Floor Statements

Mr. President, last year, this body unanimously passed 41 bills from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Now, 16 of those bills, for one reason or another, didn't end up getting signed into law last year. Some of those bills perhaps were casualties of the legislative calendar but for one reason or another didn't make it through but remained undisputed and remained noncontroversial. They have been reintroduced by Republican and Democratic Senators and are cleared on the Republican side of the aisle.

It is important to note here that these noncontroversial, bipartisan bills all remain completely unchanged. Not a single letter, not a single period, comma, or exclamation mark has been altered on them. They remain utterly noncontroversial--not a whiff of partisan dispute between them.

In the past, these bills were, in many circumstances, packaged together. It has been something of a custom in the Senate to package together groups of bills. Lands bills in some cases were paired together as part of much larger bills.

In some instances, parts of some of those bills were themselves controversial--larger bills, bills that were sometimes written in secret and not available to individual Members to review prior to the time that they were propounded for a unanimous consent request on the floor.

So today, I am going to make an entirely reasonable offer to move four bills off of the floor from among that group that passed last year by unanimous consent in the Senate. They are unchanged, they are still noncontroversial, and they carry no substantive policy objections, no objections to the merits of the bill and what they do. They are bills that are locally supported, bills that have been thoroughly vetted by the committee of jurisdiction and that are ready to move today.

In short, they are bills that are ready to move in the same type of open, Member-driven process that the Senate was built for and that the Senate, quite frankly, prides itself in fostering and encouraging rather than being held hostage for a larger backroom deal negotiated in secret.

The first is a bill from Senator Barrasso that would provide commonsense flexibility for ranchers during natural disasters to help ensure rangeland health on Federal lands.

The second is a bill that I have introduced called the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act, which would add Utah as a fourth location for the Southwest Ecological Research Institutes, which would be housed, for the Utah portion of it, at Utah State University. This institute would foster collaboration to promote healthy forests, wildfire prevention, and resilient water supplies. Utah is well positioned and ready to work with the other institutes, including the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute, to protect the unique landscapes and communities across the Western United States.

The third bill is one from Senator Cortez Masto, the Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act.

This bill would make certain boundary changes and would authorize a right-of-way for the Horizon Lateral water pipeline in Nevada-- something important to Nevadans as a desert State like mine. Water for Nevadans is very important.

The fourth bill is one from Senator Padilla which would adjust the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Now, again, just to reiterate, all four of these bills have certain things in common. They do different things. They operate in different parts of the country. They have different sponsors from different political parties. But they all have a few features in common: They all passed by unanimous consent in this body just a few months ago. Not a single Republican, not a single Democrat objected to any of them. They remain entirely unchanged and entirely noncontroversial.

If there is any outstanding policy issue, I would love to be made aware of it and would love to address it, but as of this moment, I am not aware of one--not on the House side and not even on the Senate side.

So to that end, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: S. 211, Resiliency For Ranching and Natural Conservation Health Act from Senator Barrasso; S. 457, Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025 from myself and Senator Curtis; S. 1142, Golden Gate National Recreation Area from Senator Padilla; S. 392, Sloan Canyon Conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act from Senator Cortez Masto; further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I appreciate the characteristically thoughtful and thorough remarks by my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from Washington. I do want to be clear about a couple of things.

No. 1, this has been the product of a lot of effort on our part, good-faith efforts that we have made to work with Ranking Member Heinrich and Members of both political parties to move these bills to the floor to get them passed over many months.

Now, again, I want to reiterate that if there are substantive policy concerns with any of the bills in this package, understanding that these are only four bills--those four bills don't comment on--they neither preclude nor prejudice in any way, shape, or form our ability to pass other bills.

Anytime you are choosing a finite group of legislative proposals to be considered for adoption by unanimous consent or through any other expedited process, you are necessarily excluding others that are not on that list. And so it becomes incumbent upon those involved in the effort to decide which ones belong.

Let's talk a little bit about how we go about that, how we went about that here with these bills. These are four of the bills that, again, passed the Senate unanimously just a few months ago that remain unchanged in this conference; that didn't draw a single ``no'' vote, a single objection from any Republican or from any Democrat. In that respect, they all have things in common, even though they operate in different States, have different sponsors from different political parties and do different things.

The bill of which my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, refers does quite opposite of those things. I am sure she put an enormous amount of effort into it. I am sure it is important to her. And I am sure it has been carefully drafted because my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, is thorough.

But there are some things that bill doesn't have in common with these. In fact, harkening back to childhood, there is a song called ``One of These Things Is Not Like the Other.'' If you were trying to include that bill in a list of these bills, that would be the clear standout. Why? No. 1, it hasn't passed the Senate; No. 2, it was considered in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and it resulted in strict party line votes--Democrats vs. Republicans, Shirts vs. Skins. There was not a single vote overlapping between the two parties.

