

This is a very simple, straightforward bill. It doesn't change anything about abortions. We will have the exact same number of abortions the next day after this passes that we did

today--exactly the same. But what it does is it says to a person that literally it violates their own conscience to be mandated to perform an abortion but yet their company that they work for is forcing them to be able to carry this out against their own conscience--this allows them to be able to object and to be able to say: Someone else here needs to perform this; I should not be required, for the fear of my own employment, to be able to take care of living, healthy people or hurting people that I am also being required to take the life of a child at the same time when that violates my conscience.

So this is a straightforward bill that, again, won't limit abortion at all but will protect the rights of individuals to have their own rights of conscience.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, notwithstanding rule XXII, tonight I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1756; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I actually brought a bill tonight to be able to protect the conscience rights of individual healthcare workers. It doesn't change the number of abortions in America. It doesn't raise insurance costs. It doesn't do anything else.

It just says to a nurse that doesn't want to perform abortions that her hospital can't compel her to be able to perform abortions. That seems like a pretty reasonable bill. Obviously, my colleague disagrees on that. But he wants to instead bring a bill that dramatically could increase the number of abortions in America.

There used to be a time where we used to talk about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. That doesn't even seem to be in the conversation anymore, and it is just how do we get more.

Planned Parenthood did almost half a million abortions alone. And I know there is a lot of conversation saying they do health screenings and such. They are most known for doing abortions--about a half a million of them. Planned Parenthood does two abortions a minute across the United States--a minute.

The problem is, this Planned Parenthood entity that has $2 billion in income and nearly $2.5 billion in assets is also one that has faced very serious allegations. One of the most recent serious allegations came from the ``far-right'' newspaper the New York Times.

The New York Times, which is not exactly known for being a right- leaning periodical, did an extensive article outlining the problems with Planned Parenthood all across the country. Let me just read to this body part of what the New York Times printed about Planned Parenthood.

They talked about the botched abortions that they have done in New York and the scores of allegations that the New York Times reviewed and the times that they said that Planned Parenthood gave ``poor care.''

Here is another quote from them:

In a case settled in California last year, a woman accused

the organization of improperly implanting a birth control

device in her arm and causing nerve damage.

A Nebraska clinician in 2022 did not realize that a woman

was four months pregnant when she inserted an IUD. Several

hours later, the patient was rushed to an emergency room and

gave birth to a stillborn fetus.

For months last year at the North Central States affiliate,

which oversees the Nebraska clinic, an understaffed nursing

department did not upload sexually transmitted infection test

results into charts, and patients wrongly believed that their

results were negative when they did not hear back.

Not only is Planned Parenthood doing a half a million abortions, but even according to the New York Times, the testing that they are doing and the other work that they are doing, they are botching.

This is how they listed the Omaha Planned Parenthood clinic:

[S]ewage from a backed-up toilet seeped into the abortion

recovery room for two days, according to interviews with

staff members and photographs and text messages shared with

The Times. Employees shoved exam table pads under the

bathroom door to block the leak. Patients vomited from the

stench.

Sewage seeped under the door at a Planned Parenthood

facility in Omaha last year.

[C]linic workers complained that they were learning from

inexperienced peers. More than a dozen said they did not

receive adequate training for patient intake, blood draws and

other tasks.

They go on and on and on. It is a very long article that the New York Times laid in there and talked about how that wealthy donors have stepped in to be able to help fill the gaps but that Planned Parenthood is not using that actually for healthcare; Planned Parenthood is using the money donated to them for their political operation--not patient care.

So when my colleague says that Republicans don't want to provide funding to Planned Parenthood, it is true because of not only their medical records and for what is happening all around the country in these locations, but this has become a political operation more than a healthcare operation.

We have a lot of great--I mean great--federally qualified health centers all around the country that are doing a terrific job taking care of families and women in many places, but they are not specializing in abortion. Planned Parenthood is focused on abortion. And even according to the New York Times, they are not even doing a good job at that.

