Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, in a time of great division in our country, college sports are one of the last institutions in America that still bring people together.

But across the country, fans see that institution falling apart. Rosters are being rebuilt every year through an unrestricted transfer market. Schools are locked in an arms race of ever-increasing NIL spending. Coaches spend as much time recruiting their own players as they do preparing for opponents. Eligibility rules are no longer determined by clear standards, but instead by lawsuits, court orders, and last-minute injunctions.

Historic rivalries are disappearing. Athletes who have already competed professionally are seeking to return and play college sports instead.

The wealthiest conferences continue to consolidate power and resources, while many mid-major programs increasingly serve as feeder systems for the sport's biggest brands.

What makes college sports special is not simply the games themselves. It is the connection between schools, athletes, students, alumni, and communities. Yet without clear rules and a sustainable framework, the very tradition that generations of Americans have cherished is at risk of being lost.

I did not come looking to insert Congress into college sports. College sports came to Congress begging for Congress to act because changing the law is the only way to fix the legal chaos.

Congress, unfortunately, helped create the legal environment in which college sports operate now. Federal antitrust, broadcasting, and interstate commerce laws shape what schools, conferences, and governing bodies can do.

If college sports are not allowed to enforce basic rules because of laws that Congress has already written, then Congress has a responsibility to fix the problem.

We need Congress to act. If we do nothing, the current trajectory will concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands and will widen the gap between the richest programs and everybody else.

In a few years, we will likely lose dozens of historic football and basketball programs, not to mention thousands of Olympic sports at colleges dependent on revenue from football and basketball.

Is that what our country wants, to allow Federal law to kill off everyone but the 30 to 40 universities with football programs that will basically become a mini NFL, and everyone else gets left behind?

To save college sports, we need a bipartisan solution that will be able to garner 60 votes here in the Senate and pass the House. Unfortunately, the bill from Senator Tuberville is not able to achieve 60 votes.

Senator Tuberville is a friend. He loves college sports. He cares about it deeply. He spent a lifetime inspiring, coaching, teaching young men and women athletes.

The provisions in his bill are, in significant respect, reflected in the bipartisan bill that Senator Cantwell and I have negotiated. The bipartisan bill we have negotiated limits, as a general rule, one transfer per athlete. It does create exceptions: if a coach leaves, a program is canceled, or a student-athlete is the victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment.

Likewise, Senator Tuberville's proposed 5 years of eligibility is in the bipartisan bill.

The difference is that there are no Democrats supporting Senator Tuberville's bill. We have just seen a leading Democrat, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, object to Senator Tuberville's bill.

The way the Senate operates, you have got to get 60 votes. If you can't get 60 votes, your bill can't pass. That means, even though I support many of the elements of Senator Tuberville's bill--and they are included in our bill--Senator Tuberville's bill is not going to become law.

The question then is: Do you want any Federal solution?

I will say, when Senator Cantwell and I rolled out a bipartisan bill, many observers were shocked. They didn't believe this place could operate. That was the result of 3 years of negotiation. The last several months Senator Cantwell and I sat in a conference room 6 to 8 hours a day negotiating provision by provision.

You know, many of the criticisms Senator Tuberville put of the bill, I agree with. It is not perfect. I had to make concessions that I didn't like making. And, you know what, Senator Cantwell made concessions that she didn't like making. And that is the only way to get a bipartisan bill that

can actually pass this body and become law.

I will say the bipartisan bill that we filed has seen overwhelming support, virtually every conference in America has publicly supported the bill. The bill is supported by: the ACC, the Big 12, the American Conference, Conference USA, the Sun Belt Conference, the Missouri Valley Conference, the SWAC, the MAC, the Pac-12, the Patriot League, the MEAC, Big Sky, the Horizon League, the Ohio Valley Conference, the Western Athletic Conference, the Big West, Metro Atlantic Athletic, Summit League, the West Coast Conference, and the Mountain West all have endorsed this bill. The NFL, the National Football League, has endorsed this bill. The NFL Players Association has endorsed this bill. The NBA Players Association has endorsed this bill. The U.S. Olympic Committee has endorsed this bill.

Coach Nick Saban, probably the most legendary college football coach in America, has explicitly endorsed this bill. Coach John Calipari, one of the most legendary basketball coaches, has endorsed this bill. Coaches all across the country have endorsed this bill. The American Football Coaches Association has endorsed this bill.

Why have we seen such broad support? Because this bill is the only train that is leaving the station. Senator Tuberville said, and I wrote this down: College sports is facing a five-alarm fire.

