Unanimous Consent Request (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, last month, America lost a man who devoted his life to serving America. Robert Mueller passed away on March 20. He left behind an amazing legacy of patriotism, honesty, integrity, and courage.
In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam war, Robert Mueller chose to enlist in the Marine Corps. He was a rifle platoon leader. Years later, he said that of all his accomplishments in life, he was ``most proud the Marine Corps deemed me worthy of leading other Marines.''
He earned a Bronze Star for valor when his platoon was ambushed, suffering multiple casualties. He rescued--personally rescued--a wounded marine. He earned a Purple Heart after being wounded by enemy fire while leading his platoon to rescue soldiers who were pinned down by the enemy.
While Mr. Mueller's time in the Marines ended in 1970, that is far from the end of his service to this country. After his military service, Robert Mueller became a lawyer and spent most of his life in public service.
A lifelong Republican--a lifelong Republican--he served for many years as a prosecutor and senior Justice Department official under both Republican and Democratic Presidents alike.
Throughout the 1990s, Mr. Mueller would serve in various positions at the Department of Justice, working as a senior litigator in the Homicide Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California. Mueller's work won him the admiration of both President George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate.
One week before September 11, 2001, Bob Mueller was sworn in as Director of the FBI. In the aftermath of the horrific 9/11 terrorist attack, Bob Mueller worked tirelessly to make our Nation safe.
Director Mueller led the FBI in a tumultuous time. After the worst terror attack in American history, Bob Mueller more than any single individual was responsible for modernizing the FBI to combat the threats that we face in the 21st century. It was my honor to support him in that effort.
It is no surprise that when his term with the FBI was set to expire in 2011, President Obama asked the Senate to extend Mueller's term by 2 years. The vote in the Senate was unanimous--100 to nothing--in favor of Bob Mueller, as it should have been.
Mr. Mueller left the FBI in 2013, and even that was not the end of his service to the American people. In 2017, Director Mueller was asked to serve his Nation one last time. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, asked Mueller to serve as special counsel to investigate Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
While my colleagues and I have spent many years debating the merits of the Mueller report, his work on Russia's interference in the 2016 election and throughout his time at DOJ and FBI demonstrates true character, hard work, courage, honesty, professionalism, and a dedication to our Constitution.
In honor of his legacy, I introduced a resolution with my colleagues from Virginia, his home State, that recognizes the contributions Bob Mueller made to our Nation. I will now make a unanimous consent request to pass the resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, of all the things that the U.S. Senate should be focusing on today, like funding DHS and paying our TSA agents or protecting our elections with the SAVE America Act, Democrats instead are bringing yet again another resolution that is a clear political potshot against President Trump. Democrats are more interested today in rehashing their failed attempt to delegitimize the 2016 election a decade ago than in bettering our great country.
The fact of the matter is, the reputation of Robert Mueller is a mixed bag, and the end result of the Mueller investigation that my colleague just talked about was a farce.
What has always remained constant is that Democrats just can't accept that Donald Trump won the election in 2016 fair and square. Ten years after that historic victory, Democrats are still complaining about it and advancing their Russian collusion hoax. Democrats know that the Russian collusion hoax was their attempt to undermine President Trump. They knew and they know now that it has been debunked time and time again.
The Mueller investigation was meant to stop President Trump and derail his agenda that he was elected by the American people to advance in 2016, and it was very costly to the American people and to this great country.
Robert Mueller will always be intertwined with the Russian collusion hoax that greatly damaged this country.
This resolution adds fuel to a fire that really burned out a long time ago. It is just another political hit job at President Trump, and I am not going to go along with it today.
There are so many more important things that we should be doing on the floor today--again, like funding DHS or protecting our elections. Mr. President, therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, I am disappointed that the junior Senator from Indiana has blocked the Senate from honoring an American hero, Bob Mueller, who protected our national security with his life and for decades served the call to public service.