So, yes, I do oppose this, and I do object to providing more money for an entity that is not taking care of even what it is already doing and is focused on taking the life of children, not protecting the lives of families.

I object.

Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times to be able to talk about a lot of serious policy issues, to be able to walk through all different kinds of tax policy, energy policy, immigration policy. We have worked through a lot of different issues on this floor, and I have had the opportunity to be able to speak on a lot of issues.

I don't often take time just to be able to pause and talk about a cultural issue. I want to do that today.

This weekend, the Nation will pause and celebrate Father's Day. Now, this will be the 116th year of celebrating Father's Day in America; the 54th year since it was officially recognized as an official Federal holiday.

It is kind of a big deal. Every human being on Earth has a mom and a dad. You may or may not know them, but it does take two to tango, they say, and every single person does have a mom and a dad.

There are a lot of dads that are separated, and there is a lot of disjointedness. What we are watching in culture is culture pushing back on men, to challenge men to be better dads. I applaud a good thing that is happening in culture with that.

We are literally seeing the statistics on this. The numbers on it bear out. Literally in this generation of dads right now, they are three times more likely to spend more time with their kids than the dads during the 1960s.

It is an interesting shift that is happening. We have fewer dads out there, but the dads that are there in America are looking at their kids and saying: I want to spend more time with them.

Good. We need more engaged dads. Quite frankly, being a dad is a courageous job and a challenging job but exceptionally important. And it is not just being a breadwinner, it is not just being a disciplinarian, it is just being there for their child.

I first want to say happy Father's Day to my own dad, but I also want to be able to challenge all dads that are out there to turn to your kids and to rededicate again, not just this weekend, but to rededicate again to actually spending more time with your kids because healthy families are the most basic building block of culture.

I have said it to people over and over again: Healthy families make healthy communities, make a healthy nation.

And when I hear people complain about the status of where we are as a nation, I have to tell you, the first place that I look are dads and to say how are dads doing because dads will define a tremendous amount of the strength of our Nation and the strength of our culture.

If dads back away from their families, families get weaker, communities get weaker, the Nation gets weaker.

If dads are engaged with their kids and with their families, the Nation gets stronger, communities get stronger.

Now, it is not just me speaking on this; I mean, you can go to any statistic that you want to be able to go to. The research out there for youth and adult offenders, between--depending on a State and a place-- between 70 percent and 85 percent of incarcerated individuals do not have a dad in their life. They came from fatherless homes.

Around 85 percent of the abortions that happen in our country, year to year, happen with a single mom when no dad is around and no man is around--85 percent. That is a woman who is making an incredibly difficult decision to take the life of the child, often because she is afraid she will not have the resources or the support to be able to support this child, and so she makes this decision to take the life of a child instead.

I have a friend of mine that often says behind every abortion is an irresponsible man. Dads, dads are important.

Now, it is not something we can legislate, though I would tell you there are initiatives that are out there. Right now there is fatherhood.gov if people want to go to that site that encourages ideas for dads. It is not just up for Father's Day, it is up all the time. And people can go to fatherhood.org. Right now, the Ad Council is running an ad campaign across the entire country that just is called ``Be a Good Dad Today.''

That is cultural encouragement on these things. But there are also things that we are working on as well: marriage penalty, for instance, in our tax law. If there are areas of our tax law that actually give you greater benefit not being married than married, those things need to be fixed. And there are several of those.

The Brookings Institute for years has asked the most basic question: How does someone rise out of poverty? If someone is born in poverty, how do they rise out of poverty? For years, they have done this study, and the same three things rise up over and over again every time they do this study: if you graduate high school, if you have a job of any type, and if you wait until after marriage to have children. If those three things are true, 97 percent chance you rise out of poverty.

That is someone making good decisions, and it allows the next generation to also be successful as well. That is just good tax policy to be able to incentivize ways that we can keep families together and to encourage families in that way.