I agree with him. It is. So the choice this body has--if it were up to me, I would happily pass Senator Tuberville's bill, but it is not up to me. To pass this body, you have to get at least 60 votes. And the only bill that has any prospect of passing into law and fixing the problem is the bipartisan bill that has been negotiated with Senator Cantwell and myself and also with Senator Schmitt, another Republican, and Senator Coons, another Democrat.

If it is a five-alarm fire, we are all faced with a choice: Do we do nothing or do we accept an imperfect solution, a compromise that nonetheless gives the certainty that the conferences, the commissioners, the coaches are desperately asking for?

Right now across America, there are more than 500,000 college athletes who compete. If we don't act, hundreds of thousands of those college athletes will lose scholarships and lose the opportunity to go to college. That would be tragic.

So I invite my friend Senator Tuberville, who, as I said, cares deeply and passionately about college sports, to join with us in trying to find a way that Congress can actually for once address and fix a problem.

Mr. President, once again, Democrats have an amendment that does not mention the words ``border security,'' that has nothing to do with the topic on the floor today, but there is also an old adage that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

The largest super PAC in America in 2024 was Future Forward. That was Kamala Harris' super PAC. Right behind that, you have the Senate Majority PAC. That is the PAC--Kamala Harris' had $559 million, and the Senate Majority PAC helping elect Senate

Democrats had $390 million. The House Majority PAC had $260 million. The WinSenate PAC had $311 million. And even Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) supporting Senator Sanders, spent millions. We don't know how much because it is dark money and not disclosed.

I will also note, at every Congress, I have introduced a bill called the SuperPAC Elimination Act that allows unlimited individual contributions directly to campaigns and requires immediate 24-hour disclosure. Not a single Democrat has ever been willing to join with me in that.

Point of Order

The pending amendment No. 5451 contains matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and, thus, is extraneous. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I rise today to share the story of a young man who didn't have the opportunity to share his own story.

His name was Trey Carlock, and for years, he struggled in silence with the trauma and the wounds inflicted by someone he once trusted at a summer camp he attended for many years. So let me share Trey's story.

Trey was a young man who loved the Lord. He loved his family. He loved his friends. And he proudly resided in my home State of Texas. As a young boy, Trey attended summer camp in Branson, MO, where he and dozens of other campers were sexually assaulted by the camp director.

And as an adult, Trey sought accountability. He filed a lawsuit against the camp he attended in an effort to hold the camp responsible and to seek justice, not only for himself but for others.

But instead of justice, Trey was offered a settlement, and that settlement came with a nondisclosure agreement which mandated Trey's silence. After years of fighting to recover from abuse, Trey's settlement reminded him that his voice could be bought, that his story could be buried, that the price of compensation was silence.

Trey once told his therapist ``They will always control me, and I'll never be free.'' Not long after, Trey died by suicide. He was only 28 years old. No child who has endured sexual abuse should be forced to carry that horror in silence. No child should be forced to walk alone in that pain. And no child should be forced to accept agreements that protect the abuser.

In Trey's case, and, tragically many others, nondisclosure agreements are used to shield the abuser. Children are the most vulnerable and most precious members of our society. As legislators, as parents, as human beings, we have a moral obligation to stand between children and those who would harm them. That is why I have introduced TREY'S Law.

TREY'S Law will protect, defend, and support children who are the victims of sexual assault. It ensures that nondisclosure agreements cannot be used to silence minors who have endured abuse. At the same time, the bill preserves the confidentiality of settlement amounts and allows victims themselves to insist on privacy if they so choose. What it does not allow is the forced silencing of victims in order to protect abusers.

TREY'S Law establishes a clear national baseline: no NDA may be used to silence the disclosure of child sexual abuse. And importantly, this legislation does not prevent the States from going further. Versions of TREY'S Law have already passed in Texas, in Alabama, in Missouri, Tennessee, California, and other States have also taken steps to prohibit the use of NDAs in cases of child sexual abuse. These are meaningful steps in the right direction, but we owe it to Trey and every victim to ensure that they have the right to speak about their experiences, they have the right to rely on those around them, that they know their stories will not be silenced, and, most importantly, that they are not alone.

In just a moment, I will propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass TREY'S Law to make sure that no other children feel controlled or defeated by the system that is supposed to deliver them justice.

TREY'S Law has already passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and I want to thank Senators Gillibrand and Britt and my colleagues on the entire Judiciary Committee for working on this legislation and helping us push this across the finish line.