That doesn't mean it is not a good bill. It doesn't mean it is not important to her or the people in the State of Washington. But it does mean it lacks the core characteristics held in common by each and every one of the bills I just offered by unanimous consent.

If that is going to be the standard, that anytime there is any package of bills--a package consists of two paired sets, a Republican and Democratic legislation brought forward together; in this case, bills that drew not a single ``no'' vote, not a single objection from Members of either party and remained unchanged since that last happened. If anytime we try to offer those bills, it is appropriate to object in the absence of any substantive on-the-merits objection or concern with the legislation, it is going to be very difficult for us to get this done.

Now, none of this means we couldn't find a way to pair that with something that would make sense, coupled with any changes that Members of both parties might insist on in order to make them comfortable with moving it forward. But it does mean that it would be incongruous, illogical, counterproductive, and destructive to the effort to pair that bill with this bill.

That is a wilderness bill. By definition, by its very nature, it designates large tracts of wilderness and large scenic rivers. It is not something inherently repugnant to either party, but it ended up drawing objections and ``no'' votes from literally every Republican on the committee. That suggests to me that before it is ready to be included in a unanimous consent request, it might need some additional work.

I am confident we can get it there. Most types of legislation can get to the point where objections can be addressed through some combination of

modifications to the legislation itself and the legislation that it might be paired with in order to help offset those objections.

But, nonetheless, I will keep working to pass bipartisan bills that have unanimous support. I hope and expect and respectfully request that my colleagues across the aisle would take into account these dissimilarities. If they want to add others that meet similar characteristics, let's have that conversation. If they want to get to the point where we can pass Senator Murray's bill, I am sure there is a way that could be considered and we could possibly get there.

But we can't assume that you can pair something that is that dissimilar; that is, by its very nature and according to the legislative record, it is the very definition of partisan and not the kind of thing that one can expect. We would be crazy to assume that something that resulted in a party line committee vote last year would suddenly get to the floor and not draw a single Republican objection.

I would also hope that next time, when we add pairings to the floor-- Democrat and Republican bills--I would love to see those hotlined on the other side of the aisle in the same format of which they were hotlined on our side. My understanding is they were not; and they should be. There should be an apples-to-apples comparison. If they are given the opportunity, I can't imagine that many, if any, of my Democratic colleagues would object to any of these bills in isolation. If they wouldn't object to them in isolation based on their substantive policy merits and if they were given that in a hotline request, I think this would have turned out differently.

I do think it is important we should pass bills expeditiously and in the light of day. These bills have gone through public examination in the light of day, and they have been found not wanting for bipartisanship. They have been found richly blessed with bipartisanship through a proven, undisputed track record.

So, look, I think it is a big mistake to hold noncontroversial bills put forward by Senators in good faith--to hold those hostage in order to perpetuate a broken and sometimes corrupting process from a bygone era, one in which bills were prevented from passing, not because they were controversial but because they were popular and being used as bait in order to bring about the passage of other bills that were controversial. That makes no sense.

What makes the Senate work best are those moments when we can identify things as to which we do not disagree. This, Mr. President, is one of those things. This, Mr. President, is where we can do better; and do better we must.

I am not going away. I will be back. I will be back soon--hopefully, successful next time--and we will do what we have to do in order to move the legislative process.

I humbly implore my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Let's not take these moments where we do agree for granted. Let's not assume that just because anytime--by definition, anytime you come up with a list of four bills offered at once, that necessarily excludes the thousands of others that may be submitted during the course of any particular Congress in that legislative Chamber.

You can't get everything all at once. Why not take the things that we know can pass and have passed in the past? Let's get that done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of

morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, July 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 110, Earl Matthews, postcloture; further, notwithstanding rule XXII, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Matthews nomination, and if cloture has been invoked on Calendar No. 94, William Kimmitt, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; further, at 2:15 p.m., all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Kimmitt nomination, and if confirmed, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 274, Susan Monarez; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be two votes at 11:30 a.m., two votes at 2:15, p.m., and more votes expected throughout the afternoon and evening.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the

Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to recognize Emily Wiscombe's devoted public service to the people of Utah across the past 31 years. Emily's three decades of ardent work have uplifted Utahns beyond measure, supported multiple Members of Congress, and contributed immensely to the betterment of our State and our country.

Emily's service to the people of Utah began in the office of Senator Jake Garn. Emily supported his Washington, DC, office until her heart called her back to our inimitable State, where she continued her congressional tenure in the office of Representative Howard Neilson. Emily later joined Senator Orrin Hatch's Provo office, where she handled casework of all kinds before lending her talents to the work of Senators Bob Bennett and Mitt Romney. Finally, my staff welcomed Emily as one of Utah's most experienced and committed public servants over a decade ago.

All along and in between her service to our State, Emily reared a beautiful family, helping Utahns flourish through both her work in Congress as well as in her own home.

