Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has been a long weekend up here. We have a lot of balls in the air. We have DHS funding. We have the SAVE Act and a war going on in the Middle East. All these are demanding our attention simultaneously.

I would like to shed a little light here. What makes this job generally challenging isn't the workload. I worked much harder as an obstetrician delivering a baby most every day, at least every other night if not every night of the every week. It is when you are trying to have serious policy conversations up here and you are up against misinformation, moving goalposts, and arguments that seem completely detached from the facts on the ground. The frustration can be exhausting. But today, I decided to start with the easy stuff.

Let's talk about Iran. First of all, I want to mourn the loss of the 13 soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice and let their Gold Star families know that we are grateful for the price their loved ones paid and that we will be there for them as they go through their mourning.

I want to praise the military, let them know I stand beside them, that our family stands beside them. My dad served. My brother served. I served. My son is serving. We support our military, and we salute the incredible job they are doing.

Now, as we all know, President Trump had four basic goals when the war started. Don't let the legacy media confuse you. The four basic goals are basically to end Iran's ability to have missiles and navy nukes and destroy Iran's ability to fund an armed terrorist.

I would say we are 90 percent there. I am not on the Intelligence Committee. I don't have the inside numbers. But it looks like to me we are 90 percent there. Now, I warn folks that the last 10 percent may be as hard as the first 90 percent. But they are doing an incredible job, and we want to do everything we can to make them successful so that we are safe for decades to come.

Next, I want to talk about the SAVE Act just for a minute. As you all know, the SAVE Act has three pillars. It wants to make sure that only citizens register to vote, it wants to make sure every voter has an ID, and we want some guardrails around mail-in ballots.

I think it is important to remember that 70 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Americans believe in voter ID, and it was just this week that Democrats voted against a stand-alone voter ID law.

And I do want to get back to some of the comments--the erroneous comments--that my colleague from Rhode Island made. You would think he would know better. He is a lawyer. He is a former attorney general.

Kansas did have a law that required you to be a citizen to vote. It did go to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court didn't say that was unconstitutional. What they said is: Look, if Congress wants it that way, if your State legislature wants it that way, then you need to legislate it.

And that is what we are doing right here. We are trying to make our elections safer, to make them more secure, to make sure that just American citizens vote.

So be careful--be careful what you are listening to up here. There are absolutely some very erroneous statements and conflation made by people that are smarter than I am when it comes to the law.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for his great leadership on this.

Last night, we had a moment of clarity in this Chamber. Senate Democrats were given the simplest possible test--a clean, standalone vote on voter ID, with nothing attached, with nothing complicated, and just one question: Do you believe only American citizens with a valid ID should decide American elections?

With nowhere to hide, they voted it down. In doing so, they told every American exactly where they stand.

Now, I understand their concerns about the provisions in the SAVE Act as to the proof of citizenship and stronger guardrails around absentee ballots, and those deserve honest debate; but there is simply no excuse for rejecting basic voter identification when 70 percent of Democrats-- their own voters, the people who sent them here--support it. There are 70 percent of Democrats who support voter ID. This vote was very clarifying; it was unmasking.

I want everyone who is at home tonight enjoying March Madness to think about your situation personally for a moment. You know what it is like to vote. You leave work. You go and vote. You stand in line. You fill out your ballot. You drive home. You are late for dinner. You did everything right. But on the way home, you think to yourself: Oh, my gosh. Somewhere out there, someone with no legal right to vote canceled my vote. My vote is gone--neutralized like it never happened.

Now, that should make every American angry regardless of your party. I think it is important to stop and think why--why people are concerned about this--and what we are actually dealing with here.

There are 50 million noncitizens living in this country. There are 50 million noncitizens living in this country--some are legal; some are illegal--out of 330 million. We have four States that are automatically registering people to vote when they interact with government services.

Let me say that again. Four States are automatically registering people to vote--regardless of their citizenship--when they interact with government services.

We have no reliable national system to verify citizenship at the ballot box. That is not fearmongering. That is just the truth. Maybe that is why 80 percent of Americans support voter ID. We can't get 80 percent of Americans to agree on whether a hamburger is better than chicken or if peanut butter is better than jelly, but 80 percent of Americans support voter ID. It is just common sense. Like I said earlier, 70 percent of Democrats agree with them as well.

Now, as I sat and listened to the arguments on the floor last night, we saw Democrats dodging and weaving like Muhammad Ali at the Thrilla in Manila, never once addressing voter ID itself. It was amazing to sit here and watch them squirm and refuse to answer the question at hand: Do they support voter ID or not?

