Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent to pass Senator Coons' and my bipartisan legislation, the NO FAKES Act.

The NO FAKES Act provides landmark Federal protection for the voice and visual likeness of creators and all Americans. It would protect them from the proliferation of harmful, AI-generated deepfakes that are created without their consent. From artists and songwriters to students and everyday citizens, our Nation deserves meaningful protections against these harmful deepfakes. Our bill would establish clear guardrails that protect our creators in Tennessee and across the entire country.

In addition to establishing a Federal intellectual property right in every American's voice and visual likeness, we also provide for a clear notice-and-takedown framework, as well as safe harbor provisions for companies that comply. These provisions ensure that when a platform receives proper notice of a deepfake, that platform must promptly remove or disable access to the harmful content. If they promptly remove the content, they won't face liability under the bill.

Importantly, we have included explicit First Amendment protections in this bill. For example, we have excluded commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody content from being removed, as well as news and sports broadcast material.

This legislation would protect artists while safeguarding creative uses for AI, which is why it has received endorsements from a wide range of stakeholders, including record labels, streaming platforms, AI companies, musical artists, and organizations involved in protecting our children and protecting dignity.

At this point, I yield to my colleague for his comments.

I thank my colleague for his consistent work on this.

He is so right. This has been something that we have worked on for years, and it is the result of so much bipartisan work and negotiation in explicitly putting in protections for free speech.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII and as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 446, S. 4591. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, it has been disappointing that the Senator's staff chose not to accept the very language that he was wanting to see. We accepted that into the bill.

May I read to you:

[It]is . . . consistent with the public interest in bona

fide commentary (including political commentary).

So, if he thinks that he wants a candidate to be able to use certain images in political commentary in a nonharmful way, that is in there:

(. . . political commentary), criticism, scholarship, satire,

or parody; or . . . is used in a manner that is protected by

the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is language that is there.

So, if he is wanting to do that, that language has been offered. He can solve this right now by putting his John Henry right there on that language.

I would also remind my colleagues that there are laws against impersonation. If it is the physical world, you are not allowed to impersonate somebody to defraud them; with the intent to defraud or defame; with the intent to deceive people; with the intent to create a false identity. It is a felony. It is a felony. The problem is that it is not applied to the virtual space. There is a difference there. But you try to protect people in the virtual space and, all of a sudden, people want to say ``free speech.''

So I would ask my colleagues: Are you opposed to any of the State laws that make it a felony offense to impersonate a person? Go to the bank. Drain their account. Show up at a place of employment, impersonating them.

Try to grab their retirement account. Oh, there are laws for that. But, no, you can scam somebody all day long online and get by with it. You can actually show people, as my colleague from Delaware said, in different situations, doing different things, and they have no right-- no right--to protect their name, their image, their voice in the virtual space.

I will contend that I disagree with my colleague from Texas. We have tried to work with his staff. We have tried to work with him.

The NO FAKES Act does not chill First Amendment protected speech. We have worked with First Amendment legal experts in drafting the bill, and we are confident that it is First Amendment compliant. We have even doubled down on this language.

Now there are States, including Tennessee, that already provide statutory protection against the misappropriation of a person's name, voice, or likeness, and those statutes have been upheld.

In addition, the stated goal of our bill is for courts--the courts-- to make decisions regarding First Amendment jurisprudence, not platforms. The platforms, thus, are not the arbiters for making First Amendment decisions. This is really helpful in preventing censorship of conservative speech online.

This bill contains the necessary, broad exceptions for entire categories of speech--including news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries, biopics, commentary, including political commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody. This protects more than the First Amendment and much more than the only Supreme Court case on this subject, Zacchini v. Scripps.

If someone believes their content that was removed from this bill was protected speech, they can submit a counternotice triggering judicial review within 14 days if the victim wants the material to stay down; otherwise, the content can go right back up. This ensures that any protected speech that is removed based on a notice stays down for a very short time while preventing platforms from engaging in censorship.

As my colleague said, we have worked with groups for years to get this right. We have gotten it right. The protections that my colleague from Texas wanted to see included in the bill are there.

This is legislation that should pass and make its way to the President's desk to make certain that every American knows their name, their image, their likeness, their voice cannot be used in the virtual space for deception, for fraud, for personal harm.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1972, there were just 300,000 female athletes in high school and collegiate sports. Today, there are over 3 million young women who are competing in high school and collegiate sports. This is something that every American should celebrate, and it is all thanks to what has happened with the law we commonly call title IX.