Emily's work covered many areas throughout the years, but she found her passion in caring for our Nation's veterans. From helping veterans navigate the complexities of the Federal Government to attending monthly gatherings of those who have served, Emily's hands have uplifted and magnified many across our State. She has aided countless Utahns in need of some type of rescue, including from war-stricken nations. She is a tremendous asset to my team and an invaluable resource to her community.

Emily Wiscombe has a record of service to our great State that any public servant would find difficult to match: 31 devoted years of work, six Members of Congress supported, and countless Utahns uplifted.

The great state of Utah, the U.S. Congress, and I are indebted to her service. I express my gratitude for her dedication, her patriotism, and her demonstrated love for our people and our State.

Mr. President, I respect my friend and colleague from Oregon, but I disagree with every word he just uttered including ``but,'' ``and,'' and ``the.''

Look, the energy and natural resources title of this bill is one of the most consequential pieces of energy legislation we have had in decades. It increases production on Federal lands. It eliminates wasteful spending at both the Interior and Energy Departments that have prioritized intermittent, nonreliable, nonbaseload sources of power, ultimately driving up the cost of living and the cost of power.

We can and do reduce energy prices by increasing development of our vast energy natural resources.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, energy manufacturing jobs survive and thrive when there is less Federal intrusion, not more, to my friend and colleague from Georgia. What is more, the American people want less. The American people understand that, with the Federal Government out of the way by cutting redtape, innovation thrives, and the American people do better.

I urge all within the sound of my voice to oppose this motion.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment, Lee amendment No. 2745.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Mr. President, this amendment completes the half-baked task performed by the House of Representatives on these subsidies.

Now, remember, the ``green new scam'' was adopted in 2022 without a single Republican vote. Not one Republican in the House, not one Republican in the Senate voted for the ``green new scam'' subsidies.

This language would complete the circle of repeal on these subsidies by echoing exactly what the House of Representatives did. We can save more money for the American taxpayer if we adopt this. Not one Republican voted for it. Not one Republican should oppose this.

I implore all within the sound of my voice to adopt this amendment, save the American people money, and allow for the American energy revolution to begin.

I call for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to thank my friend and colleague the senior Senator from the State of California for his passion in pursuing what is itself a laudable goal, which is helping newly sworn-in, newly naturalized U.S. citizens to register to vote. But I have no choice but to object to this unanimous consent request, this effort to pass it without further debate--without any debate today.

I want to point out that this is a bill that hasn't gone through any of the regular processes. It is therefore inappropriate for us to consider it at this point.

Look, the bill itself was just barely introduced. It hasn't had a hearing, hasn't had a markup before the Senate Judiciary Committee on which we both serve or otherwise, nor has there been any debate on this topic.

No doubt it is important to make sure that our newly naturalized citizens have the opportunity to register to vote, but that puts the cart before the horse in many regards. If we haven't done our homework, we could cause problems.

No one disputes the fact--at least no one disputes the fact now that there are, in fact, noncitizens voting in Federal elections. No one disputes that there are already laws on the books making it a crime for noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections. U.S. Federal elections are for U.S. citizens and no one else, and it is a crime to do otherwise.

We have had some of these discussions over the last year, and in the months leading up to the 2024 general election, there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims made to the effect that noncitizens don't vote. We know now that that is not true. There have been a number of documented instances from this last general election alone in which that happened. This reflects the fact that we often do a poor job of making sure noncitizens don't vote.

On the current voter registration form, the Federal voter registration form, there is just a box, a little box that one checks for the applicant to indicate whether he or she is a U.S. citizen. Provided that he or she checks that box and later signs the form for a driver's license, that person can then obtain voter registration in the same State in which he or she has applied for a driver's license. All we have to go on is that person's word as to citizenship.

No one asks for documentary proof of citizenship--no.

One might ask: Why? Why has no one asked for this, especially if it is a known problem?

Well, this dates back to an interpretation of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, the NVRA, which is also sometimes referred to as the Motor Voter law. It was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that interpreted provisions of the NVRA as prohibiting the State officials administering that form, receiving that form, from asking for any kind of proof of citizenship.

Now, that interpretation was, in my view, wrong. I agree with Justice Alito's dissent in that case saying that the statute contains no such requirement; there is nothing in there prohibiting States from doing that. Nonetheless, that ruling stands, remains on the books today, prohibiting State officials, when receiving those forms, from doing any verification, requesting any proof as to citizenship.

That is why I, last year, introduced a bill called the SAFE Act that would amend the National Voter Registration Act to make clear what I believe was already clear but that the Supreme Court got wrong, allowing State officials to request proof of citizenship at the time these documents are submitted and setting requirements for that to happen.

The SAFE Act identifies, establishes, and outlines acceptable documentation for proving citizenship, and it requires the States to set up alternative verification processes for citizens who don't have the normal, necessary, contemplated documentation, including for those instances--very, very common instances--in which a woman marries and thereafter changes her name to a married name not evident on any birth certificate she may have.