The Trump administration has also made some changes to be able to encourage more dads to make alimony payments; if there is a divorce that happens and a child is there, for the dad to make sure he is providing alimony.

It is incredibly important to that woman, that mom, that is raising those kids to still have the financial support and for that dad to still show his financial support, I hope, as well as his love and encouragement to those kids. The Trump administration is now saying if a dad is not paying child support, they can't get a passport, and if a dad is not paying child support, they can have their tax refund, if they are getting that, withheld. Good for them to be able to encourage that man to be able to be responsible as well.

But, ultimately, you can't legislate being a good dad. That is a decision that a man makes. Now, I would tell you, I have talked to men, and they have said: Hey, I didn't have a man in my life and so it is tough to be able to learn how to do that.

I have talked to plenty of folks in churches and in communities and friends and neighbors that are just encouraging other dads to be able to be a better dad. It is a good gift to the next generation to be able to do that.

I will tell you this, pure and simple: Every child needs a mom. Every child needs a dad. There is no substitute. Many people in this body know I am a former youth pastor, and I would have parents that came up to me all the time and say: You are such an influence on my child for teaching and role modeling. And I would say that is very kind, but there is no influence that is a bigger influence on a child than their mom and dad. The path of their life will be set by their mom or dad.

So dads should not think it is somebody else's responsibility; it is theirs. If the next generation is going to be patriotic, if the next generation is going to love God, if the next generation is going to make good decisions, if the next generation is going to have a hard work ethic, if the next generation is going to learn to be kind, if the next generation is going to stand up for what is right, it is going to be because a dad invested that into that child's life.

So if you want to see the Nation stronger, dads engage. That is what is going to make the Nation stronger. Every child needs a guide, a role model. They need to see the courage and kindness and strength of a dad.

They need more than just dad jokes. They need a dad present. That is what makes the biggest difference.

Could I just say from my own context, the Scripture is full of conversations challenging dads to love their children, and, quite frankly, children to honor their parents. Let me just give you a couple of them.

In Malachi 4:6.

It says: The role of the Prophet Elijah was to turn the heart of the fathers back to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers lest there be a curse on the land.

What a clear statement: to turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children and the children to their father; if not, there is a curse on the land.

And how about this one? Just a simple challenge from Paul, who, interestingly enough, was not a dad but was somebody that understood the importance there. Paul in Ephesians 6:4. It says: Fathers don't exasperate your children. Don't just push them, push them, push them.

But instead he said: Bring them up in the training and the admonition of the Lord.

It is a very clear statement to dads to say don't just yell at your kids; train them on how to be able to love God and love people, train them up in the right way because if you want a church and community and a family to be better, dads need to be engaged with their kids.

So happy Father's Day to my dad, happy Father's Day to all the dads that are out there. And if I can make just the most simple cultural challenge, if we really want a stronger nation, there is no vote that we will take in this body today that will make the Nation stronger than just dads loving their kids and spending time with them and helping them know how to be able to walk with God and live a patriotic life and serve their family and community. There is no vote we will take that will help our Nation more than that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment actually just cuts off funding to ICE and CBP. It all sounds good to say, ``We are going to reduce the deficit,'' but here is how they are reducing the deficit: opening the border, not funding ICE, not funding CBP.

The funding that we are actually trying to get today is the funding just for ICE and CBP for the next 3 years, because we have been in debate for months about just trying to fund Federal law enforcement to be able to fund the border security that we have got or security at our ports of entry.

My colleague knows very well the importance of the Detroit port of entry. That is one of the areas that would be defunded in this. It is CBP at the ports of entry.

We need to have our Customs inspections. We need to have Border Patrol. We need to have ICE actually doing their job.

So I would encourage my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 5763

Mr. President, there are many days that I come to this floor to talk about a lot of different policy issues and things we need to get done--and there are a lot of things needing to get done. Our list is long here in the Senate.