And with that, I yield the floor to Senator Britt.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Britt for her kind remarks and for her passionate leadership fighting alongside me to get this passed.

If and when the Senate passes this, it will be a victory for Trey, a victory for his sister Elizabeth, who has been tirelessly fighting to honor the memory and legacy of her brother, a victory for the entire Carlock family, and a victory for kids who tragically have been the victims of sexual assault across the country.

After the Senate passes this, I hope the House takes this legislation up quickly, passes it, and puts it on the President's desk to be signed into law.

Mr. President, therefore, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 413, S. 3966.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the House is currently holding a number of Senate-passed bills without action, including legislation I have introduced and passed through the Senate and measures led by many of my colleagues. Right now, there are six bills that I have passed out of the Senate that are sitting in the House awaiting action. Nearly every bill that the House is refusing to move is overwhelmingly bipartisan and noncontroversial.

Of the 87 bills that have been signed into law in this Congress, nearly twice as many originated in the House as in the Senate. This imbalance is both unreasonable and unacceptable.

I understand that my colleague from Kentucky is interested in getting yet another House bill, H.R. 1276, passed today, and I appreciate the diligence and effort he has devoted to this legislation affecting property in Paducah, KY. But I cannot let this bill become law until there is resolution on either House or Senate inaction.

For instance, Senator Paul is, right now, singlehandedly blocking nearly 20 bipartisan bills that have passed the Senate Commerce Committee from getting through this Chamber. Among them are S. 28, Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, my bill with Senator Cantwell; S. 196, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act, by Senator Blackburn; S. 244, the ROUTERS Act, by Senator Blackburn; S. 245, the Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2025, by Senator Hickenlooper; S. 246, the Interstate Transport Act of 2025, by Senator Budd; S. 258, the TORNADO Act, by Senator Wicker; S. 278, the Kids Off Social Media Act, my bill with Senator Schatz; S. 281, the TICKET Act, by Senator Schmitt; S. 289, the Youth Poisoning Protection Act, by Senator Duckworth; S. 314, the Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, by Senator Klobuchar; S. 315, the AM Radio Act, by Senator Markey and myself; S. 434, the Space Commerce Advisory Committee Act, by Senator Peters; S. 580, the Combating CCP Labor Abuses Act of 2025, by Senator Peters; S. 841, the Romance Scam Prevention Act, by Senator Blackburn; and S. 2357, the Young Fishermen's Development Extension Act, by Senator Sullivan.

One of these bills, the Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act, or ``Spy Fridge,'' as it is known, I have authored along with Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell and Senators Curtis and Warnock. It very simply requires the packaging or listing of an internet-connected appliance to disclose if the product has a camera or recording capability.

Many Americans do not realize that a growing number of these so- called smart household devices and appliances include cameras and/or microphones that can record them and have the ability to transmit their data without their knowledge. In other words, when Americans buy a new refrigerator, they shouldn't have to worry about their refrigerator recording the conversations with their spouse while they are standing in the kitchen or taking a video recording of them in their own home. Americans deserve to know, at a minimum, if their appliances are doing this.

By my count, Senator Paul has blocked 16 pieces of bipartisan legislation that have been considered and approved by the Commerce Committee. I understand that he has a philosophical objection to all these bills, although I have to say that I am more than a little befuddled by his opposition to the ``Spy Fridge'' bill given his leadership, which I have stood with him on, fighting against unauthorized surveillance. He may be the only libertarian on planet Earth that is fighting to have more surveillance; fighting to have private, intimate conversations in your home recorded without your knowledge. That is certainly not consistent with any libertarianism I have ever heard.

But I will say, I am willing to forgo my objection. I am willing to step back and work with Senator Paul to pass his legislation, despite this widespread blocking of bills, if he will agree, quite reasonably, to lift his hold on the ``Spy Fridge'' bill. That is a reasonable compromise. Ninety-nine Senators support the ``Spy Fridge'' bill. He is the only one who opposes it.

And I would also welcome working with the House to ensure that more Senate bills--good bills--receive timely consideration and are passed out of the House in exchange for lifting my own holds on other House- approved measures.

And so if you are home in Paducah, KY, I want to explain what is about to happen right now. In just a moment, I am going to ask for unanimous consent, and then I want you to listen to Senator Paul because he has total and complete control over whether his legislation about the Boys & Girls Club in Paducah, KY, passes or not.