When you contemplate the many dozens of women who support the SAVE Act in this Chamber and in the other and who voted for it in the other Chamber, who were part of the process of drafting this bill--they and I and the others who were involved in its drafting, we all went out of our way to make sure that these documentation standards were not unduly onerous. In fact, if anything, they are less onerous than those requirements, those documentation standards that already exist in other areas of the law.

Take, for example, labor and employment. Anytime any American citizen starts a new job as an employee, he or she is required to fill out a form called the I-9. The I-9 form requires an American citizen to provide proof of citizenship. And if you are not an American citizen, then you have to provide proof of your work eligibility, providing proof of your visa and the documentation that goes along with that.

Now, just as it is true that married women who have changed their name to their married name, a married last name that is different than that found on their birth certificate--just as women every single day across this country are able to start a new job without that being an impediment, we have made sure that the SAVE Act would leave things the same way. If anything, we made it easier in the context of casting this sacred, important vote and registering to become eligible to cast such a vote.

The legislation, the SAVE Act, also compels States to purge noncitizens from voter rolls and establishes Federal penalties for intentionally registering noncitizens to vote in Federal elections.

Over the last 4 years, many, many millions upon millions of illegal aliens have entered our country's borders, and of those, a nonzero but ultimately unknown number of them were improperly registered to vote. No one disputes that this has happened. They don't now; they didn't last summer; they don't now because the proof is there, and it remains undisputed.

At a time when trust in voting is as important as it has ever been, if not more so, we must stop any avenue for foreign election interference, and we need to pass the SAVE Act.

Voting is both a sacred right and an important responsibility that accompanies American citizenship, and allowing people--people of other countries, people of other countries who are not citizens of our country--to violate the law and to access our elections and vote in our elections contrary to the law is a great blow to our security and to our self-governance.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the SAVE Act a few weeks ago, and now it is our turn to pass the SAVE Act and that we must do.

In light of the foregoing and in light of the fact that, if we were to take a step like that contemplated and proposed by my friend and colleague--and he is both, the senior Senator from California--without putting in place these additional safeguards that we need in the SAVE Act, safeguards that are no more intrusive--and, in fact, if anything, are less intrusive--than those already in existence in everyday events like starting a new job, I must object, and I hereby do object.

Madam President, we need to remember a couple of things. First, when someone has gone through the process of immigrating to the United States, they have completed a journey--perhaps a lengthy odyssey--of moving to the United States, applying for and ultimately obtaining U.S. citizenship. They have provided a lot of documentation. They have done a lot of things to make that happen.

And it would be an insult to those who are U.S. citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized citizens, to make it easy for people to cheapen that, to undermine it, to dilute that by coming in and saying: You know, I am filling out my driver's license application, and all I have to do here is check a box--check a box, sign my name saying, yes, I am a U.S. citizen.

Well, you know, that is not an option in other areas where citizenship is required. It is absolutely not an option, for example, in applying for a passport, which is one of the documents that can be provided and often is provided when someone completes the process of filling out an I-9 and thereby establishing their work eligibility as a U.S. citizen. One of the forms that they can provide to help establish that is a U.S. passport.

But regardless of what combination of identification they use, they do have to establish their citizenship. Why? Well, because that is the law. There are very good reasons why we have those laws in place to make sure that, when someone starts a job, they are either a U.S. citizen or they have a visa with some type of work authorization in it.

So it makes zero sense, for something as significant and important to the very foundations of our constitutional Republic as the right to vote, that we could just so lightly cast aside the need to verify citizenship when we go out of our way in other contexts, like starting a new job, to make sure that they prove it.

So, sure. My friend and colleague points out, when people fill out that driver's license application, they do have to check that box, and they do have to sign their name, but why make it so that someone could lie, especially when read against the backdrop of the Supreme Court ruling 12 years ago, concluding--wrongly, in my view but concluding nonetheless, and that decision is on the books--that not only do they not have to prove citizenship, but no State official, when receiving the driver license application form, may even inquire, even if they have reasons to doubt that the person has committed something or otherwise--they can't ask, even if there has been a wave in that State or in that area or across the country of noncitizens registering to vote and that State wants to make a decision--you know, we really ought to provide some degree of documentation--they are not allowed to do any of that.

So this is filling that gap, and it is important to do that.

To that end, Madam President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, which is at the desk. I further 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.

Madam President, with great respect to my friend and colleague the distinguished senior Senator from California, he has suggested that the SAVE Act, which merely requires some type of proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote in U.S. elections--that the SAVE Act itself is a solution in search of a problem.

My friend also suggests that no documentary proof of citizenship is or should be made necessary, even considering the Supreme Court's ruling that States are not even allowed to request such documentation where they may deem it necessary. He suggests that this is the case because, as he puts it, the occurrence of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections is not only rare, but it is exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it.

I don't know exactly what that means, but I do know that, taken to its logical conclusion, that same logical leap could and would lead us to all kinds of outcomes that we would never dream of. There are all sorts of things that may be rare by some standard or another. Sure, it is true that most of the people voting in U.S. elections are not noncitizens. In fact, I would say that they would be a small, small, small minority of those casting votes because most people here in the United States, most people voting in U.S. elections, are, in fact, U.S. citizens.