I did just want to take a moment of personal privilege to not talk about policy for just a moment but to talk about some people.

I have got two staff members that are leaving my team that my State and the Nation may or may not know their name, but they have been exceptionally impactful in what they have done.

Jesse Mahan has been on my team, as he reminds me, so long that when he first came on the team, he was issued a BlackBerry when he first came on the team.

He came on writing letters and doing background work. He led Indian Affairs. He is a Tribal member. He was a terrific hand in a lot of different areas, and he ended up leading a lot of my budget work and then eventually tax work.

He has led through a lot of really complicated issues over the years, and every single time--whether it is Tribal law or whether it is tax law, which both of them are very complicated--he thrived. He did his homework, and he helped this Nation.

There were significant areas of the Working Families Tax Cut last year that we got over the finish line because of his work with some of the staff behind the scenes to be able to explain some of the complexity and to be able to convince some people this is actually good for the economy. He did a terrific job through that process.

Unfortunately, we are losing him in the next week, and he will be dearly missed on our team.

Mr. President, I don't know if you remember 1977. But since 1977, this body has passed the 12 appropriation bills on time 4 times since 1977. By the way, this year is not one of them. Since 1977, four times the budget process has worked correctly.

We have had multiple different government shutdowns during that time period, but they are getting worse--not better, as this Congress continues to be able to find cliffs to be able to stand next to and figure out how long we can put our toes over the edge.

The latest one ended today. It was 76 days long, and it shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Now, I remind everyone in this body, the first priority of the U.S. Government is defense and security--the first priority.

This body decided not to fund Homeland Security for 76 days. This is an issue we have got to face.

In 2019, my friend Maggie Hassan the Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, she and I sat down and said: We have got to figure out how to get out of this. This is a cycle that is continuing.

And since 2019, she and I have worked across the aisle to convince our colleagues there is a way to prevent future government shutdowns that would hold Congress accountable but the American people and Federal workers would not feel the effect of it. And it is a very simple straightforward idea that we have worked on now since 2019. It is when this body has not finished their work on time, we stay until the work is finished.

But Federal workers and their families and the programs that are all connected to those Federal dollars, they continue. They are held harmless, while we have to stay until it is done.

Now, that may seem simple, but around this place, that is a radical idea, apparently. We have worked for years to be able to get to the point that we can pass it.

Last session, we brought it to this body and had 57 votes; we need 60, as this body knows full well. We had 57 supporters last time we brought it to this body.

Now, there has been an election since then. We have also had two very long shutdowns since then, and my understanding is there are even more of my colleagues that are stepping forward and saying it is time that we end the shutdown dramas and actually get things resolved.

We don't bring a political solution; we don't bring a messaging solution; we just bring a solution. This solution had been evaluated in previous Presidential time by President Biden's team

in his Office of Management and Budget. It has been reviewed by now President Trump's team, his Office of Management and Budget. Everyone has looked at it and said: Yep, that works.

We have gone through all the technical assistance on it, and now it is time to vote to be able to figure out if once and for all we can end government shutdowns.

Now, the idea, as I mentioned, is simple: We stay here until the work is done. But let me give you an example of what that would look like just in this shutdown. This particular shutdown with Homeland Security, we were shut down for 76 days because my Democratic colleagues did not want to fund ICE or Border Protection, so we had a 76-day shutdown.

During that 76-day time period, the Senate was in session 35 of those days--less than half. For 76 days, the Department of Homeland Security was nonoperable, unfunded. We were here 35 of those days. If you think that is bad, let's talk about the House of Representatives. They were in session 29 of those 76 days. In other words, the problem was all over the country, and Congress was AWOL.

We have to determine if we are going to stay and fix the problem, or if weekend plans or time away from here is more important than Homeland Security of all things. We should have never left.

When we ran out of funding, we should have remained until we solved the problem, but everybody left. Let's fix that. Let's make the most simple commitment that we can possibly make to the American people, and that is, if we get to a moment like this again--and we will--we will not leave until the work is done.