This is so unusual, to come to the floor and to honor someone who has served the county the way Bob Mueller did and to have an objection. And to say that it was a ``political potshot'' against Donald Trump--it was not at all. The effort that I made on the floor was to extol the virtues of a man who served this country and risked his life for this country over and over again.
My colleague is objecting for one reason only: President Donald Trump despises Robert Mueller and his memory because Trump's own administration appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller's comprehensive investigation resulted in 37 indictments, 7 guilty pleas or convictions, and 14 criminal referrals to other U.S. Department of Justice counterparts. This, to Donald Trump, was an unforgivable sin.
Do you remember what President Trump said when he heard that this man died, exactly what he said? The President of the United States said of Bob Mueller:
``Good. I'm glad he's dead''--words from the mouth of the President of the United States, a man who poses as the messiah or some doctor; I don't understand which.
``Good. I'm glad he's dead''--the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, responding to the passing of a marine, Bob Mueller, who received a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.
This is not the first time the President has attacked an American war hero. I am sorry that the Senator from Indiana joined in that attack. We cannot pretend this cruel and un-American behavior is normal. I am sorry the Senator from Indiana sees it differently.
I want to say to Bob Mueller's family, who I believe is watching: He is still an American hero in my eyes, and though this political move was made on the floor--and it seldom is made; I am sorry--it doesn't change one bit the fact that Bob Mueller served this country honorably, with dignity and character, his whole life.
I yield the floor.
H.J. Res. 140 (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a Congressional Review Act resolution H.J. Res. 140 that could come before the Senate any time over the next 2 weeks, and I want to speak directly to my Republican colleagues about this CRA and why you should vote against it.
This CRA would roll back protections for the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Northeastern Minnesota. It would allow copper-nickel sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters, which would be devastating to the wilderness.
The decision that the Senate makes--that we will make--in the coming weeks will have long-term implications for the Boundary Waters, certainly, but it will also have long-term implications for how we go about protecting public lands around the country going forward.
So I want to start with the core point being a Minnesota Senator, that Minnesota is a mining State. We support mining, just not this mine in this place. Minnesota is a mining and natural resources State. We have a wealth of natural resources, and mining is a really important part of our economy.
We are proud to be the No. 1 source of iron for the whole country. We produced three-quarters of the iron that went into the tanks and planes that led us to victory in World War II, and we are still producing most of the Nation's iron ore today.
And it is also true there are other potential mines in Minnesota that are currently under consideration and development that would produce copper and nickel and other precious metals.
Responsible mining is an economic driver in Minnesota; and it is part of our history; and it is part of our future.
So why oppose this CRA which would pave the way for developing a copper-nickel sulfide mine on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters?
Colleagues, I want to give you three reasons why this is a bad idea. The first is this is an incredibly special place. It is beloved by Minnesota and beloved by people around the country, and this mine in this place poses an unacceptable risk.
For those of you who haven't been to the Boundary Waters, I want you to picture a million acres of pristine lakes and bogs and rivers. There is a wealth of hunting and fishing resources. People canoe everywhere. I was there last summer just on a day trip into the Boundary Waters, and I saw two wolves just on that one day.
You will find here some of the cleanest, freshest water any place in the world. You can go out into the middle of lakes and dip your cup into the water and drink the water right from the lake. You see lake trout and northern pike and walleye. I mean, there is no place in the world that is better to be than this.
That is why over 150,000 people visit the Boundary Waters every year in the mosquito season of the summertime and in the ice and freezing cold of the wintertime. It is one of the most visited national wilderness areas in the whole country.
As a result of that, the outdoor recreation economy in Northern Minnesota generates thousands of jobs. The Boundary Waters supports hundreds and hundreds of small, local businesses, and it generates millions of dollars in economic activity for Minnesota. Outdoor recreation is a significant economic driver in the region around the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.
What this mine would do is to put all of that at an unacceptable risk. This kind of mine has been built in other places around the country and around the world, and in 100 percent of the instances, this mine has caused pollution.