So I had to pause, and we have plenty of time to think this weekend and ask a fundamental question. One of those questions we didn't get to talk about much in med school, but the question I ask myself is: What actually sustains a Republic? What are we really fighting for?

Well, I think, No. 1, at the top of this is safe and secure elections.

These are not a Republican issue, and they are not a conservative talking point. They are the beating heart of democracy itself.

So, last night, I sat down and penciled out what I believe are at least seven of the sacred pillars that uphold our entire system of self-government. If I could, I would like to walk through them because, when any one of these pillars is weakened, the whole temple of liberty trembles.

First and foremost are free and fair elections. The sacred cornerstone of our Republic are safe, secure, honest elections defended by integrity, universal suffrage, the secret ballot, and the peaceful transfer of power. This is the voice of the people itself. Without it, democracy does not stumble; it dies.

Next is the rule of law, the unyielding bedrock of equality under justice. No person, no party, no elite stands above the law. Lose a single pillar and every other freedom collapses.

Next is the separation of powers with checks and balances. We see that every day up here, the masterful architecture of liberty itself, forged by genius, to chain ambition and prevent any single branch from devouring our freedoms.

Next is an independent and impartial judiciary, the fearless bulwark of due process and constitutional fidelity, the final guardian of justice protecting the weak, the innocent, and the Constitution against the storms of fleeting majorities.

Next is the protection of fundamental rights and civil liberties, including free speech, a free press, assembly, association, and religion. These are sacred, God-given, and must burn undimmed forever.

Next is the sanctity of private property, the moral and economic foundation of human dignity.

Finally, political pluralism, transparency, accountability, and active citizenship participation.

Election integrity is not just one of these pillars. It is the foundation beneath all of them. Every debate in this Chamber, every vote, every piece of legislation, all of it rests on the assumption that the people in these seats were put here legitimately by the voters of their States.

I cannot get past the simple fact in this country that we have collectively decided you need a photo ID to board a plane. Remember, trust but verify. I walk up to the plane, and they all know I am Senator Roger Marshall, but they make me verify who I am.

When you check into a hotel, when you buy certain medications, when you open a bank account, when you pick up a prescription, when you apply for government benefits, you have to show an ID. But with your vote--the single most important thing you do as a citizen--we are told that asking for an ID is somehow voter oppression, which certainly has not been proven to be true in the multiple States that already have voter ID.

Again, it doesn't make sense, and the American people know it doesn't make sense. That is why 80 percent of them support voter ID.

I am willing to come to the table. There are parts of this bill that we can work out. I am not asking anyone to take it or leave it, but, first, answer the premise of this entire debate. We don't get anywhere if you don't recognize the importance of voter ID.

So here is the question: Do you believe only American citizens should decide American elections?

I am going to say it again: Do you believe only American citizens should decide American elections? Because until we get a straight answer to that, nothing else matters.

What gives us the best chance right now is getting 10 Democrats to come across the aisle and do the right thing. Again, if 70 percent of their own voters support voter ID, you would think 10 Senate Democrats would do the same thing; that somewhere in that caucus are 10 Senators who are willing to listen to the people who sent them here. If we could get just 10 of them to stand with us--to stand with their own constituents--on this one thing, then let's keep talking. Let's work out the rest together.

So I am going to say it a third time and a fourth time. I have no regrets in saying it again.

Last night, Senate Democrats voted against voter ID. Now, I have only heard two Democrats ever publicly--on this floor or anywhere--say they support voter ID, only 2 of the 47 Senate Democrats. The national media needs to ask the rest of them directly on camera: Why don't you support voter ID? And when they dodge and deflect, that answer should be put out for the rest of America to see. The American people deserve to know their vote counts. They deserve to know that the person casting the ballot next to them has every right to be there. They deserve a system they can trust.

We are going to keep fighting because the American people deserve better than the answer we got last night.

I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I rise today to say I support the SAVE America Act. And, yes, even if that means ending the only barely more than 100-year-old filibuster, the silent filibuster, I am still in favor of the SAVE America Act.

As we just voted to get on this bill, the Senate now begins a long and necessary process to advance the SAVE America Act. It is a straightforward bill that provides proof of citizenship to register to vote in our Federal elections, along with voter ID, and validating mail-in ballots.

The purpose of this bill is about one simple thing: making sure only duly registered American citizens cast ballots in American elections. It is about making sure our elections are secure. Now, this shouldn't be controversial. Voter ID is supported by the vast majority of Americans--Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike. Polls show that even around 70 percent of Democrats believe voter ID is common sense and essential for fair elections.

It is something most of us do every day. Show an ID to board a plane, to open a bank account, to buy alcohol, to get a hotel room, to purchase some prescriptions. Why should voting, the most sacred act in a Republic, be the only place where we don't ask for basic proof that you are eligible, that you are who you say you are?