By requiring equal resources for facilities, training, recruitment, and scholarships for female athletic programs, title IX opened opportunities for women that would have been impossible in the past.

Today, female athletes are competing at the highest level of professional sports. From the Olympics to the World Cup, they are inspiring millions of young girls to pick up sports that improve their health, boost their self-confidence, and teach them leadership skills to succeed on and off the field.

It goes without saying that this incredible development, over the last five decades, would have been impossible if men were allowed to compete in women's sports and steal opportunities from girls. This is just plain old common sense. But when it comes to protecting opportunity and fairness for young women in sports, we have seen a

serious lack of common sense from our friends on the other side of the aisle.

In Executive order after Executive order, the Biden administration pretended as if there are no biological differences between men and women. And they used the full weight of the Federal Government to force schools to allow biological males to play on female teams--endangering young girls and destroying fair play.

Parents were forced to look on as biological men took titles, medals, and trophies that belonged to their daughters. Many young women dedicated their entire lives to their sports, only to miss out on scholarships, career opportunities, and hard-earned records that they deserved.

The American people rejected this appalling agenda, and they returned President Donald Trump to the Oval Office with a mandate to restore common sense and protect our female athletes. And that is exactly what he has done.

On Inauguration Day, the President issued an Executive order that affirms the Federal Government's position that there are only two sexes: male and female. This ensures government policies are grounded in biological reality, not gender ideology.

A month later, I had the honor of joining President Trump in the Oval Office as he signed an Executive order that bans biological males from competing in women's sports.

As President Trump works to protect female athletes, it is imperative that we celebrate the accomplishments of the young women who practice, train, and compete every day to achieve excellence in athletics.

That is why I am calling for unanimous consent for my resolution to establish October 10--10th month, 10th day, or XX, which is like the female chromosome--as American Girls in Sports Day.

In addition to celebrating and honoring and cheering these female athletes, this resolution calls on sports governing bodies across the country to protect women and girls in sports. That is it--very simple.

It doesn't ask the Senate to create a sweeping new Federal program, and it doesn't ask that we amend any law. It simply asks the Senate to say that women's sports ought to be protected.

Yet every single time I have introduced this resolution since 2024, Democrats have come down to the floor, and they have objected.

We will see if they are going to do that again this year. If they object to celebrating our wonderful women, our girls, who are competing in sports, they are going to reveal that, once again, they have become the anti-woman party.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 934, submitted earlier today; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts really doesn't have to look very far to see how girls are being impacted by biological males that are playing in women's sports. Indeed, I have pulled some stats, and if you want to look at stolen gold medals, medals that have been taken from young girls and have gone to males, Massachusetts has had 70--70--70 girls--70 girls that were not able to receive the medal they actually

would have won if they were competing against girls. In Massachusetts this year, a transgender athlete competed in a girls 55-meter dash and took one of the eight spots in the final. A female athlete finished ninth and didn't advance.

So when my colleague tells us this is hypothetical, it is not. We have a list--a list--of what has happened in different States: Arizona, 101 medals; California, 803 medals. You have Ohio, 123 medals. You have Illinois, 120 medals. This is something that is happening out there; it is not hypothetical.

My resolution is very simple. The whole thing is 2\1/2\ pages top to bottom. And it shouldn't be surprising that my colleague is objecting to a simple resolution honoring girls and women in sports because, as he mentioned, he had introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights, which would call on the Federal Government to allow individuals to participate in sports on teams and in programs that best align with their gender identity. In other words, it would allow biological males on girls teams and in their private spaces, like school facilities, bathrooms--places that align with their gender identity.

This is a very simple resolution, very simple. It celebrates the impact that American women and girls have had on sports culture throughout our history. We have all cheered as we have watched women compete and succeed. This resolution celebrates that. It recognizes the importance of title IX, which seems to be controversial to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I yield the floor, and I submit for the Record the American Girls in Sports Day resolution.

Mr. President, each year, Americans lose roughly $1.3 billion to online romance scams. The victims are overwhelmingly senior citizens. They go online, thinking they are going to be able to find some companionship. They meet somebody. Often, this is on a dating site. They think that what they have made is a genuine connection because they are chatting online with this individual, but what is actually happening is they are communicating with a fraudster the entire time. Often, these victims--as I said, many of them are older. They are senior citizens. These victims will lose their entire lifesavings before they realize or before their friends and their family realize what has actually happened.