Federal workers will not have to worry about not being paid. Contractors will not have to worry about not being paid. Programs will be able to continue to operate. We are the ones that will actually have to stay after class. They won't feel it there. That seems to be a much better option than mass chaos across the country while we suffer no consequences for it.

Now, there has been a lot of conversation in this body, which has been good, to be able to talk about how do we actually not have this happen again. Part of the conversation has been: Let's just pay the employees and not pay the programming but we can still continue to be able to leave and come and go like normal but at least people will be paid.

Interestingly enough, we have had an experiment with that, that exact principle for the last month. For the last month, President Trump has taken some of the emergency funding set aside in the bill we passed last year in reconciliation, has used that to be able to pay employees. So employees of Homeland Security have been paid, but the programming hasn't been done. So literally we have had a test run on that idea. What if we just paid the employees but didn't pay the programming, wouldn't that solve the problem? What has now been discovered is: Oh, no, that definitely doesn't solve the problem.

CBS News has reported in the last 24 hours that we now have up to 6,000 different residences for just the Coast Guard that their power is being shut off because the bills haven't been paid for the last 2 months. And, amazingly enough, utility folks like to be paid-- remarkable.

We have got the Commandant of the Coast Guard who came out and made a statement that was pretty bold for the Commandant to be able to make, but he is dead-on correct. The Commandant of the Coast Guard made this statement about the ongoing shutdown right now of Homeland Security including the U.S. Coast Guard. He said:

It's more than a breach of trust . . . Our Coast Guard men

and women, whether they're active duty or reserve military

civilians, they've stepped forward and taken an oath to

support and defend the Constitution. What they expect in

return is just to be paid and [to] provide services.

They don't expect ``to have to worry about whether their families are going to be taken care of.''

By the way, this is the same commandant at his residence as Commandant of the Coast Guard the power was shut off because the bills hadn't been paid. If you want to go to the Coast Guard station in Hawaii, they were literally working at the station by flashlight.

Now, everybody was being paid, but contracts weren't being paid, contractors were not being paid, and program dollars were not done.

What does that mean? Simple things, like in FEMA, all the fire training centers, all the domestic preparedness conferences, all the things that we do to be able to prepare for a hurricane coming up this fall, those things couldn't happen. All the work to be able to prepare for wildfires, none of that could actually happen. For our Cybersecurity professionals, while we have an ongoing conflict with Iran, many were furloughed or couldn't do their work. While we were preparing for FIFA, for literally the whole world coming to the United States, we couldn't do preparation for security for them coming.

The United States Secret Service, who put their lives on the line to be able to protect the President, much of the executive branch and reporters this past weekend at the White House Correspondents' Dinner-- thank you for the work that you were doing--but they had no additional money to be able to plan and operate because this body chose to go home rather than fund them.

Listen, there is a simple way to be able to resolve this for all of us: We stay until the work gets done. And simply saying: We will pay people but then walk away doesn't solve the problem because contractors don't get paid, utility bills don't get paid, all the grants don't get done, the other tasks are still not there. So just paying the employees but they can't do anything doesn't solve the problem. It just pays people that are sitting at a desk, wishing they could do their job, but they have no money to do it, or in this case, for the Coast Guard, they are working at their station by flashlight.

That should not be so in the United States of America. This is not a partisan bill. It is not even a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike have put a stake in the ground and said: We are going to shut the government down because we are mad. We have both done it on both sides. Let's just say we are done with it.

What I would like to happen in the days ahead, years from now, to have my grandchildren crawl up in my lap and say: Tell me a story about the time when the government used to shut down--because it never happens in their generation. Let's find a way to be able to actually resolve this like grownups, work out our differences, and not have government shutdowns.

I want to thank my colleague Maggie Hassan and her work for this and what she has done to be able to get the text right and to be able to get this resolved.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House that had the exact same text: Jodey Arrington, Jimmy Panetta.