Yet here we are, instead of passing this with overwhelming bipartisan support, maybe even by unanimous consent, we are forced into a drawn- out battle because no one on the other side will join us.

I thought a lot about this. You know what the real question should be? The real question that America should be asking their Senator: Why won't just 10 Democrat Senators cross the aisle and support simple voter ID?

We shouldn't be having to have filibustering debates or a thousand other rabbit holes we are about to go down. I would challenge those who, as Mark Twain once said, those who ``buy ink by the barrel,'' to ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why won't you support voter ID?

Now, my colleagues across the aisle, they are clever. They won't answer that question. They won't answer the simple question: Do you support voter ID? They won't commit to that one issue.

Instead, they are going to pivot, and they will tell you what other part of the bill they don't like. They will want to dive into Parliamentarian procedures and Senate lore and traditions, but they won't answer that one simple question: Do you support voter ID, just like 70 percent of your Democrat supporters do?

And if we can start there, if we start there that we both agree that we need voter ID, agreeing on that one issue, then maybe we could piece together a compromise on the rest of the bill. But when you reject even something as simple as voter ID, we should continue to ask them: Why won't you stand with the American people who want secure elections? Why won't you stand up and listen to the over 60 percent of Americans who are concerned about the integrity of our elections?

Now, we all know that noncitizens aren't supposed to vote. It is already illegal. But without proof of citizenship

at registration, we have no real safeguard. I could even hear President Reagan now, if he were here, talking to the American people: Trust but verify.

And that is what we want to do. That is what the SAVE America Act is all about. It fixes all these challenges. It requires documents like a passport, a birth certificate with ID, documents millions of Americans already have or can easily obtain. It protects our elections without disenfranchising a single eligible citizen.

Now, oh, by the way, to my colleagues across the aisle, if you have a concern or a better way to make our elections more secure and more fair let's move forward, and if that encourages and empowers every legal citizen the opportunity to vote, then I am with you. Let's work together to make our elections safe and secure.

This isn't, to me at least, about politics; it is about principles. It is about fighting for the American people who deserve elections they can trust. It is about making sure that my vote counts and isn't canceled by an illegal vote.

Our Republic depends on it. When the people lose faith that their vote counts and only citizens decide our future, we risk everything our Founders built.

I will wrap up by saying: I urge my colleagues across the aisle, listen to your constituents, listen to the 70 percent of Democrats who support voter ID. Come across the aisle. Let us pass the SAVE America Act quickly and get back to the people's business.

The American people are watching. They want secure elections. They want us to protect this Republic. Let's show them we can still work together on something so basic and so important.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every day the Democrats refuse to fund DHS, they choose politics over the safety and security of our Nation.

Mr. President, every day the Democrats refuse to fund DHS, they choose politics over the safety and security of our Nation. They continue to be the party of open borders and defund the police. To make it worse, they continue to refuse to meet. I am sitting here. It is like I am watching a divorce with two parents fighting over the kids. The Democrats say they want to meet, but they won't meet.

The White House sent them an offer 14 days ago. There has been no response. There has been no official response. There has been no communication back to the White House. I know that the chairperson of DHS Appropriations has reached out multiple times to her counterpart, but they refuse to sit down. It is the same way with the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. It is the same thing with our majority whip and our majority leader in that they have reached out through their counterparts and have asked to sit down. So someone is lying here, OK? Somebody is lying. I know that our appropriations folks would sit down this afternoon and work this out. I absolutely believe that they could.

That is why, in a moment, I am going to ask that we fund DHS for 2 weeks. That should be the goal. That should be the objective. I will almost guarantee, if calm minds sit in the same room and go through their asks on ICE, we will figure something out, but there are no negotiations if the other side won't sit down here. That is what America needs to know--that the Democrats have refused to respond to the White House. They have refused to negotiate person to person. So we are happy to have this debate right here and right now.

In a second, I am going to offer a clean 2-week CR to fully fund DHS. I am asking that we fund DHS for 2 weeks so as to protect American lives and then come back and talk, and let's work through our differences.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the substitute amendment No. 4353 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, again, we have asked to fund the DHS for 2 weeks. My colleagues have different ideas on what to do here, but I think that we absolutely owe it to our friends and neighbors back home in that our country is less safe today when we don't have DHS funded and that they ought to cooperate to keep us safe.

I am every bit as concerned about sleeper cells waking up today-- Iranian sleeper cells waking up today--and carrying out attacks on Americans. I am every bit as concerned about that as I am for the safety of our soldiers' lives.