Here is the thing that is so important to realize. These scam artists are not amateurs. In fact, they are often part of a transnational criminal organization that traffics individuals in developing countries with the promise of getting a high-paying job. With their passports stolen, these individuals, who are victims, are often transported to what are called fraud dens, and they are forced to pay back their debt to these transnational criminal organizations by working overtime to defraud our senior citizens here in the United States.

It is really quite amazing. These are scam artists. They are part of transnational criminal organizations. They lure people into being trafficked.

They promise those individuals high-paying jobs in other countries, and then they take their passports and put them to work in these fraud dens. And there, they are defrauding U.S. citizens.

These scams are well financed, they are very sophisticated, and more often than not, they are using AI and other technology to dupe American consumers.

Scams are proliferating in the virtual space. We are seeing much of this in online dating platforms, and we do think these online dating platforms have the ability and the responsibility to notify their users when they are interacting with a bad actor.

By taking this simple step, the Romance Scam Prevention Act would protect our seniors from fraud and strike at the heart of one of the most lucrative financial streams for some of the most heinous criminal networks in the world.

I want to thank Representative Valadao and his staff for their commitment to protecting our seniors and championing this important legislation, and I thank my colleagues here in the Senate who have also supported it.

Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 438, H.R. 2481.

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.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this week, I had the honor of voting for Todd Blanche as he was coming out of the Judiciary Committee and advancing that nomination. Having worked with him over the past year or so, I think that there is no one better suited to serve President Trump's mission of enforcing the rule of law and one tier of justice for all Americans. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote to confirm him when this nomination comes to the floor.

When I talked to Tennesseans, they want to make certain their communities are safe. That is one of the main issues they talk about, that need for public safety.

Mr. Blanche has played a big role in making that happen as the Deputy Attorney General and then as the Acting Attorney General. Since last year, homicides nationwide are down 18 percent. They are the lowest they have been since 1900. That is 126 years. Residential burglaries are down 13 percent. Robberies are down 17 percent. Carjackings are down 47 percent.

When we talk about these stats in the aggregate, many times, people say: Well, how does that apply to my community? Let me show you what this has done in Memphis and what Mr. Blanche's leadership, working with Director Patel at the FBI, working with President Trump, and working with over 25 other Federal Agencies--what they have been able to accomplish in Memphis.

Just 2 years ago, when you looked at the 2024 crime stats, Memphis, TN, was considered the most dangerous city per capita, and it was averaging a murder a day. It was considered to be more dangerous than Colombia, Mexico City, or even Baghdad.

Since day one, President Trump has worked to help us in the goal of making certain that Memphis is the safest city in the United States, and Mr. Blanche has been a key part of those efforts.

Working together, we established the Memphis Safe Task Force, and that was done nearly 1 year ago. It was put in place in September of last year. Here is what they have been able to do. By working together--your local, State, and Federal law enforcement--they have made over 11,000 arrests, 1,200 known gang members have been apprehended, and 183 missing children have been located. As of this week, 2,000 illegal firearms have been seized, taken off the streets.

While continuing to keep our communities safe, we know that Attorney General Blanche will be focused on rooting out fraud both in elections and government programs.

The Justice Department has taken enforcement actions in blue States across the country to ensure that only American citizens are voting in American elections.

Here in the Senate, we have the SAVE America Act to support this effort, and we should waste no time in getting that to the President's desk. We now know that there are more than 270,000 noncitizens on voter rolls across the country. If blue States won't clean them up, Congress must force them to clean up their rolls.

In one of his first actions as Acting Attorney General, Mr. Blanche also created the National Fraud Enforcement Division. This is something the American people have wanted to see. They don't want their tax dollars going into the pockets of fraudsters. As of April, the Department was investigating 8,000 fraud cases representing more than $1 trillion in stolen taxpayer funds. That is an astounding number: $1 trillion in stolen, misspent taxpayer funds.

To the American people, this is just common sense. You investigate fraud. You lock up criminals. You secure our elections. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose all of this. Earlier this year, they forced a 75-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security to block funding to Federal law enforcement. They have called to ``abolish ICE'' and have slandered our officers as ``secret police,'' ``slave patrols,'' and ``Nazis.''