But taken to its logical conclusion, that would suggest that there is no need for TSA, which, actually, I would be fine with for all sorts of reasons. But taken to its logical conclusion, it would suggest there is no need for you to identify yourself when you go through TSA because instances of terrorism are exceedingly rare or instances of people boarding an airplane in somebody else's name are exceedingly rare. Sure, that happens.

Taken to its logical conclusion, it would also suggest that because instances of people starting a job, beginning employment in the United States as an American citizen or as a noncitizen pretending to be an American citizen, are exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, as he puts it, therefore we should require no documentary evidence of either U.S. citizenship on one hand or work eligibility with a visa on the other hand.

I could go on and on. But it is not an answer to the need for the SAVE Act, to the demand that 80-plus percent of the American people agree with, which is noncitizens shouldn't vote in U.S. elections. It is not an answer to that demand, to that widely held bipartisan supermajority view, not an answer to that to suggest that because noncitizen voting is rare, we need not require any proof of citizenship ever.

Why? Well, there are so many reasons why, but here is the simplest one. When we make that easy, more people would do it. Some elections are decided by large margins; others are decided by, to use his words, exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly small margins.

We would be doing ourselves and the American people and the American Republic and the U.S. Constitution a grave, grave disservice if we didn't take that risk very seriously.

Foreign election interference and meddling in our system is a real threat. We need to take it seriously. It is tragic and unfortunate.

In fact, it is shameful that we haven't passed the SAVE Act. This is not the end of this issue. I will be back. We will get this passed. But between now and whenever we do get it passed, the American people are taking on a risk because of this body's unwillingness to act.

And it is not this body. Let's face it. It is Members of this body on one side of the aisle, and not on the other, who are willing to incur this risk.

That, tragically, is a sacrifice they are willing to make. We, tragically, are a sacrifice they are willing to make. Let's not let them continue to make it. Let's pass the SAVE Act.

(Mr. MORENO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, it is an honor to serve with my friend John Curtis. Sharon and I love John and his wife Sue. I have known them for a long time, and he is a dear friend.

As you can tell, anyone who knows him loves him. Anyone who doesn't know him, from watching his speech, can tell that he is a man of great intellect, great conviction, and also he is a really likable person. I feel so fortunate to work with him.

Welcome to the Senate, and congratulations on absolutely a fantastic maiden speech. I am relieved you decided not to try to break Cory Booker's record today. We will save that one for another day.

Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize 21 exemplary men and women who are among the best and brightest that Utah has to offer. These individuals have answered the call to service by applying and receiving appointments to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy.

As a Member of Congress, it is my privilege under title 10 of the U.S. Code to nominate young men and women to these iconic service academies. However, receiving a congressional nomination does not guarantee acceptance. To be admitted, each applicant must meet--on his or her own merits--the academies' rigorous standards.

I am happy to report that each individual has done this and more. They have demonstrated their impressive mental and physical aptitude, which are essential in meeting the standard of excellence upon which our service academies are built. Perhaps more importantly, they have shown their high moral character and capacity for leadership, courage, honesty, prudence, and self-discipline. They maintain a steadfast commitment to stand up for our country.

I can say without hesitation or exaggeration that you would be hard- pressed to find a more accomplished, talented, patriotic group of citizens than these young Americans. They will be a credit to our Nation as they begin their training in Colorado Springs, Kings Point, West Point, and Annapolis. I look forward to seeing what they do in their academic years and beyond.

It is one of my greatest honors to recognize and congratulate these fine Utahns in the U.S. Senate:

Wilford William Beck, from Highland, Utah, will join his

brother at the U.S. Naval Academy as a midshipman. He

maintained a 4.0 GPA at Lone Peak High School while taking

challenging classes. Wil lettered in cross country and

tennis, where he also served as captain and helped lead his

team to a state championship. He participated in the Chinese

Club and provided community service with his church youth

group and at the VA hospital. He participated in multiple

medical mission trips to Honduras to provide assistance to

those in need.

Kohler C. Beckstrand has accepted an appointment to the

U.S. Military Academy at West Point. A student of Davis High

School, Kohler challenged himself in both academics, where he

took a high number of AP classes, and athletics, where he ran

cross country and track. He was a member of the National

Honor Society and the Health Organization Students of America

(HOSA). He plays trumpet and earned superior ratings in the

Solo and Ensemble festival. Kohler is active in his community

serving neighbors and leading food drives.

Asher Randall Bowcutt after graduating from Copper Hills

High School will enter the U.S. Military Academy at West

Point. He served as captain of both the football team, where

he earned Academic All-State Honors, and the track and field

team, where he holds school records in the shot put and

discus, all while maintaining a 4.0 GPA. Asher enjoys

snowboarding, chess, drawing, and working as a welder with

Hardwick Machinery. He will follow his grandfather, aunts,

and uncles into Army service.