So I appreciate the objector's concerns here, and I look forward to figuring out a way to get the DHS open.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, just 10 minutes ago, we offered to fund CISA and all of DHS. I am not going to leave behind the TSA. I am not going to leave behind the Coast Guard. I am not going to leave behind FEMA. I am not going to leave behind ICE and the Border Patrol.

My colleague mentioned his experience in the State Department, which I have great respect for. He knows that, if one Agency is closed down, it impacts everybody else in the State Department. He also should understand--and I know he does; I know that he understands this--that if you shut down a part of DHS, it impacts everybody else and that there is a domino effect of problems.

There is no one on the Democrat side who could argue that we wouldn't be safer if all of DHS were funded. No one could argue that we wouldn't be much safer as a nation if all of DHS were funded. But, instead, with all due respect, my colleagues across the aisle are turning to politics. They acknowledge the danger that this country is in, but they continue to choose politics over the safety and well-being of our Nation. Carving this up--carving the bill into separate pieces--makes no sense. It is a blatant attempt to distract from the fact that they are putting American lives at risk every single day.

I would ask my colleagues who are pushing this piecemeal approach and who voted against full DHS funding a dozen times--so Democrats have voted against DHS funding at least a dozen times, and they are going to vote against it again several times today. I have got to go back. This is the one place where we probably disagree on the facts. Again, with respect to my colleagues, there is no negotiating happening if you won't sit down with us. There is no negotiating happening if you won't return or at least speak back to the White House and say: This is what we object to. This is what we want.

What do you all want?

I would ask my colleagues across the aisle to commit, as soon as our next vote is over with, to sitting down with our approps team and working this out. But there is no negotiating happening, right, America? There are no negotiations happening. The Democrats will not sit down with us. It is because they like this political argument.

I want to just draw the roadmap here.

Under the previous White House, they let millions of people come across our border, unvetted--violent criminals, known terrorists--and these sleeper cells are now starting to open. Republicans took over. We secured the border. We empowered the Border Patrol, and we empowered ICE. We stopped the flow of illegal aliens and started deporting those criminals. Because of that, America is a safer place today--America is a much safer place today--but now you are trying to unwind everything and defund the police. This is the theme here. Democrats defund the police. They want open borders. Republicans are the party of law and order. We want secure borders. We want ICE to do their job.

The Democrats are now doing everything in their power to obstruct ICE's efforts to deport those threats. They have shut down funding for the entire Agency--an Agency that also has critical Departments for identifying threats and keeping American lives safe, like cyber security. This Agency is a frontline in cyber defense. Most Americans don't understand what the cyber defense Agency is, but it is a frontline in cyber defense. It protects our grids, our hospitals, water systems, and more from relentless threats--from China, Iran, and criminals. I know my colleague who has worked in the State Department knows that those threats aren't just theoretical.

Every day, we are having thousands of cyber attacks, but the Cybersecurity Agency does not operate in a vacuum. They depend upon the CBP and the TSA and FEMA and the Secret Service and the Coast Guard to function. Funding one Agency while starving the rest is like funding Patrick Mahomes. It is like giving him a lifelong salary--the best deal ever--but not giving him a good offensive tackle. We saw how that worked out in the last Super Bowl. You have to fund the whole Agency. Again, the White House sent an offer 2 weeks ago--crickets from the Democrats.

Why don't you respond to what the White House sent you? Why don't you sit down with our approps team?

With that, I object.

Mr. President, I would just ask my colleague to commit for your appropriations people to sit down face-to-face with our appropriations staff and our members this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every day the Democrats refuse to fund DHS, they choose politics over the safety and security of our great Nation. They continue to be the party of open borders and ``defund the police.''

This just in over the wires, Mr. President. Breaking: The FBI warned police departments in California that Iran wants to retaliate for American attacks by launching offensive drones against the west coast, according to an alert. That is from ABC News.

We can expect these threats to ramp up every day. Meanwhile, my colleagues across the aisle refuse to fund DHS. This is a political reason.

You know, folks back home ask me: Why don't the Democrats come to the table?

Well, that is just the issue--they won't even come to the table. The White House gave them a new deal, but the Democrats refuse to sit down with the White House and do any further negotiation.

There has been no negotiation any further for weeks now at the subcommittee level, at the committee chair level, at the whip level, at the leadership level with our leader and their leader. They refuse to sit down with us.

That is what America needs to understand. The Democrats won't even sit down to have this discussion. That is because it is a political issue that they happen to like.

But we are a party of law and order. We are a party and we are a nation that wants secure borders, and we want law and order.

Every day that they refuse to fund DHS, they are denying the urgent need to secure our borders against millions of unvetted, illegal immigrants and fentanyl floods killing Americans daily, proving they are the party of open borders.