What happens is you mine the rock underground; you bring it up to the surface. This is copper sulfide ore, and as soon as it is exposed to the air and to water, the sulfide in the rocks turns into basically what is battery acid. And then because this mine is right on the edge of the Boundary Waters in the watershed of this incredible place, that water flows into the Boundary Waters ultimately into Voyageurs National Park at great risk--at great risk--to the wildlife and also to the humans that are using this incredibly special place.
Basically, you are putting sulfuric acid into the water and watching it flow into this place. And this reason--the dangers of this mine, which I should say have been widely studied--the moratorium that is in place on mining in the Boundary Waters is the result of years of scientific evaluation; it is the result of hundreds of thousands of public comments saying: Nope, the risks to this in this particular place are just too great.
This is why my Republican colleagues would appreciate: Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, sportsmen's groups, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and many other outdoor groups, people of all kinds from all over the country have weighed in and said: No, this is simply the wrong mine in the wrong place.
Even descendants of the great President Theodore Roosevelt have said that we should protect this national treasure and ``leave it as it is,'' as they said. This is also why this mine is so unpopular in Minnesota.
A recent poll showed that 70 percent of Minnesotans across the political spectrum--where this is not a political-partisan issue, I should say--agree that protecting the Boundary Waters from sulfide- based mining pollution is a very important thing for elected officials to consider. And 61 percent of Minnesotans expressed support for establishing a permanent State-level--permit protections for this incredible piece of public land.
That is the first reason why this CRA does not make sense because this is an incredibly special place, and this mine poses an unacceptable risk to the resources of this place.
The second reason that I want to talk to you about, colleagues, is more of an internal Senate issue, but it is extremely important. You should oppose this CRA because it would be an unprecedented and dangerous use of the Congressional Review Act.
Now, within the Senate, we know what the CRA is. It is a way for Congress to doublecheck the actions of the executive branch. If Congress feels that the executive branch has passed a regulation that goes too far, that doesn't follow the intent of Congress, the CRA, the Congressional Review Authority, gives Congress the power to say: Wait. Hold the phone. We are going to say: No, you can't do that. We are going to vote to say that regulation goes too far.
Now, you have to do that within 60 days. That makes sense, right? Because you can't have future Congresses clawing back the decisions that have been made years and years ago.
OK. But that is not what is happening here with this CRA, colleagues. What is happening here is for the first time ever that I am aware of, they are applying the CRA process not to a rule, but to a completely different public land order, a different statute. What they want to do with the CRA is to clawback a public land order that was put into place 3 years ago.
This was never the intention of the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act has never been used in this way before to overturn a mineral withdrawal, especially not a withdrawal that was finalized 3 years ago.
Now, I think, probably, many of my Republican colleagues are thinking as they contemplate is this a good idea or not, you always have to think in this body: What is going to happen when the shoe is on the other foot?
We might do this now, but then if this tool has been sharpened to be used in this different way, how might the Members of the other party use this tool in ways that we don't approve of, that we don't like?
I can tell you, as I have had many conversations with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is something that is a big concern to folks. What would this do? What would this mean if we take this action? What would it look like if Congress gets into the business of repealing administrative actions that have been in place for years?
I think many people look at that and say: Well, that would just be chaos.
The third reason that I think it is important to oppose this CRA is that it would violate Tribal treaty rights. This is why it has been so strongly opposed by the Tribal Nations who have lived in the borderlands of Minnesota for time immemorial. And their rights--their rights to hunting and fishing, and for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes, their rights to harvest wild rice or manoomin, those rights are enshrined in a treaty with the Federal Government. And this treaty would ban this kind of mining in this area without the Tribe's approval.
But today, the Tribes have not approved this. They have not been consulted on this. I mean, they were consulted during the mineral withdrawal process that happened several years ago. Over many, many government-to-government meetings and consultations, they were consulted, but not on this.
That is why the Grand Portage Band and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribes that have treaty rights here have written letters expressing their strong opposition to this effort. It is why the National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution urging the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to at least hold a hearing on the treaty implications of this CRA before moving forward and also why they oppose this CRA.