Dawson Lee Douglas accepted an appointment to the U.S.

Naval Academy. From Sandy, Utah, he will graduate from Alta

High School where he took a high number of AP classes and was

awarded AP Scholar with Distinction. He stays active in

sports and volunteers in his neighborhood and community,

where his church youth group annually puts flags on the

graves of our veterans. He routinely challenges himself

academically and physically and is looking forward to the

challenges of the academy.

Lucas McCoy Fassio will be attending the U.S. Air Force

Academy after graduating from Park City High School. He

stayed busy in school taking a high number of AP classes

while at the same time competing for the cross-country ski

team, where he has qualified for both the U.S. Junior and

Senior National Cross-Country Championships. He served as

captain of the Park City Ski and Snowboard Club, a member of

the Park City Ski and Snowboard Leadership Athlete Council,

and as an officer in the Aviation Club.

Bradley Joseph Floyd, will be joining the cadets of the

U.S. Military Academy at West Point following his graduation

from Syracuse High School. Bradley has proven himself a

leader and someone who can inspire others as the president of

the band, captain of the track team, and president of his

church youth group. He plays the trombone and has received

superior ratings in Solo and Ensemble and Jazz and Wind

festivals. Bradley said his father is his inspiration and he

will be following his father into the Army.

Aadi Garg graduated from Providence Hall Charter School and

has been attending the University of Utah. He has now

accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. He

prepared himself by participating in Navy JROTC where he

served as the platoon leader and was on the academic,

orienteering, and PT teams. He played tennis and ran on the

cross-country and track and field teams. He earned Academic

All-State awards and was named student of the year. He served

his community with the National Honor Society and the Red

Cross.

Zoe Lee Hein, from West Jordan, has accepted an appointment

to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. She is serving as

Senior Class President of Copper Hills High School and is

captain of the track and field team where she holds several

school records in the long jump, 100M, 200m, and relays. She

is an AAU All American. She maintains a 4.0 with a rigorous

academic schedule and is a member of the National Honor

Society. She descends from a long line of military service

members and will be the first female in her family to serve.

Malcolm Johnson accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval

Academy. A graduate last year of Herriman High School,

Malcolm has spent this year at the Naval Academy Preparatory

School. In high school, Malcolm was captain of the basketball

team, was awarded the school's Male Athlete of the Year, and

earned Academic All-State Honors. He worked in his

community serving in food kitchens and gathering supplies

for those in need. He is known for his natural leadership

abilities and unwavering work ethic.

Aedan Frederick Marr will be attending the U.S. Military

Academy at West Point after his graduation from Corner Canyon

High School. He served as captain of the track and field team

and lettered on the state champion football team. The Eagle

Scout earned two Gold Eagle Palms, a Silver Eagle Palm, and

two Bronze Eagle Palms. He was a leader in JROTC, serving as

a squad leader, platoon sergeant, and acting company

commander. He lived in Germany where both his mother and

father served in the Army.

Keon Matinkhah, from Salt Lake City, has accepted an

appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. He attended the

Northwestern Preparatory Academy after graduating from the

American Preparatory Academy, where he served two years as

student body president. As captain of the Speech and Debate

team, he took first in the state for Oratory. He is an

accomplished road cyclist and was a member of the Ascent

Cycling Club. He participates in Ironman and Spartan races

and has raised money for cancer research through his racing.

Kaitlyn Olivia Meyer was proud to accept her appointment to

the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. She will soon graduate from

Skyridge High School in Lehi. Kait attended Girls State, is a

member of the National Honor Society, and is active in her

church youth group. She joined the Air Force JROTC and

participated on the Raiders team. Kait is captain of the

track and field team and was a leader on both her high school

and club soccer teams, where she was the game MVP five times

and the defensive MVP eight times.

Ian McKay Nielsen will join the midshipmen at the U.S.

Naval Academy after graduating from West High School. A 4.0

student with a heavy load of AP classes, Ian still found time

for the Arabic Club and the Boy Scouts. He led the wrestling

team in high school and is a champion Sport Bike and

SuperMoto racer. He joins a long family legacy of military

service that includes his brother, who graduated from the

Naval Academy in 2025, his sister in Air Force ROTC, and

grandfathers, who each have their own noble records of

service.

Samantha Pope will follow in her father's footsteps and

attend the U.S. Air Force Academy. The volleyball captain

helped her Lone Peak High School volleyball team earn two

state championships. Not to be outdone, her basketball team

also earned two state championships. Sam has been preparing

academically and physically for the academy since she was

young. The natural leader remembered those who helped her

with her community service as she prepared bags for 2,500

teachers through Show Up For Teachers.

Theodore Sun Seigrist will be joining his sister at the

U.S. Naval Academy. He has been living in Hong Kong with his

family and attending the Chinese International School. Teo

has made a name for himself as a champion rugby athlete.