Instead of working with the administration to secure our elections, they are practically encouraging voter fraud. Fourteen States-- overwhelmingly blue--do not require any ID whatsoever to vote. Think about that. No ID. No ID to go to the polls and show that you are who you say you are and that you are allowed to cast that ballot. Many more refuse to work with DHS to compare their voter rolls with the SAVE database, which verifies a person's immigration status. Out of our States, 26 will use the DHS SAVE database to verify their voter rolls, and you have 24 that don't. So think about that and what that does to open the door for fraud.

At the same time, they have opened the floodgates to fraud in government programs. California and Governor Newsom--well, government spending in California has surged from $209 billion a year to $350 billion a year. The State auditor has repeatedly flagged that billions of these expenditures are questionable payments. Yet what do the State Democrats do? They do nothing. Now, think about this. This is a Democrat State--a very blue State--with a Governor who is very much from the leftwing of that party. He has a State auditor--a State auditor, part of his administration--who is flagging questionable payments, and they don't do anything about it.

The whole time, this is taxpayer money. It is not government money. It is taxpayer money that is being sent to the government so that the government will be a good steward of that money and use that money for programs that are going to benefit the constituents, the citizens, the taxpayers, but instead, they are letting it go out the door to fraudsters.

In Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz allowed billions of dollars to be stolen through Medicaid fraud. In New York, Chinese criminal groups have stolen millions more through fraudulent Medicaid billing.

See, we know this is happening. Auditors have found it. It has been pointed out to the State officials, and they won't do anything about it. So as a taxpayer, if you are in California, New York, or Minnesota, what does this tell you? It tells you that your elected officials do not give a rippin' flip about you and your hard-earned money that is going into these coffers. And then what are they doing? They are wasting it away.

Our national debt is approaching $40 trillion--unbelievable--and the American people expect their elected representatives to be good stewards of those dollars. Instead, the Democrats are embracing the failures of socialism.

In New York City, Zohran Mamdani unveiled a $127 billion budget while proposing billions in new taxes. New

Yorkers could see more than half of their income taken in taxes. Yet I have laid out for you how much of that money is being wasted--wasted-- going into fraud.

The mayor is pretty clear about his intentions. In a speech to the Young Democratic Socialists of America, he said that his ``end goal'' is ``seizing the means of production.'' Well, how about that? He wants to go use eminent domain. He wants to take away your ability to live out your American dream because if you have some form or means of production, he is going to take it away and say: Hey, wait a minute. That great idea you have, that great machine you built, this factory that you have, this restaurant that you own, it is no longer yours. It is the government's. It is the government's.

That is what you call communism. It is not yours. You don't own it. It is the government's. Then the government is going to turn around and tell you what you have to do in order to exercise that means of production while they are the ones that benefit and not you. You are the cog in the wheel. You owe it all to them.

Just this week, there was a Democrat candidate in Michigan, and he said:

How I define my politics is a redistribution of resources.

Well, how about that? Socialism. Communism. Taking from those who are producing and giving to those that refuse to produce, because we have all got to be the same. That is the way the Democrat socialists view it. You are working hard. Take it away from you and give it to people that are going to go sit on their rear and do nothing. That is what they believe. They are proud of it. They think that is a great thing. It is astounding.

It was so telling last year when the House voted on a resolution denouncing socialism in all its forms and opposing the implementation of socialist policies in the United States. Well, guess what. One would think that if you are a Member of the U.S. House and you have taken an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, you would say: You better believe I am against socialism. You better believe I am going to support our citizens.

But do you know what? There were 98 Democrats--98--that voted against that.

So it leaves you to ask: How in the world could this happen? That final vote tally, 98 jumped the shark and voted against that. You had 2 that voted present and 27 that took a walk and didn't vote at all. Are they so afraid of the far left wing of their party that they can't go exercise their responsibility to cast a vote? Astounding.

You know, that is what you have got to look at with today's Democrat Party. They are more comfortable standing up for socialist, communist ideas--touting those, caving to the leftwing, caving to the leftist media, going for likes and thumbs-up and reposts on social media, following the crowd and not being a leader.

It is just amazing to me. And as I have talked with Tennesseans--and I had a lady in Tennessee sum it up pretty well. She is somebody who has been a Democrat, but, no, she doesn't identify with them anymore. She considers them to be pro-crime, pro-fraud, and pro-socialism.

Now, how is that for a bumper sticker? That is what the Democrat Party is supporting right now. They are pro-crime, they are pro-fraud, and they are pro-socialism.

Now, the good thing is, Americans are rejecting this agenda. And what we have seen since 2020, on net, more than 3.6 million people have fled these big, deep-blue States of New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. You have to say: Why?