Every day that they deny funding for DHS, they are denying funding for law enforcement heroes in DHS, embracing their ``defund the police'' agenda that lets criminals roam free and terrorize communities.

They are denying critical cyber security. People aren't getting this. DHS oversees the cyber security protections for our power grids and infrastructure, inviting attacks from enemies like Iran amid escalating threats.

They are denying resources for combating human trafficking and child exploitation through HSI, abandoning vulnerable victims to cartels they empowered with lax policies.

How do they not negotiate with this on the line, with American safety on the line?

They deny the economic hardship on union workers and Federal employees furloughed in their shutdown stunt, betraying blue-collar families they claim to champion.

They are denying the bipartisan legacy of DHS by blocking reforms and

oversight, allowing Executive overreach that weakens congressional checks and American sovereignty.

They are denying the blood on their hands from terror risk, migrant crimes, and disaster response failures, prioritizing radical politics over national security and lives.

Every day, it is the Democrats' fault that American lives are at risk. I ask them: Quit your games. Quit the politics. Come to the table and make America safe again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the Council Grove Republican, a remarkable smalltown newspaper serving the people of Council Grove, KS. With a population of roughly 2,200, Council Grove has been recognized as the smallest American town with its own daily newspaper.

Since 1872, residents of Council Grove have relied on this publication to keep

them informed about the news that directly impacts their community. The beloved newspaper has served as a trusted source for generations, covering everything from local politics to high school sports and community events.

While many smalltown newspapers across the country have closed their doors, the Council Grove Republican continues publishing editions every Monday through Thursday. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of Jan Sciacca, Christy Jimerson, and Kay Roberts, the publication will strengthen the Council Grove community for years to come.

I now ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Council Grove Republican and its staff for their commitment to informing and connecting the residents of Council Grove. Their efforts ensure that this historic publication remains a reliable source of local news and information.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor three deputies from the Osage County Sheriff's Office and one trooper from the Kansas Highway Patrol for their extraordinary courage and sacrifice in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence incident on November 15, 2025.

On that morning, these officers promptly responded to a call for help, demonstrating the selflessness required of those who wear the badge. Gunfire erupted within minutes of arriving at the scene, and Deputies Christian Moran, Corporal Clayton Hartpence, K-9 Deputy James Cason, and Trooper Adam Ellis were injured. All four were transported to hospitals for treatment, and the suspect was killed at the scene.

Over the ensuing months, these brave officers demonstrated tremendous strength and resilience in their recovery, supported by their families, fellow officers, medical professionals, and community. I am pleased to share that Deputies Moran, Hartpence, and Cason have returned to full active duty, and Trooper Ellis has also resumed service, once again answering the call to protect Kansans.

This incident reminds us that the dangers of policing are often unpredictable, and even routine calls can become life-threatening in an instant. These officers displayed courage under fire and an unwavering commitment to their duty. Their actions reflect the highest standards of law enforcement and public service.

I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Deputies Moran, Hartpence, Cason, and Trooper Ellis for their bravery, sacrifice, and dedication to the safety and well-being of Kansans. May we never forget the risks officers face each day in service to others.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark a solemn anniversary, one that continues to weigh heavily on the hearts of Kansans and families across this great Nation.

It was a year ago today that flight 5342 left Wichita, KS, en route to Washington, DC. As we all know, it never reached its destination. Sixty-seven lives were lost, amongst them, seven Kansans. Certainly, families were changed forever.

Today, we pause to remember those lives and honor their memory and to stand with the loved ones who carry this burden every day. Kansans grieve together. When tragedy strikes, we don't do it alone. We lean on each other, we lean on our faith, and we lean on our communities.

Today, we just want to remember those who were lost, remembering these were Kansans. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, parents, friends, and coworkers. And many were simply doing what so many of us do every day: traveling for work, for family, or to return home.

The best way we can honor those we lost is by remembering them and learning from the tragedy. We tried to ensure there was full accountability since this tragic accident. We tried our best to ensure complete transparency, and then take a look to the future to see what we could do for the safety of future flights. And, certainly, we owe it to their families and to the memory of these loved ones to pursue these improvements and never forget why it matters.

I recall a phone call early the next morning from the mayor of Wichita, KS, Mayor Lily Wu. She asked me--and we have a good friendship. She said, ``Roger, what can I tell the people of Wichita so they know that it is safe to travel on this flight?''

And she pointed out this is the busiest runway in all of America. She asked me: Why was a military helicopter in that airspace?

So I picked up the phone and I asked our Secretary of Transportation and our Secretary of Defense that same question: Why would a helicopter be in that airspace?

At that moment--or shortly minutes after that, they grounded any helicopters from being in that airspace.