If Senator Paul says the magic words ``I object,'' then understand that his bill and my bill both will fail to pass. If he decides we can be reasonable and work together, if he simply doesn't say the words ``I object,'' then his bill will pass and go to President Trump's desk for signature, and my bill protecting you and your home from being surveilled and spied upon will likewise pass and go to President Trump's desk for signature. So Senator Paul has a choice: pass two bills or zero bills.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent be modified; that the Senate also proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 64, H.R. 859; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would note a couple of things.

No. 1, Senator Paul said libertarians only object to the government surveilling them. That is not what I have ever heard from a libertarian. I am not a full-throated libertarian like Senator Paul is, but I am easily one of the most libertarian Members of this body, and I have very strong libertarian leanings. I have spent 14 years in the Senate fighting to protect civil liberties.

The libertarians I have talked to, the Texans I have talked to are not particularly interested in giant corporations spying on them either. The government is not the only bad actor. By objecting, what Senator Paul is saying is that giant corporations can come into your home--can come into your kitchen, can come into your bedroom--can tape- record the most intimate conversations you have, can videotape you, and they don't even have to tell you they are doing that.

Understand, my bill is not prohibiting them from surveilling; it is simply saying: Tell the consumers before you tape-record them or video them.

I thought it was interesting that Senator Paul says: Gosh, this doesn't sound like a very Republican bill.

Well, there are 535 Members of the U.S. Congress, and 534 of them agree with this bill. The only one that does not is Senator Paul. And the result of it is that giant corporations are empowered to spy on you without you ever knowing it.

He secondly mentioned the a.m. radio for every vehicle. Listen, a.m. radio--I have led the fight for 14 years against censorship, against silencing political speech. Censorship comes from government, but it also comes from giant corporations, whether Big Tech, which has been egregious in censoring free speech, or in this instance the giant auto companies that colluded together to remove a.m. radio because a.m. radio, among other things, has been a haven for free speech. Rush Limbaugh would never have been heard in America without a.m. radio; Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity.

Why do the giant corporations want to take a.m. radio down? Because they want to silence conservative speech. Yet Senator Paul has objected to that bill as well. He is perfectly happy or at least--I don't know if he is happy or not, but his objection suggests he is willing to do nothing to stop corporations from muzzling conservatives and making it impossible for conservatives to speak, for libertarians to speak.

I think putting everything in the control of giant corporations is the very opposite of being a libertarian.

I want to finally speak to the folks in Paducah, KY. Look, I think this bill is a reasonable bill. I would like to see it pass. I have told the author of it in the House, Representative Comer--he is a good friend. He and I have worked together on a number of matters. I am willing to work with him cooperatively to find a way forward for this bill to pass.

It could have passed today. All that Senator Paul had to do was not say the words ``I object,'' and this bill on Paducah, KY, would have passed the Senate, gone to the White House, and President Trump would have signed it.

By the way, at the same time, you would be protected against being surveilled in your home without your knowing it.

But, unfortunately, Senator Paul decided to object across the board, and so at least today, nothing has passed.

Accordingly, I object.

Madam President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Andrew Davis of Texas to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas.

Andrew Davis was born and raised in Texas. And after graduating from Lubbock High School, Andrew attended Rice University and, later, Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar.

He then went on to clerk for two Federal judges: Judge Sidney Fitzwater, former chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, and Judge Reena Raggi of the Second Circuit.

As an assistant solicitor general of Texas, Andrew represented the State of Texas before the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, handling some of the most consequential legal questions facing the State.

After his work as an assistant solicitor general, Andrew came to Washington to serve on the Senate Judiciary as my chief counsel. I worked for years with Andrew. He is a man of integrity, discipline, and commitment to the rule of law.

He has deep respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and he handled sensitive matters with precision and humility. His preparation was meticulous, and his counsel was highly trusted.

President Trump nominated Andrew Davis because he embodies what we should demand of every Federal judge: independence, seriousness, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

A Federal judgeship is a calling of public service, one that requires patience, restraint, and an enduring commitment to the Constitution. Andrew has answered that call time and time again, choosing public service over easier paths in private life.

Andrew Davis will serve the Western District of Texas with honor. He will be faithful to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I strongly support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commend the employees of American Airlines on the remarkable occasion of its 100th anniversary of service. For a century, American Airlines has played a pivotal role in connecting communities, strengthening the U.S. economy, and advancing the aviation industry at home and abroad. Headquartered in Fort Worth, TX, American Airlines plays a key role in driving the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area's rapid development. As one of the State's largest private employers, American Airlines contributes to economic activity, with a multiplier effect across tourism, trade, and local businesses.