And as you talk with many of these people, many have come to Tennessee. They consider themselves to be refugees. They got out because they just don't want to live that way, being governed by people who are so far left that they are pro-crime, pro-fraud, pro-socialism, pro-communism, and being in areas that are cheering on those policies.

So I would encourage people to think through what is happening. I would encourage them to stand with the rule of law. And I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote aye for Todd Blanche as we vote to confirm him as the Nation's Attorney General. He understands the importance of the rule of law, enforcing the rule of law, and abiding by equal justice for all.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5334 at 6 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 6 p.m. today on H.R. 5334 be allowed to begin.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I commend each of my colleagues who has come to the floor to speak on the Russia sanctions bill and how important it is that we get this passed. This is a measure I have supported, and I am so pleased we are finally taking the vote and taking action on that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, on Monday, we saw yet another example of what has become disturbingly common, and that is an act of far-left terrorism. Outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, a man poured gasoline on the entrance, set it ablaze, and tossed fireworks into the raging flames.

Thankfully, law enforcement responded swiftly to apprehend the suspect, who was armed with two axes, a hammer, a machete, and three knives, but not before he injured four innocent people.

Authorities believe the attack was motivated by the suspect's hatred of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Federal building he targeted is home to New York's ICE field office and other Department of Homeland Security offices. Before the attack, he allegedly pushed a cart with a sign reading ``ICE Off Our Streets'' and made anti-ICE statements.

This attack did not come out of nowhere. It follows a monthslong campaign by Democrats to demonize ICE and our brave Federal law enforcement officers who are simply doing their job. They have likened them to ``secret police,'' the Nazi Gestapo, the Soviet

KGB, and ``slave patrols.'' They have called them a ``clear and present danger,'' a ``reign of terror,'' and ``nondescript thugs.'' They have accused them of ``mayhem and death,'' ``terror and violence,'' and ``scar[ing] the American public.''

These are not statements from fringe figures. This is what is so astounding. These are statements from prominent Governors, Senators, and lawmakers calling our Federal law enforcement and ICE these names. The vilification of Federal law enforcement is now central to the Democrats' identity and their messaging.

Look at the proposals by the Democrat Socialists of America. They would do away with ICE. They believe that by attacking our officers, they can get at President Trump. And in reality, what they are doing is putting a target on the officers' backs.

I have to admit that I was surprised when New York's far-left socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani called Monday's attack ``deeply disturbing.'' In many ways, he has led the attack on ICE. He has called ICE a ``cruel agency that does nothing to further the interests of public safety'' and ``too rotten to reform.'' He claimed that they are ``terrorizing people'' and should be abolished. He even signed an order to block ICE officers from arresting criminal--criminal--illegal aliens in schools, shelters, and hospitals.

While Democrats bow to their radical base, Republicans are continuing to stand for the rule of law. Under President Trump's leadership, we have focused on ensuring that our Federal law enforcement Agencies have all the resources they need to do their jobs.

It is why we passed the Secure America Act. That is a landmark law that will fund ICE and Border Patrol through the end of President Trump's term. That way, Federal law enforcement officers can continue to track down the violent criminal illegal aliens that Joe Biden brought into this country through that porous southern border.

It is important to remember that every single Democrat voted against the law. Every single one voted against funding ICE and Border Patrol.

Whenever they have the chance, they put illegal aliens in front of American citizens. They keep working overtime to try to make illegal legal.

They want to return to Biden's open border. But as long as Republicans are in charge, that will never happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with a very simple request: I am asking that the Senate speak with a unanimous voice in condemning one of the worst acts of judicial misconduct we have seen in years.

Judge Eleanor Ross has been a district judge in the Northern District of Georgia for over a decade, and it is clear that she engaged in conduct that falls beneath the dignity of her high office in the Federal judiciary.

After a courageous law clerk came forward, a special committee on the Eleventh Circuit was appointed and ultimately made several deeply disturbing findings.

First, based on testimony from Judge Ross' law clerks, the committee found that over the course of 2 years, Judge Ross engaged in a sexual relationship with a high-ranking official of the Atlanta Police Department. This conduct occurred in her judicial chambers during normal business hours within earshot of her law clerks.

Now, think about that.

On top of that, the Atlanta Police Department, in the words of the special committee, ``undoubtably was involved in numerous criminal and civil cases being litigated'' in the Northern District, underscoring how reckless the judge's misconduct truly was.