Then what did the Senate do? I am so proud of what my colleagues have done. Senator Moran helped lead the charge on that--and many others. We passed the ROTOR Act out of the Senate, which would implement commonsense reforms to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again. I would hope that our colleagues on the House side would also pass this bill and we can get it to the President's desk.

Just in closing, here we are a year later, and we are here to remember, to honor, and try to figure out the best ways to move forward. But at the end of the day, we want the families of those back home to remember that we have not forgotten about their loved ones and that their lives did matter.

I think I would be remiss not to express gratitude to the first responders that we met that night out in the frigid cold, sacrificing their lives, diving into the chilly waters in hopes of finding someone whom they could save. Thanks to all of our first responders.

Finally, of course, we pray that God would continue to comfort the families who lost their loved ones.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want to say that I am optimistic that the Senator from Rhode Island and I agree on our goals here: that we both think the environment is important, that we both want to leave this world cleaner, healthier, and safer than we found it. I think those are great goals. And having children and grandchildren that love the great outdoors, I want to leave this world better than I found it.

But I guess where we disagree is, How are we going to get there? As a family, we have done projects like we planted over 20,000 trees on our land. We have done several water projects where we preserved wetlands. We have eliminated invasive species. We have worked with and invested in Ducks Unlimited, which does some incredible things for the environment.

What is interesting, as we think about what are the biggest impacts on the environment and what the future holds, actually, the No. 1 predictor is the world economy--that if we have a strong world economy, the carbon footprint is going to be less. So we think about: Well, why is that? And we should answer the question: Why is that so? If there is a strong world economy, then the infrastructure can be built for energy production with a smaller carbon footprint.

I think of building pipelines for natural gas, for instance, as opposed to all these countries that are still burning coal, that are burning wood and diesel fuel, heating fuel. I can't even believe that still, in America, we are burning heating fuel because we won't let natural gas pipelines go across certain areas. So a strong world economy is one of the biggest impacts on our environment's future.

And so what impacts the world economy? I think one of the things is energy. The world needs energy that is not only affordable, but it needs to be reliable and clean. It has to be all those things. And we can do that. But if you have energy production that is not affordable, that is not reliable, then people aren't going to use it, and countries aren't going to use it.

So we need this bridge. We need this bridge, and I think the solution long term is probably some form of nuclear energy. I think it is probably small modular reactors, which have zero carbon footprint. They are walkaway safe. They are not quite ready for prime time, but we are getting closer every year. And I think, within 5 to 10 years, we will have these small modular reactors powering communities and powering data centers and all those great things.

I think we have to keep in mind that it is so expensive to transport electricity. If you transport natural gas to make energy, it is a tenth of the cost that it is to transport electricity. So, again, we have to think about the equation as well as clean, but we also need to think about affordable and reliable.

I think the challenge for those of us who are actually scientists is to go back and think about all the predictions that have never, never come true from the climate alarmists. In 2013, Peter Wadhams said we would be ice free by 2015. In 2007, the IPCC said the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035; it was later retracted. In 2019, everyone's climate alarmist favorite, AOC, said the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address the climate change. We are not quite to 2031, but we are getting there.

It doesn't do any good to be an alarmist. We need a practical approach to our environment--a practical, pragmatic, economical approach--and I look forward to the day when my friends across the aisle want to sit down with Republicans and have a real conversation about how we get there.

And, again, I am just committed to leaving this world cleaner, healthier, and safer. I don't believe that we can go along with my colleague from Rhode Island's resolution here, and for that reason I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.

Mr. President, I am so excited to be here today. I am going to talk about one of my favorite--favorite--topics, eating. But my mouth is a little dry here, so I want to take a moment and enjoy some whole milk.

You know, I am not the only one that loves eating. America loves eating. If I can share a story with my fellow Senators, I always thought that I was my grandma's favorite grandchild, and I thought it was because I was always the one that was the first to raise my hands for seconds. Now, I don't know if I was her favorite, but certainly I was one of her favorites.

The interesting thing was, we couldn't gain weight, though. Despite eating seconds and an active lifestyle, nobody gained weight. We were all in a good weight area.

And what did we eat? We ate real food. What did that real food look like? Well, we had whole milk for breakfast and for lunch and for supper. We had bacon and eggs in the morning. For lunch, we would have one of the other proteins: turkey or chicken or ham--but vegetables from our garden. That was it. Fresh vegetables, and we had, I think, four or five different fruit trees: a pear tree, a peach tree, several others. So we would have fresh fruits as well. And then for dinner--we called it supper--beef was the main dish always, but still with more fresh fruits, maybe some potatoes, some new potatoes. And, yes, we put bacon in the new potatoes, but all my grandparents lived a long healthy life on those diets as well.