Today, the airline operates more than 6,000 daily flights, serving nearly 350 destinations across more than 60 countries, and safely transporting more than 200 million passengers each year. Throughout its history, American Airlines has been at the forefront of innovation and industry leadership. One example of the airline's ingenuity and leadership was the introduction of its AAdvantage program, the world's oldest and largest frequent-flyer program, which has transformed the way Americans travel, allowing millions to use its services and travel across the globe.

American Airlines currently operates 10 airport hubs, the largest of which is at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. This hub drives Texas tourism, business travel, investment, and international connectivity, contributing billions of dollars annually to both the regional economy and the State of Texas.

American Airlines has distinguished itself through a commitment to safety. It leads the industry in equipping its mainline fleet with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast In (ADS-B In), enhancing pilots' situational awareness in the national airspace system. The airline's entire fleet of more than 300 Airbus A321 aircraft is equipped with ADS-B In, more than any other airline worldwide. Reaching 100 years of continuous service is a milestone achieved by only a select few companies, and it is a testament to the vision, leadership, and hard work of the generations of employees who have made American Airlines what it is today.

On behalf of the people of Texas and in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I congratulate American Airlines' employees on this historic achievement and extend my best wishes to them for the company's continued success in Texas in the years ahead.

Mr. President, later this year, American citizens across the country will exercise one of their most valuable and sacred rights: the right to vote--a right that has been hard-earned and fought for from the founding generation of our Republic to today.

How was the right to self-government, the right to vote secured? It was secured by American colonists who rejected the royal edict and hurled tea into Boston Harbor, declaring ``no taxation without representation.'' It was secured by ordinary men who seized their muskets and fired the shot heard around world at Lexington and Concord. It was secured by Continental troops who marched to the fields of Saratoga and the coastline of Yorktown, repeating those immortal worlds of Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death.''

For nearly 250 years, Americans have cast their votes for leaders at every level--from local officials, to State representatives, to the President of the United States. Every Member of this body is here today because we were elected fairly and honestly and given a mandate by our constituents to serve them here in Washington and to protect the liberties and freedoms our Founders fought to preserve.

The power of the ballot box determines the course of our Nation, the history we are writing, and the freedoms we continue to defend. And while no single ballot in isolation may seem decisive, together, the votes of the American people shape the course of our Nation and the course of history.

But it is worth remembering that our voting system did not begin as it exists today. When this Nation was founded, the right to vote was limited, and over time, through debate, sacrifice, a bloody Civil War, and constitutional amendment, the right to vote was quite properly expanded. The 15th Amendment prohibited denying the vote based on race. The 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. At every stage of our constitutional amendment process, the goal was the same: to ensure that the right to vote belonged to American citizens and that it was exercised with integrity.

While our system has evolved, one principle has remained constant: Elections reflect the will of the American people. For a right so sacred, for a privilege so hard fought, it is shocking, it is tragic how neglected and vulnerable the protection of our elections has become.

That is why I am here today on this very floor urging the Members of this body to pass the SAVE America Act. It says that when you register to vote in a Federal election, you must provide proof that you are a citizen of the United States and you must provide photo ID to vote. In simple terms, that is it.

This is not some radical, politicized, or weaponized piece of legislation designed to restrict Americans from voting; it is a commonsense measure that protects the integrity of our elections by ensuring that American citizens and only American citizens are voting in them.

Legitimacy in a democracy rests on two pillars: first, the mechanical integrity of the system to produce a valid result, and second, the public's confidence in that system. If either one fails, the system falters. If both fail, the system collapses. A system that cannot be trusted is a system that cannot govern.

If you look around the world, between two-thirds and three-quarters of countries require some form of identification to vote. Why? Because it safeguards the integrity of their elections and reinforces public trust in their system.

So it begs the question: Why hasn't the United States fully embraced this standard?

Well, for the last several months, we have heard claim after claim about how this legislation would somehow inhibit people from voting, that requiring identification is discriminatory, and that the American people do not support voter ID.

Our Democrat colleagues are fond of bellowing into the TV cameras that photo ID to vote is Jim Crow--they tell us with mock earnestness. Now, I will admit our Democrat colleagues should be experts in Jim Crow because it was Democrat politicians who passed the Jim Crow laws. It was Democrat politicians who founded the Ku Klux Klan. It was Democrat politicians, decade after decade, who enforced discrimination, separate-but-equal poll taxes, and a host of other laws designed to prevent African Americans from voting.

But do you know who has rejected their disingenuous claim that a photo ID to vote is Jim Crow? The Supreme Court of the United States-- the Supreme Court of the United States.