Not only did this misconduct create a possibility of an appearance of impropriety, an affair like this also exposed Judge Ross to the possibility of extortion and blackmail, as the special committee noted.

In addition to this egregious behavior in her chambers, the special committee also found an equally disturbing act of judicial misconduct: making false statements material to the committee's investigation.

Judge Ross told the Eleventh Circuit's chief judge that she ``never engaged in sexual intercourse in [her] office, nor anywhere else in the Courthouse'' and that she was ``astounded and confused'' to be accused of this misconduct.

Now, based on the committee's findings, we know that Judge Ross' statements to Chief Judge Pryor were patently false. They were knowingly false.

We also know that it took Judge Ross nearly 2 weeks to retract the false statements. By the time she finally backtracked, the special committee had already collected substantial evidence that proved Judge Ross had made false statements.

In short, once Judge Ross realized where the investigation was going, she decided to retract her false statements and admit to the misconduct allegations. The Judicial Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits the type of conduct that Judge Ross engaged in, specifically Canon 2 states that ``a Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.''

Canon 2A states that ``a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.''

Commentary to Canon 2A states:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by

irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including

harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior.

The committee's findings, which I have just outlined, show that Judge Ross blatantly violated all three of these judicial canons.

Now, I want to be clear, what I have just outlined is all that my resolution is asking that the Senate condemn. We are condemning this inappropriate sexual misconduct by a sitting Federal judge, and we are condemning her subsequent lying about that misconduct. That is it.

I do want to note for the record that there was misconduct in the Eleventh Circuit report that I have not included in the resolution. The committee included in its misconduct findings that Judge Ross attended a political function for DA Fani Willis. I find it unconscionable for a sitting Federal judge to have attended a partisan event with a district attorney who weaponized the judicial system in the way that Fani Willis did.

I also firmly believe that Judge Ross, by lying to Chief Judge Pryor during the course of the Eleventh Circuit's investigation committed an impeachable offense, and I fully support the House's impeachment efforts.

But I have not included those aspects in my resolution that I am about to ask unanimous consent for. The reason why? As I mentioned at the outset, I believe the Senate should speak with one voice and unanimously condemn Judge Ross' conduct. I don't want to give my Democrat colleagues any reason to object to this resolution.

So what I am asking unanimous consent for is simple: a condemnation of Judge Ross' sexual misconduct and subsequent lying during the course of a judicial investigation.

The American people deserve Federal judges who uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism on the bench; not those who turn their chambers into a venue for extramarital affairs. There is no reason any Member of this body should object to that resolution today.

Mr. President, with that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 808, which is at the desk; I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I think it is clear what Senator Durbin is doing today. He is seeking to protect a Democrat-appointed judge, appointed under President Obama, and trying to distract from her clear misconduct.

Now, at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have the responsibility of advice and consent. We have the responsibility of oversight.

And one thing that I will note: I think the Senator has misunderstood the resolution. It is not an impeachment resolution. It does not call for an impeachment. It explicitly points to the information in the Eleventh Circuit's special committee report and pulls directly from that report what occurred in Judge Ross' chambers, and therefore there needs to be a condemnation of this activity.

Passing this would have the Senate speak with a unanimous voice against this activity, and I would have encouraged my colleagues to pass the resolution and to make clear that this conduct falls far beneath the high standards we should be holding the Federal judiciary to every single day. It is clear the Senate Democrats are not interested in that.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, several of my colleagues and I are going to talk tonight about the importance of passing the SAVE America Act, and this is an issue the Senate should willingly take up.

Having voter ID is something the vast majority of Americans support. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents or Libertarians, everyone thinks you should have to show an ID when you go to vote.

It is incredible that we are on the floor having to make the case for this legislation. The bill's provisions are really common sense, and, as I said, this is something the American people have said: We want this. We want to preserve one person, one vote, and preserve the integrity of the electoral system.

Now, the legislation that is before us would really accomplish three major objectives in securing our elections.

It would require voters to present an ID to cast a ballot. Now, as I said, this is overwhelmingly popular. You have got 83 percent of all Americans.

Now, for my colleagues across the aisle, 71 percent of the Democrats support this. They want people to have to prove that they are indeed who they claim to be.

Also, our legislation would require people to be a U.S. citizen in order to vote in our elections, and it would require the States to remove noncitizens who have somehow ended up on their voter rolls.