You know, on a Saturday night--I don't want to forget. Once or twice a month, on a Saturday night, we would finish work early, at 7 or 8 p.m., and we would make homemade ice cream with that cream that we had from our own dairy herd.

And then the other piece that people forget about is we had canned food--not in a metal can, but they were in bottles. And what that canned food did is it was easier to digest. That fresh taste was locked into it.

And, very simply, real food tastes better. I would hardly recognize the taste of some of the fruits and vegetables today. When I was growing up on our family farm, the strawberries melted in your mouth. The green beans, potatoes all had a very fresh taste. The cantaloupe, the watermelon--you would have thought they were adding sugar to it.

But today's world, unfortunately, we eat from a box. We eat from a sack, and that is not real food. We did not have any of these ultraprocessed foods in my diet growing up.

Now, I would like to talk a little bit more about eating, about eating real food, and share the new nutritional guidelines released yesterday by USDA, HHS, and FDA. Guess what their advice is. Their advice is to eat real food, the same food that I was raised on.

Now, what I am excited about is--look, America was so hungry, so hungry for a new food pyramid that we flipped it. We flipped the food pyramid, and we made a triangle out of it.

The big emphasis here is common sense and eating real food. And the big winner is going to be American families. It is going to be our youth, especially where we are seeing an epidemic.

And I just want to give a shoutout to President Trump's leadership, to Secretary Kennedy, to Secretary Rollins, to FDA Director Dr. Makary, Dr. Oz at CMS, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at NIH for providing the real science--and all the people that worked so hard to put together these nutritional guidelines.

And for all you naysayers out here, the science is never settled. I don't absolutely agree with everything on this pyramid as a physician, but these are incredible guidelines and huge steps in the right direction. And, again, use a little common sense as you go forward.

For too long, we overcomplicated nutrition. We buried families in confusing charts, changing rules, and special-interest science. And while all of this was happening, America got sicker.

Ninety percent of American dollars--healthcare dollars--are being spent on chronic diseases. Seventy percent of Americans have a chronic disease. A third of our children are prediabetic or diabetic. We simply can't continue to live in that direction.

We were being told the last 20, 30 years to eat food from factories rather than foods from the farm. And these ultraprocessed foods were marketed as healthy. Well, people followed the advice in good faith, and they got sicker rather than healthier.

Real food is food you recognize when you see it. Most of the time, it is not coming from a box. It is not in a bag. Sometimes, it is in a can; sometimes, it is not. You have to be careful. You have to look at the can.

Did they add sugar to it? Did they add salt to it? Then I would probably turn away from it.

It is fresh or frozen. Real food--healthy food--is fresh or frozen.

I am so glad that the SNAP program is now going to require all the grocery stores to double the amount of opportunities of choices that you are going to have from this real food selection.

Real food is protein. It is whole grains, and it is healthy fat. The previous pyramid probably required that 50 percent of your calories come from carbohydrates. We know that was probably a big mistake. Instead, we are going to push more proteins.

People say: What is the new guideline talking about?

It is that same diet I was raised on back at our farm. It is the same food your grandparents and my parents--my mom--made for us.

Look, long before we knew what MAHA moms were, my grandmothers were MAHA grandmothers, and my mother was a MAHA mom. And my wife was cooking MAHA food, as well. They seldom opened a box. If you are opening a box to cook, think twice about it.

Another good option, as we discussed what the new guidelines are, is putting water back where it belongs. I would argue water, whole milk-- those are your one-two drink alternatives, and certainly not sugary sodas. We all should be drinking more water. If you want to drink something besides water, I would suggest whole milk. A big point about whole milk to me is it satisfies one's appetite longer. You drink a sugary soda, and you are hungry again in 10 minutes. Your sugar is bouncing up and down. But milk has protein in it, and it is going to satisfy your hunger for longer, not to mention that it is full of protein, vitamins, and minerals.

Let's take a look at this graph, our ``Eat Real Food'' graph, the new dietary guidelines. I think it is interesting. The foods down here aren't necessarily bad, but you should maybe eat less of them and more of these. As you go up the triangle, these are the more healthy foods.

This is real simple. Down in the bottom of this, it looks like we have whole grains. We have oatmeal and whole grain wheat from Kansas to make bread. Then I believe this is rice and beans and nuts and bananas--more nuts, seafood, butter. Butter is another one of those full-fat foods derived from whole milk.

Then we have a bunch of fruit. We have more seafood and yogurt, another milk product, as well.

And, of course, there are your vegetables grown in the garden. Here are some frozen vegetables. Frozen vegetables are cheaper but really close to the nutritional value of fresh out of the garden.