While challenging himself with an International Baccalaureate

class load, he has also tutored refugees in Hong Kong, and

helped develop a video game, through Games for Change, to

educate young people about ocean pollution. He plays piano

and enjoys studying military history and taking time out to

ski and scuba dive.

Joseph M. Smith, from Santa Clara, has accepted an

appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. A 4.0

student from Snow Canyon High School, Joseph excelled in his

AP and concurrent enrollment classes. The senior class

president attended Boys State and served as a youth city

councilman, and as captain of his football team. His skill in

javelin helped his track and field team win two state

championships. He participated in Air Force JROTC where he

served as staff sergeant. Joseph hosts a religious podcast

and enjoys hunting and pickleball.

William Nakanelua Stant will be attending the U.S. Air

Force Academy after graduating from Pine View High School in

St. George. Active in Air Force ROTC, William served in many

leadership positions--including drill commander and the unit

executive officer--and participated in the JROTC drill team,

color guard, and Raiders team. He earned the Air & Space

Forces Association. He was captain of the high school

swimming team and vice-president of the Ping Pong club. He

joins several members of his family in military service,

including his great-uncle who was a Navajo Code Talker.

Abigail Thornton, a student of West High School, will join

her brother and other cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at

West Point. She was very active in high school, taking a

number of AP and International Baccalaureate courses and

joining the soccer, basketball, and track and field teams. In

addition to serving as the captain of her high school soccer

team and twice earning the team MVP, she also plays for a

number of club soccer teams. She was a member of the National

Honor Society, Key Club, Hope Squad, and Environmental club.

Bradley Rex Thornton will be returning to the U.S. Military

Academy at West Point with his sister after serving a church

mission in Texas Fort Worth. He graduated from West High

School where he served as captain of the basketball team and

as a student body officer. He coordinated school assemblies

and joined both the German Club and Health Occupation

Students of America (HOSA). Bradley was active in the Boy

Scouts and achieved the rank of Eagle Scout.

Caleb Bradley Watson will be returning to the U.S. Military

Academy at West Point after serving a church mission in

Mision Chile Concepcion. Caleb originally entered the academy

in 2022 after graduating from Hillcrest High School. During

high school, he was captain of the baseball team and was a

member of the National Honor Society. He attended Boys State

and served on the Draper Mayor's Youth City Council. He was

active in the Boy Scouts where he earned the rank of Eagle

Scout.

Preston Lee Whatcott accepted an appointment to the U.S.

Military Academy at West Point. The Corner Canyon High School

student continues the academy and military tradition in his

family but wanted West Point over following his brother and

father to the Air Force Academy. He is an excellent student,

who has been studying Chinese for over twelve years. Preston

is an Eagle Scout and has been a leader in his church youth

group and on the Draper Mayor's Youth City Council. In

addition to playing football, he also enjoys golf, track, and

filming and editing videos.

It has been inspiring to meet with and nominate each of these exceptional young men and women. They give me great hope for the future of our armed services and confidence in the future of our Nation.

To these 21 appointees and to all their future classmates from around the country, I thank you for your commitment to service and commend your achievements. While this is but the beginning of your journey, I urge you to remember the foundation of your success thus far.

You would not have arrived at this point without the dedication and example of your parents, family, teachers, coaches, and mentors. Moreover, you would not have arrived at this point without your own sacrifice and hard work.

Strive to continue on the path of strong moral character, and to keep love of country as a guiding principle. Look to the past with gratitude and to the future with conviction. If you stay this course, I have no doubt that your future holds great things in store. I look forward to your continued service to our country.

Mr. President, this amendment asks us to believe a lie, and the lie is that FEMA provides nonpartisan disaster relief. Until a few months ago, many of us hoped and expected that that would be the case. Alas, it was not.

During a contentious election cycle and in the wake of catastrophic damage by hurricanes and amidst lawfare galore, FEMA officials directed its relief workers to avoid giving aid to Florida homes displaying Trump signs.

One FEMA official, speaking on a condition of remaining anonymous, said that it is a longstanding practice and an open secret to avoid White or conservative-dominated areas.

Several FEMA officials have been fired since the investigation is ongoing. My counterpart from Florida, Representative Steube, has reported 35 credible claims of widespread discrimination against conservatives. This kind of behavior is reprehensible, and it is un- American.

Look, the amendment is a clear attempt to paper over this egregious malpractice of a rogue and unaccountable Agency. President Trump was right when he said FEMA should not have the central role providing disaster relief. FEMA needs to get out of the way and let States handle disaster recovery. We are not going to paper over it. Not now, not ever.

Mr. President, do not let the false hype from these sponsors fool you.

All this amendment does is to stop the proceeds for any land sales from being used to pay down the deficit. It doesn't stop land sales. In fact, just last year, the author of this amendment passed a law to dispose of Federal land in Colorado. If you are from a State like mine, where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land and restricts our ability to do anything, everything--develop land; build houses, which we desperately need; even to fund our schools, our search and rescue, our police services--then, all of a sudden, we are told that when land sales occur, as they routinely do, we cannot use that to pay down our $36 trillion debt.