These are all common sense, every one of them--common sense. There is nothing objectionable about these measures. It is common sense. And these are sensible, easily understood, and easily implemented ways to make certain that we are protecting our electoral system.

Many Republican States already enforce these safeguards. Tennessee, my home State, leads the Nation in election integrity. Now, if every State was like Tennessee, there would be no need for the SAVE America Act. But for years, we have seen blue States practically invite fraud into their elections.

Fourteen States--including California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Minnesota--do not require any form of ID to vote. Many more States accept ID that is nonphoto.

Now, think about that. In 14 States, if you live in one of those States, you do not have to prove anything in order to go vote in their elections. It is open season.

So my question would be: How does that type of system--no ID required, just come on and vote. Everybody welcome. The polls are open. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen or a noncitizen. Come cast your ballot.

So you have got these States that require no ID, and you have got other States that will have nonphoto ID that they will accept. Now, at the same time, two dozen States--and, again, they are overwhelmingly blue--that is, 24 States refuse to work with DHS to compare their voter rolls with the Federal SAVE database, which verifies the immigration status of registered voters.

Now, that is a system--that is a database--at the Department of Homeland Security, and this SAVE system has that listing of noncitizens who were in our country--people that are on student visas, people that are on work visas, people that are permanent legal residents, people that are in the country illegally.

But do you know what? Not a single one of those individuals is entitled to vote.

So, free of charge, any State can log into this system--President Trump has made it easy for the States--and then they can take their voter roll, and they can check it against the SAVE system. States that do this have found thousands of individuals. Maybe they have got a driver's license, and maybe, during that process, they registered to vote. But they are not entitled to vote. So those are the individuals that need to be removed from this system.

I will point out that there is no other--no other--developed nation that leaves their elections so vulnerable to fraud and manipulation.

So to defend themselves, Democrats claim that voter fraud is very rare. Well, President Trump's Thursday night address on election integrity showed just how much voter fraud we have.

According to a DHS review of State voter rolls, there are approximately 278,000 noncitizens registered to vote in our elections. The last three Presidential elections were decided by fewer than 270,000 votes.

The President noted that this figure is likely an undercount because Democrat States refused to share their voter files with the administration.

Democrats do not care. They are perfectly content with voter fraud.

Indeed, as we have said many times: Let's make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.

And the Democrats continue to fight us on this. Their leader Chuck Schumer claimed that the legislation, the SAVE America Act, was dead on arrival here in the Senate, meaning not a single one of them--not a one of them--agrees with 71 percent of the Democrats, 83 percent of the American public. They just don't agree with them when the people are saying: We want the SAVE America Act.

So I just have to ask: What are they afraid of? What are they really fearful of? Are they afraid, if it is only citizens voting, that they are not going to win? Do they think they have to have people that are not citizens registered to vote in order to win an election?

Now, when we talk about the SAVE America Act and talk about it in total, we have said: Look, whatever it takes to get this passed--if we have to pass it one piece at a time, that is what we will do.

And our friends on the other side of the aisle need to explain to the American public why they are so opposed.

Now, Senator Husted's bill, for example, would enact only the voter ID provision of the SAVE America Act. That is a good thing. That is a great first step. Just prove that you are who you say you are. When you go to the poll to vote, prove that you are who you say you are when you request a mail-in or absentee ballot.

We also have the Election Security Partnership Act, which I led along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and this is something that would incentivize States to submit their voter rolls through that SAVE system at DHS.

This is basically: We are going to pay you to do the right thing. We are going to actually incentivize and give you more money on your grants if you will do the right thing and obey the law.

Now, we have many more bills that we can do to secure our elections. Every Member of Congress should support these measures, and Republicans are going to do everything possible to get them across the finish line as we are celebrating our Nation's 250th anniversary. It is imperative--imperative--that we pass these bills in order to preserve the integrity of our electoral system.

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

Mr. President, America lost a fearless patriot in our friend Lindsey Graham. He devoted his life to serving the people of South Carolina and this Nation. He never shied away from a difficult fight, and he always stuck to his principles.

It has been so moving to see all the tributes to his life and his legacy pour in from each side of the aisle. It speaks to who he was as a leader, statesman, and a public servant. He believed in robust, respectful bipartisan debate, and he knew that, in Washington, you can only solve problems by building a big tent and inviting people to join you. He did it time and again, across more than three decades in public office, working to protect our national security, strengthen our military, secure our border, protect kids online, and save our elections.