It is also why in solidarity with the Minnesota Anishinaabe people, the Chippewa people, the Tribal Nations from across the country have spoken out--the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, the White Earth Nation, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, the Eastern Shoshone--they have all come together and said: No, we reject this CRA.
Minnesota Tribal leaders and Minnesota Tribal members feel the same way that other Minnesotans do. We are not anti-mining, but this mine in this place poses too great of a risk.
Before I wrap up, I want to address one question that I have heard quite a bit about in terms of sort of what would be in favor of voting for this CRA, and I want to just give my perspective on it.
So some would say that passing this CRA is important for national security. They would claim that this mine would provide a much-needed domestic source of critical minerals.
I will give it to you that we need to think about this. Everybody's cell phone--I mean, so much of our modern life relies on these critical minerals. But here is the question that needs to be considered as you are making this decision. The question is: Who is going to own these minerals? And who is going to benefit? And where is the money going to go?
That is why this is really not an ``America First'' issue to vote for this CRA.
Just because the minerals are mined on American--United States-- forest land does not mean that they will be reserved for an American market. In fact, any copper or nickel that would be mined in the Duluth Complex, which is where this mine would be, would immediately be sent to our strongest global competitor of China.
The rock would be pulled up. The ore would be sent by train most likely to the Pacific Coast where it will be loaded onto big boats and taken to China where it will be smelted. And then it will be used either in China for their infrastructure and defense technologies, or it will just be sold to the highest bidder.
So the mine in Minnesota--it is important to understand--is a wholly owned subsidiary of Antofagasta, which is a massive Chilean conglomerate with billionaire owners. This is one of the largest foreign mining conglomerates in the whole world.
And Antofagasta, OK, has deep ties with the Chinese government and its mineral processing operations. In fact, most recently, Antofagasta that would be building this mine in Northeastern Minnesota has secured a recordbreaking, zero-cost--meaning, that is free--processing agreement with Chinese copper smelters, all of which are state-owned, either in whole or in part.
So what we are doing here with this mine is we are creating a pathway--a pipeline--for this foreign company to build a mine almost certainly polluting the Boundary Waters to take the copper to send it to China where they then have a sweetheart deal for smelting and then sell it back out on the open market.
This is not an ``America First'' strategy, so I would encourage my Republican colleagues as you consider this to take a look at who is benefiting from this mine, and it certainly is not going to be Minnesotans whom this land belongs to, along with the rest of this country. No. The real winners of this deal are the Chilean billionaires who will further line their pockets with profits from this mine.
Should this resolution come before the Senate, I urge my colleagues to vote no on rolling back protections for the boundary waters wilderness area.
We can support mining but not this mine and this place. We can be good stewards of our natural resources, and we can support mining but not this mine. These public lands belong to all of us, and we should not allow them to be exploited by a foreign mining company for our loss and for their gain.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Iran (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, nearly 20 years ago, I joined with then- Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon to introduce the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act.
Key provisions of that bill included significant tightening of petroleum-related sanctions that eventually became law and helped push Iran to the negotiating table over its genuinely dangerous nuclear program. Those tough sanctions and unified allied pressure, including from Russia and China, led to an agreement that contained Iran's nuclear program with aggressive international inspections.
I remember hosting the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General many times in the ensuing years where he provided me with updates on the inspections. While sometimes contentious, they were, in fact, working.
During those years, I also met directly with Iranian officials to discuss this agreement, to push them to end their support for regional proxies, and to help return missing and detained Americans in Iran.
So I am not naive about the Iranian regime's threat to the region and even its own people. And while the nuclear agreement wasn't perfect then, it was working. It allowed us to confront Iran about its otherwise troubling behavior without the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. We made progress.
Yet, during his first term, President Donald Trump walked away from this agreement and replaced it with nothing--nothing but bluster and wishful thinking. The President's approach did not stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, but it did undermine the coalition that we had created to counter Iran's nuclear aspirations.