In a bipartisan basis and bicameral basis, we are dedicated to saying government shutdowns need to end. So I am looking forward to us getting this finally, finally resolved.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my colleagues that are here, we voted as a body to be able to get those funds to California. We agree this is an issue that needs to be funded, that needs to be taken care of--whether it is North Carolina or whether it is California or whether it is flooding or tornadoes that have happened across the Midwest. We completely agree.

Our challenge has been that we have been in a government shutdown in DHS, now for 2 months--2 months. We have got to be able to get those funds released. That means we have got to get DHS funding completely done for all of DHS.

We have FEMA employees that are being paid, but they don't have program dollars that they can actually release. So we need the full funding to actually be complete on this.

This particular bill, what we are debating tonight, is just ICE and CBP. It is just that narrow area. This body has already passed the rest of DHS funding. We have got to be able to finish the ICE and CBP portion.

So I would encourage my colleagues to be able to vote no because this bill is not about FEMA, though we, as a body, have already voted to say, ``Yes, this needs to be funded,'' and have already agreed with that.

So let's keep it narrow to ICE and CBP. So I would vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 5333

Mr. President, 2 hours ago, Markwayne Mullin was sworn in as the Secretary of Homeland Security. I am grateful that he is there and is taking on that role. We finished that vote last night, and at the end of that vote last night, he walked over to his desk, which is right over there, and signed paperwork to resign from the U.S. Senate.

This morning, the Governor of Oklahoma announced his selection for the interim Senator to be able to come in. It is solely the Governor's decision to be able to make this decision, and I think he has made a great decision on this.

The Governor signed paperwork this morning in Oklahoma and announced that he was appointing Alan Armstrong, who is the just-past president and CEO of the Williams Companies, a third-generation Oklahoman and Tulsan to be our next Senator for the State of Oklahoma.

He and his wife Shelly have been married for 40 years. They have four grown children. They have three grandchildren. He has just stepped down and retired from his position in leadership at Williams and was looking forward to spending a lot more time with grandchildren, and the Governor contacted him and said: Hey, would you, instead, consider giving the next 9 months to the United States of America and to the State of Oklahoma to be able to serve as the junior Senator for Oklahoma.

I am grateful that he said yes because I think he will do a terrific job in this role. He comes with a tremendous amount of business experience coming in, but people lose track of the fact that he was president and CEO of one of the largest natural gas and midstream companies in the country; in fact, one of the largest companies in the world to be able to handle the movement of clean, natural gas all over the country.

There are literally families all over America that are depending on the services that Williams provides for them every day. They may not know the name Williams, but the reason that their stove works, their heater works, or their hot water tank works is because Williams is actually providing the access to be able to get that energy to that spot at that moment.

He graduated from the University of Oklahoma years ago and graduated as a civil engineer who went to work for Williams almost four decades ago as just a civil engineer. He literally worked his way up the ranks, serving in multiple different roles in the Williams Companies until he finally attained president and CEO where he has led the company since 2011, just stepping away to, as I said, get more time with grandchildren until he got that call just about a week ago.

So I am grateful that he is coming. I am looking forward to my colleagues having the opportunity to be able to meet him and to be able to integrate him into this body of 100 Members.

He will join as rank No. 100 and will serve here through the rest of this year, but I am very grateful that he has chosen to set aside his private life to be able to step into a season of public service.

So I look forward to my colleagues, in just a few moments, getting a chance to be able to meet the newest Senator to join us, the soon-to-be Senator Alan Armstrong.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the McDonald nomination.

Mr. President, we are talking again about the SAVE Act.

This is a simple piece of legislation that focuses on two key ideas: that if you are an American citizen, which is required by law, you just show it. I call that the ``trust and verify'' portion of the bill.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act begins with the statement ``all citizens.'' It is already required under Federal law that you have to be a citizen of the United States to vote. We have all agreed on that. There is no one disputing that--Republican, Democrat, Independent. We all agree American citizens are the ones who should decide the future of America.