I had the honor of serving alongside him on the Judiciary Committee, including during his time as both chair and ranking member. He knew that peace and prosperity are only possible under the rule of law, and he fought to defend the rule of law.

Just a few months ago, Lindsey and I filed the 287(g) Expansion Act to encourage State and local law enforcement to partner with ICE and accomplish President Trump's goal of deporting criminal illegal aliens and keeping our communities safe.

Last month, we also introduced the Election Security Partnership Act to get more States to submit their voter rolls to DHS through the SAVE Program and secure our elections. On that issue, Lindsey was a champion of the SAVE America Act to ensure that only American citizens vote in American elections. The Senate should put election integrity measures on the floor for a vote and honor his legacy. That is exactly what he would encourage us to do.

It was so moving to see his sister Darline sworn into office yesterday to complete his term. My prayers are with her and with his family, friends, staff, and all who loved him. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, 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. 4329. 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, you know, it is always so interesting to hear the objections of my colleagues when it comes to something that is considered a pro-life measure. And pushing this bill forward and listening to my colleague--it just shows me that once again, they are not standing with that right to life.

We are celebrating 250 years of our great Nation. What do we have? That

right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Today marks 4 years since the Supreme Court corrected a blatant act of judicial activism that legitimized the killing of more than 63 million unborn children.

My colleagues across the aisle like to say: Oh, but abortion is compassionate.

Think about the 63 million unborn babies--63 million.

So, yes, 4 years ago, the Supreme Court corrected this act of judicial activism. With the Court's Dobbs decision, the authority finally returned to the States and ``we the people,'' where it belongs.

This marked a watershed moment in the fight for life, but there is still so much more work to do to make certain that right is recognized, that right to life--the right to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness.

We know that one thing that needs to be done is ending all Federal funding of abortion services. That is important. This isn't about closing clinics; this is about making certain that taxpayer money does not go to fund those services.

For decades, Federal law has prohibited the use of Federal funds for abortions, but big abortion providers like Planned Parenthood exploit every loophole possible to get around this restriction. It is a long list. They are addicted to your money to provide abortion services.

One of those loopholes is the title X Family Planning Program. This program is intended to assist low-income women with family planning services. Section 1008 of the Public Health Service Act explicitly states that title X funds ``shall not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.'' That is the law.

This isn't about restricting healthcare; it is about--we need to support life, and we need to abide by the law.

Yet, under the law, title X clinics are allowed to refer patients for abortions and share facilities with abortion providers. As a result, Planned Parenthood clinics that receive Federal family planning funds can share the same facility, staff, and waiting room as an abortion clinic. There is no division there. They are sharing that space. They are sharing staff. They are sharing the waiting room. You go in the same door, and they are thereby using taxpayer dollars.

Now, taxpayers, including millions across the country who hold deeply held beliefs opposing abortion, should not have to spend a penny in supporting abortion providers. This is their hard-earned money. We have a law. The law should be abided by. That is why I am asking that we move forward with this bill. We have heard my colleague's objection. I disagree with her. We should abide by the rule of law, and we should support the right to life. I think everyone should stand up and close this loophole once and for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

We just talked about the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would ensure that taxpayer funds aren't used or flow--these family planning funds--to abortion providers.

What Senator Baldwin has talked about in this bill is the Reproductive Health Travel Fund Act, and what it would do is make obtaining abortions easier. It would make it easier because it would allow them to be paid for by tax dollars. Let's let this sink in for a minute. This bill would authorize hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fund, as my colleague said, the travel, the lodging, the meals, the childcare, and all of the other expenses that are associated with obtaining an abortion. Four years after Dobbs rightfully returned this issue to the American people and their elected representatives, this very legislation would undermine that decision by using Federal dollars to facilitate and fund abortions across State lines.

Now, we all want healthy moms and healthy babies--that is a goal that everyone shares--but instead of supporting pregnant women by making grants available to pregnancy resource centers, our colleagues across the aisle would rather spend that $350 million in taxpayer funding each year to eliminate what makes obtaining an abortion

inconvenient. That is absolutely atrocious. Democrats claim to be the party of choice, but bankrolling the entire abortion process only increases the pressure on women to choose abortion by making it the more financially feasible option. There is no choice in that. A 2004 study found 64 percent of women felt pressured by others to have an abortion.

If Congress truly wants to respect the conscience rights of millions of Americans and actually protect women, children, and families, it should reject this legislation and pass the Title X Abortion Provider Protection Act.

For all of these reasons, I object.