The State of Indiana passed a photo ID law requiring that you show a photo ID to vote, and a group of leftwing plaintiffs filed litigation challenging that. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the time, I was the solicitor general of the State of Texas. I led a coalition of States before the Supreme Court defending photo ID to vote, and the leftwing plaintiffs made the same argument that our Democrat colleagues make today--that requiring a photo ID to vote would somehow disenfranchise minorities.

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6 to 3, rejected their argument. The author of the majority opinion was John Paul Stevens. John Paul Stevens was one of the great liberals on the Court. He was not a conservative. He was not of the rightwing. He was the leading liberal for years on the U.S. Supreme Court. He rejected that claim, and he pointed out that when someone votes illegally, they are stealing the votes of legal voters; they are stealing the votes of American citizens. The Supreme Court explained that when photo ID laws have been implemented, minority participation in the election goes up, not down, and the Supreme Court explained that requiring photo ID enhances the integrity of an election and the integrity of democracy.

Now, our Democrat colleagues don't want to acknowledge any of those facts, and I guess it is understandable because the American people have heard their specious arguments, and they have rejected them. Eighty-one percent of Americans support requiring a photo ID to vote.

But my Democrat colleagues might say: What about African Americans? Well, about three-quarters of African Americans in the United States support requiring a photo ID to vote.

How about Hispanics? More than 80 percent of Hispanics in America support requiring a photo ID to vote.

How about Democrats? Here is an astonishing statistic: If you get out of elective office and you ask a Democrat

on the street, 70 percent of Democrats in America support requiring a photo ID to vote.

The one group that doesn't is elected Democrats in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House.

By the way, the premise of their argument that minorities, if you require a photo ID to vote, are not going to be able to vote is, frankly, insulting.

I am proud to be an Hispanic American. I have been Hispanic all my life. Do you know what I have in my wallet? I have a driver's license. I look at my colleagues across the way, and I feel confident they have driver's licenses in their wallets as well.

Hispanics are not morons. African Americans are not morons. When you claim minorities can't figure out how to get a driver's license--well, gosh, what do you need a photo ID to do right now in America? You need a photo ID to purchase alcohol or to purchase tobacco. You need a photo ID to gamble or to purchase lottery tickets. You need a photo ID to go into a bar. You need a photo ID to get on a plane. You need a photo ID to rent a car. You need a photo ID just to drive a car--not even to rent a car but to drive a car. You need a photo ID to apply for government benefits. You need a photo ID to enroll in college. You need a photo ID to open a bank account. You need a photo ID to check into a hotel. And--I have to admit this is my personal favorite--you need a photo ID--actually two photo IDs--to shovel snow in New York City. These are routine, everyday activities.

The Gallery is full. I feel confident everyone in the Gallery who is not a child has a driver's license. By the way, you wouldn't be admitted to the Gallery if you didn't. And I feel confident every Member of this Chamber has done just about anything I listed--well, except shoveling snow. I am not convinced many of my colleagues have shoveled snow, although they do shovel other things.

The question is not whether Americans are bright enough to obtain a photo ID. We know they can, and we know they do. The real question is, Why would we not require the same level of verification for something as consequential and vital as voting? Are our Democrat colleagues saying voting doesn't matter or is it something else?

Voting is not just another everyday activity; it rolls around every year or few years, and it is the vehicle that protects the principles of our Republic. It is safeguarding what matters.

This legislation is necessary because there are individuals and systems that can undermine confidence in our elections if proper safeguards are not in place. One of the most apparent ways that we have seen is through the masses of illegal immigrants that our Democrat colleagues let in through open borders for over 4 years.

During the Biden administration, more than 12 million illegal immigrants flooded into this country--the vast majority through my home State of Texas. Now, understand that was not an accident. That was not something the Democrats could not stop. That was their desired outcome. How do we know that? Because the instant President Trump was sworn into office for his second term, illegal border crossings plummeted 99 percent overnight.

The Democrats said: No, Joe Biden can't secure the border. He needs new legislation.

We now know that was a lie. It was objectively false, and they knew it was false.

Well, if they could have secured the border for 4 years, they chose not to. They chose to let murderers into this country. They chose to let rapists into this country. They chose to let child molesters into this country. They chose to let gang bangers into this country. They chose to let terrorists into this country. We have had four radical Islamic terror attacks in the last 2 weeks.

Why would the Democrats choose to allow more than 12 million illegal aliens to invade this country? I am going to suggest the obvious reason: because the Democrats look at those illegal aliens and they want them to cast a vote for Democrats in Federal elections.