What we disagree on is, Should we check or should we just trust that it actually is true?

I have shared in this body before, that, in Oklahoma, we passed a statute, several years ago, saying: If you go to jury duty and you tell a judge, ``I am not eligible to be able to serve on a jury because I am not a citizen of the United States,'' in Oklahoma, we then check to see if you are registered to vote. We have found quite a few folks who have told a judge, ``I am not a citizen,'' but have told the election board, ``I want to vote anyway.'' Well, that is not legal.

In Oklahoma, we purge the voter rolls when that happens in order to make sure those individuals who have already given sworn testimony that they are not citizens are not also registered to vote. That is not true everywhere across the country. Lots of folks just say: We just trust, but we never verify. We actually don't clean up the voter rolls at all.

There are some States--and it is really fascinating to me--like Arizona--Arizona has a State law in place right now that says: Every person who registers to vote must also prove their citizenship.

This already exists right now.

New Hampshire has a law that says: Every person who registers to vote has to show they are a citizen.

This is not crazy policy. This is already happening in some of our States right now, that they have to be able to show they are a citizen.

In Arizona, though, it is a very interesting thing. In Arizona, you can register to vote for a State election or a county election, and you have got to be a citizen. But if you want to vote in a Federal election, you don't have to show that you are a citizen.

If you want to talk backward, this was a case that broke out there, in a court case for them, where they established: Oh, no, you have got to show

that you are an American citizen to vote for the Governor of Arizona, but you don't have to show that you are an American citizen to vote for the President of the United States.

If we can figure out how to do registration to be able to protect the rights of the individuals in Arizona to be able to vote for their Governor if they are an American citizen, surely, we can do this all over the country.

The SAVE America Act is simple. It just says: It is already the law that you have to be an American citizen to vote. Let's just verify.

The State of New Hampshire is not trying to limit the number of people voting. They are just following Federal law.

Then there is the second part, which is pretty simple: You have to show ID to vote.

There are 36 States that already have this requirement. Let me just run through what this means. There are already 36 States that say you have to show an ID. Now, some of them are very narrow. They say you have got to have a specific type of photo ID on that. That is Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin. They all have in their State laws that you have got to have a certain type of photo ID to actually qualify you to be able to show up and be able to vote.

Multiple other States have some other limitation where a photo ID is, maybe, preferred, but they can also bring other IDs. That is Arizona, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington State, West Virginia, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

This doesn't seem very controversial to me. If you are keeping count on fingers and toes, you ran out a while ago. There are 36 States that already have some kind of requirement for ID to be able to vote. This has got to be the most noncontroversial proposal sitting out there to say: How can we disagree when 36 States already do this?

But, for some reason, in this body, it is controversial for us as a nation to do what 36 States already do. So we bring this to the body, yet again, as we have now for days and days and days.

The American people are just not offended with pulling out an ID at an airport to be able to get on a plane. They are just not offended by showing an ID when they walk into a Federal building. They are just not offended by pulling out an ID in some places where they are going to write a check--for those who still know how to write a check in America. It is just not that offensive to have to pull out some sort of identification.

State after State after State has shown that this doesn't limit the number of people who can show up to vote. It just limits the amount of fraud that can happen in that State when people vote.

You just can't walk up to a polling place and say, ``My name is,'' and pick a name. You have got to show something with your name on it to vote. It is pretty straightforward, and 36 States already agree and have already put this into practice.

So all we are trying to say is, Can we continue this as Federal law? I think we can--and not just saying it is Federal law but actually verifying that it is actually applied. I am a big fan of the phrase ``trust and verify.'' That is all that this does.

I would hope, at some point, we would have a breakthrough here, but, in the meantime, I am going to continue coming back and saying: Why can't we all agree to what most Americans nod their heads and say, ``That is a pretty good idea,'' and just get it done?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.