This is disgraceful. We must vote it down. I encourage my colleagues to vote, emphatically, no.

Vote on Amendment No. 2107

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

Madam President, the State of Utah, last night, lost a dedicated public servant, a loving mother, and a trailblazing leader, as well as a friend to many: Mia Love returned home to her Heavenly Father at the age of 49 after a courageous battle with glioblastoma, leaving behind a legacy of faith, service, and an unshakable belief in the American dream.

Mia was a woman of many firsts. She was the first Haitian American elected to Congress. She was also the first Black Republican woman elected to Congress; a first generation American whose parents immigrated to this country with just $10 in their pockets but with the firm belief that America was and still is a land of opportunity.

She was never one to follow a script, at least not one written by someone else. Mia spoke her mind and never allowed others to define her. Mia knew that this country wasn't defined by where you start but by the opportunities you seize and the work you put in.

Her parents Marie and Jean Maxime Bourdeau fled the brutal dictatorship

of Francois Duvalier and came to the United States in search of freedom.

Born in Brooklyn on December 6, 1975, Mia grew up watching her parents' sacrifices and learning the value of hard work:

[T]he America I came to know growing up was filled with all

the excitement found in living the American dream, she once

wrote.

Her family moved to Connecticut in 1981, and later, while she was attending the University of Hartford, Mia's life would drastically change in two ways: She became a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and met Jason, then a young missionary for that church.

After Jason had completed his mission, the two would later reconnect, marry, and move to Utah, building a life together and raising three wonderful children: Alessa, Abigaile, and Peyton.

Utah quickly realized the natural-born leader in Mia. She cited that one of the driving factors in her decision to run for Congress was an episode in which the Supreme Court was considering a case to remove the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance. She believed that words mattered, and those words mattered in particular so much so that she got into the business of politics.

Her convictions carried her through her time on the Saratoga Springs City Council, throughout her tenure as mayor, and later in her historic election and service to Congress.

It quickly became apparent to everyone watching that Mia Love was a rising star in politics, not just throughout the State of Utah but throughout America, and we saw the beginning stages of that when Mia made the decision to run against a then-Democratic incumbent Congressman, Representative Jim Matheson, who is a member of one of Utah's most prominent political families.

The GOP field that year was crowded in the race to replace the Democrat, Matheson, with a Republican, but Mia Love delivered many powerful speeches that election season, including on the day of the Republican Convention, in 2012. Those speeches would make her an icon on the national Republican stage.

Her narrow loss in that race in 2012 would not deter her. If anything, her loss that year spurred her to action, returning her to the field with a reinvigorated sense of enthusiasm for pursuing office.

She ran for Congress again and was elected in 2014, defeating Democratic incumbent Doug Owens in one of the most competitive districts in the country. She would go on to defeat Owens a second time to win reelection in 2016.

Mia Love never backed down from a challenge, whether it was breaking barriers, standing up for constituents, or taking on difficult fights, like her relentless efforts to bring Josh Holt home after 2 years of unjust imprisonment in Venezuela.

When Josh Holt finally stepped off the plane in Salt Lake City, Mia was there to welcome him home. But that, of course, was the end and not the beginning of that process. She had actually been there the day before, when she met Josh in person for the first time. You see, Mia fought for 2 years to get this man out of a Venezuelan prison--a man she had never met, but she recognized him as a Utahn overseas in need of help.

I discovered that day, at the White House, while visiting with President Trump and Mia Love and a few others that were gathered there, that Mia had taken on this challenge and had been in constant contact with Josh Holt's family the entire time he was in prison. She would not let go until he was home, and she got him home.

Even when faced with her greatest personal challenge, she leaned on the same principles that guided her throughout her entire life: her faith, her optimism, and her refusal to give up.

``Don't underestimate the power of a positive attitude,'' she told CNN's Jake Tapper after her diagnosis, and she never, ever did give up.

Mia knew she had a role to play in our Nation's future. She was a fighter, a leader, and, above all, a woman of deep conviction who lived her life in service to her faith, to her family, and to her country.

I hope the Nation will join me in praying for Mia Love's family and remembering her as the friend, the mother, the trailblazer, and the patriot we all knew.

One of my favorite characteristics of Mia Love--one that surfaced in my every interaction with her--was her defiant positivity. No matter how hard things were in Washington at any given time, every single time I saw Mia, she had a smile on her face, and she had words of encouragement for me and for everyone around her.

Whether they agreed with her on a particular issue or not, she was there offering encouragement and a way forward. That is the kind of leader we all benefit from knowing and the kind of friend that I feel very blessed to have made.

May Mia Love rest in peace, and may the great things that she worked for in this life inspire the people of Utah--and all Americans, for that matter--to better serve each other, our families, and our country.

I yield the floor.