Why are the Democrats lined up and saying: No. No. No. Under no circumstances should we test to see if you are an American citizen. Under no circumstances should we require photo IDs.

There was one activist a few years ago who filmed himself going into a DC polling place.

The DC polling place said: Sir, what is your name?

He said: My name is Eric Holder.

Now, this activist was not the Attorney General of the United States at the time, but yet DC handed him a ballot and said: Mr. Holder, please cast your vote.

The Democrats are lined up in this Chamber because they want our elections to be insecure; they want voter fraud to be rampant and to be easy.

Ask yourself: Do the American people have a difficult time buying a beer? Do they have a difficult time getting into an R-rated movie? Do they have a difficult time getting on an airplane? Well, yes, because the Democrats have refused to fund the TSA, so there are long lines right now. But the lack of a photo ID is not an impediment that stops people from flying.

This debate is about something very simple: Do our elections matter? Does our democracy matter?

And, boy, I have got to say that that is a phrase the Democrats love--that they are defending democracy. It is interesting that their voices usually drop an octave when they say that. They clutch their pearls--and that is just the men. ``Defending democracy'' is what they say.

Ask yourself: Why are they not concerned at all about the 12 million illegals whom they let into this country voting illegally? I will submit that Occam's razor provides that the simplest solution is usually the right one. The simplest solution is very clear: The Democrats in this body want illegals to vote. They want power enough that they are more than happy to undermine democracy to try to seize power. I get that from their personal self-interest, but it is not in the interest of the men and women they represent; it is not in the interest of the people of America.

This bill is rightly called the SAVE America Act. If we were voting on the merits of what was good for America, what was good for democracy, and what was good for American citizens, the vote would be 100 to nothing.

Although I would note that on the other side of this building, at the State of the Union Address that the Presiding Officer was at and that I was at, we saw why our Democrat colleagues are so adamantly opposed to this bill. President Trump turned to the Democrats on the right side of the floor of the House, and he gave them an opportunity to demonstrate with absolute clarity.

He said: If you agree our first priority should be to fight for American citizens and not for illegal aliens, please stand.

Every single Democrat in Congress remained seated.

I would note, as we are on the floor today, of the 47 Democrats in this body, only 1 is here on the floor, but a whole lot more were on the floor during the State of the Union, and every one of them chose to remain seated because they could not support the statement that we need to support American citizens and not illegal aliens. That is why they oppose the SAVE America Act. It is because they want to be handed power over this country by the illegal aliens they let into this country.

That is why we need to save America, and it is why I urge every Member of this body to pass the SAVE America Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, today, Texans celebrate 190 years of independence. On March 2, 1836, Texans fought bravely for liberty and for independence from Mexico. Many heroes, including William Barret Travis, James Bowie, and Davy Crockett, laid down their lives for the future of the Lone Star State.

It is a longstanding tradition on Texas Independence Day to read aloud the words of Colonel William Barret Travis, the leader of the besieged forces at the Alamo. His call for reinforcements reminds us of the bravery, resilience, and fortitude of those who fought and died for liberty. And today, I would like to take a moment to read his letter:

To the people of Texas & All Americans in the World:

Fellow citizens & compatriots--I am besieged, by a thousand

or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna--I have sustained a

continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not

lost a man.

The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion,

otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the

fort is taken--I have answered the demand with a cannon shot,

& our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never

surrender or retreat.

Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism &

everything dear to the American character, to come to our

aid, with all dispatch--The enemy is receiving reinforcements

daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in

four or five days.

If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain

myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never

forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country.

Victory or Death.

Signed, William Barret Travis.

Texans are known for their resilience, work ethic, courage, and patriotism--qualities forged in sacrifice, sealed in blood, and handed down by the very man who gave everything for Texas independence.

I would also like to note that Texas' founding father, the George Washington of Texas, Sam Houston, was born on March 2, 1793, and he later led the Texans to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. He left behind an extraordinary legacy of leadership and sacrifice.

I will close with words of wisdom that Sam Houston shared:

Govern wisely and as little as possible.

Today, as we remember the Alamo and the birth of the Republic of Texas, our own independent nation for 9 glorious years, we remember the tremendous bravery of men past, and we renew a promise for the future: a promise to defend liberty, a promise to stand firm in the face of adversity, and a promise that the spirit of victory or death will always live on in the Lone Star State.

To every Texan, I wish you a proud and happy Texas Independence Day. God bless you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1 minute.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Nicholas Ganjei of Texas to be the U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas.