It looks like chicken and turkey. You probably have made those. The guidelines here are for a protein source. The cheeses--cheese is a great healthy source of food for you. And, of course, there is the American hamburger. Americans can't get along without hamburger.

This is my favorite one. This is absolutely my favorite one. I am going to call this a T-bone steak. Most of you know that a T-bone steak not only has a bone in it, but on one side, of course, is the KC strip. That is a Kansas City strip. Some mistakenly call it a New York strip, but this is actually a KC strip, as well. And on this side, there is a little bit more of a flavorless type of meat. I like this KC strip here.

So, again, the whole concept is what? It is to eat some of these, but more of these and a lot of these--basically, substituting more protein for less carbohydrates.

We spend a lot of time here on the floor talking about healthcare reform. But this is the biggest day in healthcare reform we are going to see

in America. We are spending $5 trillion a year--my friends across the aisle are quick to point out that America is getting sicker and that we are spending more and more money on healthcare. Yes, we have all sorts of new toys and new treatments available and new drugs out there, but if you want me to impact the true cost of healthcare--whether you are getting your insurance through your workplace, whether you are on ObamaCare, or if you are on Medicaid or Medicare--if you want me to save the Federal Government's budget, we need to fix the cost of healthcare. Getting back on a truly healthy, ``eating real food'' type of diet will impact more than any type of legislation that will ever be done up here.

This nutrition needs to go back to the center of our healthcare. Eating healthy food should be at the center of our healthcare reforms, not necessarily all these policies that we are arguing about.

Yes, we can keep throwing money at it. Yes, we can start giving our youth the latest GLP-1 drug. And rather than giving them a healthy diet, we can start treating them with a drug and give them all some type of drug addiction.

This new nutritional guideline is a win for our youth. I am especially excited to see what we are going to do in the SNAP programs as well. When we get food at our senior centers, I think there are more healthy choices out there.

We have to think of ways to make it more affordable and things the Federal Government can do to help make these nutrients more affordable as well. I just can't emphasize enough that the best medicine in the world is a healthy diet. This is what making America healthy again looks like. It is all going to start with nutrition.

I can't help but add that Americans probably need to do a little bit more walking and get outside a little bit more as well.

Again, I will finish up and say I am ecstatic that the Trump administration has taken this bold, decisive action and is breaking with decades of failed thinking. We are finally putting America on a realistic path to a healthier living that puts eating real food at the center. This is a huge win for the American families and the farmers who grow the best medicine in the world.

Look, eating real food delivers real results. Let's make America healthy again.

I have to do just one more thing. Even ice cream is healthy when eaten in small amounts. I want to add my favorite sweet out here and say it is OK to have a little ice cream. We need to have a lot more protein.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Kansas City, KS, Police Department Narcotics Unit and Task Force officers for their exemplary service in protecting others from dangerous, illicit substances.

On December 30, 2025, the KCKPD conducted one of the largest drug busts in the city's history, seizing 120 pounds of methamphetamine, 8 firearms, and arresting 4 individuals.

This marked the culmination of a successful year for the Kansas City, KS Police Department, during which officers seized 1,305 pounds of methamphetamine, 3,540 pounds of marijuana, 673 pounds of cocaine, 1.5 pounds of heroin, 30 pounds of powder fentanyl, 12,761 fentanyl pills, 375 firearms, and $1,224,507.

Under the leadership of Chief Karl Oakman, the KCKPD has adopted an effective approach to responding to the rampant fentanyl epidemic. By responding to every overdose incident, whether fatal or nonfatal, the police department is able to identify and dismantle drug trafficking networks at their source.

As part of the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas--HIDTA-- program, the KCKPD coordinates with Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement partners to combat drug trafficking in critical regions of the United States.

Fentanyl alone has killed tens of thousands of Americans, and it is the leading cause of death for young adults. By seizing these lethal substances, the KCKPD Narcotics Unit and Task Force officers have prevented the deaths of countless individuals. Keeping these drugs off the streets is crucial to public safety, and I commend the police department's commitment to protecting the health of its community.

I now ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the KCKPD Narcotics Unit and Task Force officers for their outstanding service and tireless efforts in combating the flow of deadly drugs into our Nation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 249, S. 1626.

I ask unanimous consent that the Scott of Florida amendment to the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to; that the committee-reported amendment, as amended, 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 6; 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 the Simmons nomination; further, that the Senate execute the order of December 18 with respect to the Simmons nomination at 11:30 a.m.; further, that the Senate recess following disposition of the Simmons nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, at 2:20 p.m., the Senate execute the order of December 18 with respect to the Bailey nomination.