Nick Ganjei's story is in many ways a classic American story. He grew up in Northern California as the youngest of four children. His mother, the daughter of immigrants, was a public school teacher, and his dad was an engineer for General Electric.

Nick's father emigrated from Iran in 1961 as a student with $100 to his name and found his way from New York to El Paso and then to California.

Nick's upbringing instilled a fidelity for public duty, a respect for limits on government power, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

As U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Nick has been on the frontlines of Federal law enforcement--leading one of the busiest districts in the country, prosecuting violent crime, cartel activity, and transnational threats while enforcing the law fairly.

Nick's career is filled with great success and clear dedication to this country, but I want to highlight his work in the U.S. Senate.

Nick served as my chief counsel for 3 years, during which he oversaw vital initiatives on criminal justice, border security, judicial nominations, antitrust issues, intellectual property, and religious liberty. During his time on my staff, I saw firsthand Nick's dedication to judicial integrity. I am confident that he will work tirelessly in service of the American people and in faithful adherence to the Constitution.

I also want to note a happy personal milestone of Nick's. Just last week, Nick became engaged to his now-fiancee Jessica. She will join him in Houston and become one of our newest Texans, and we look forward to having her in the Lone Star State.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of his nomination as U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. He will make us proud.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, in January of this year, tragedy struck just a few miles from here when an Army Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Sixty-seven souls were tragically lost in an instant.

After the crash, it quickly became evident that there were commonsense changes that would immediately enhance aviation safety.

The Army helicopter, flying along the Potomac River, had deliberately chosen not to broadcast its location to other aircraft or to air traffic control

using the common aviation technology called automatic dependent surveillance broadcast, or ADS-B. Had the Black Hawk been using ADS-B, like every other aircraft is required to do, tragedy could well have been averted.

We have since learned from the National Transportation Safety Board that the military was routinely flying by its own set of rules, particularly around Reagan National, which meant that there had been numerous near misses before this deadly crash. In fact, just last Friday, an Air Force tanker was flying without using ADS-B and nearly collided into a JetBlue plane headed to New York despite the justifiable public outrage over what happened at DCA. Clearly, the Pentagon's behavior needed to change.

In July, I, alongside eight of my Republican colleagues, introduced the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform--or ROTOR-- Act. After several weeks negotiating a bipartisan agreement with the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Maria Cantwell, the committee passed the ROTOR Act unanimously.

Here is what the ROTOR Act does:

No. 1, it tightens the rules for military aircraft so air traffic control and other pilots have a better idea of nearby planes and helicopters.

No. 2, it requires all aircraft, civilian and military, to equip and receive ADS-B signals.

No. 3, it directs the FAA to comprehensively evaluate the safety of airspaces around airports across the country so that no other airspace has the same risk of collisions that DCA did.

No. 4, it improves aviation safety information sharing between the FAA and the military. No longer will there be silos of safety data.

These improvements will save lives.

Earlier this week, the families of the DCA crash victims joined Senator Cantwell and me at a press conference to highlight how the NDAA had a provision moving backwards on safety and to call for the passage of the ROTOR Act.

Two of those family members, Amy Hunter and Laura Augendre, are in the Gallery today. I am happy that they are here to witness the Senate passing the ROTOR Act, along with the language removing the offending NDAA provision. Senator Cantwell, Senator Moran, and I have made significant progress with our Senate colleagues, and we have reached an agreement that will allow the Senate to pass this bill unanimously today.

I am also pleased to report that the ROTOR Act now has the explicit backing of the White House on this revised product. The White House is committed to helping us work with our House colleagues to see that the ROTOR Act passes in that Chamber. We still have a few small outstanding issues, but I am optimistic that we are going to get this done and signed into law as soon as next month.

Before turning it over to my colleagues, I want to note two things.

One, I want to say thank you to Senator Cantwell for her partnership. She and I have worked hand in hand on this. I am grateful for the trust we have with each other and for the work ethic displayed by Senator Cantwell and by her staff, who have worked very hard on this matter.

I also want to say that this bill will be a fitting way to honor the lives of those lost nearly 1 year ago over the Potomac River.

The goal of the victims' families is to ensure that no one else endures a similar, avoidable, completely unnecessary tragedy.

With that, I yield to Ranking Member Cantwell.

Mr. President, I now yield to Senator Moran, who has been a critical leader in fighting to pass the ROTOR Act and to ensure we have accountability and that we do not repeat the tragic mistakes that led to that horrific accident.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 269, S. 2503.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; the Cruz-Cantwell substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; 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.