The mess we find ourselves in today--and it is a mess--is one the President has helped to create through his narcissism, impulsiveness, crude threats, and lack of planning.
I have learned during the course of my service in Washington that it is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one. We find ourselves today facing a set of easily predictable policy problems despite the stunning skill and bravery of America's military.
The belligerent regime in Iran has not fallen. Already difficult leaders have been replaced by even harder hardliners, with the Revolutionary Guard gaining even more influence.
Iran continues to rebuild its military capabilities and threaten our troops, interests, and allies in the region.
The Strait of Hormuz, which had largely been free and open for the last several decades, is now being held hostage by the remaining Iranian regime--one that is brazenly still threatening ships and charging outrageous tolls for safe passage.
If I asked the American people randomly ``What is this war all about?'' they would start by saying that Iran is a bad actor. Agreed. No argument there. But what are we trying to achieve there?
If they are puzzled by that question, I am, too, because you listen to how the President explained his strategy from the start--let me tell you what the list contains partially. I don't know the complete list.
Why did we do this? Regime change. That was announced almost immediately. Several days later, that was removed.
How about ballistic missiles? Ballistic missiles for sure, and then later, it was said: Well, there is no capacity for ballistic missiles striking the United States or our friends in the near term.
How about nuclear weapons? We want to stop nuclear weapons. But didn't the President say 6 months ago when we attacked that we had obliterated their capacity to build nuclear weapons? He came back to say that was on the agenda too.
When you go through it, the list keeps growing. The initial explanation for why we were there had never mentioned the Strait of Hormuz, and now it is a daily topic. One day, we are fighting to keep them open; the next day, we are fighting to keep them closed. I can't follow the bouncing ball. I don't know what the President's agenda is when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz.
The fact that the President suggested last week that the United States would jointly collect payments for access to the Strait of Hormuz is beyond imagination. These funds are being used as extortion funds by Iranian hardliners to rebuild the country's military and continue to fund its terrorist proxies.
After weekend talks in Pakistan--21 hours with the Vice President-- went absolutely nowhere, President Trump announced a U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
At a time when our gasoline prices are skyrocketing, when the revenue from oil, because of the new barrel prices, is reaching record levels not just for the Iranians' profit but the profit of the Russians, who use that to fight in Ukraine, for goodness' sake, who ever sat down at the table before this invasion and analyzed these possibilities, and what was their conclusion? Did we really go to war in Iran to worsen the free flow of goods in the critical Strait of Hormuz and enter into an extortion business with the Iranian regime? It is upside down.
The equally predictable move by the Iranians to try to squeeze the global economy has hurt American consumers and farmers and the global economy--a surprise to no one except President Trump. Americans are already struggling to make ends meet because of the President's cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and his tariff taxes. He is doing everything he can to make this economy even worse. The increase in gas prices--now more than $4 a gallon in Chicago--may be too much for many to bear.
While Americans suffer under high prices, our adversaries are reaping the benefits in profits. The increase in global oil prices and the desperate easing of some oil sanctions by Trump have been a gift to Vladimir Putin, who takes this revenue to renew his bloody war against the Ukrainians. Was that thought about before we invaded Iran?
And let's not forget that Putin, who continues to snub any attempts by President Trump to end the war in Ukraine, has also been helping target American interests in the gulf. He is not neutral; he is helping the Iranians at the expense of American soldiers.
I cannot say it better than New York Times columnist and Middle East expert Tom Friedman. Here is what he wrote recently:
We desperately need a coherent plan to end this war, one that addresses the remaining highly enriched uranium still in Iran. We need a plan that stabilizes the U.S. and global economy and makes sure any further wars are done with the consent of Congress.
It is not too much to ask that this President--every President who wants to engage in a war follow article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the authority to declare war to Congress. Notably, it is for the American people to decide through their elected Members of Congress. That is why I still support Senator Tammy Duckworth's War Powers Resolution which will be on the floor this week. It is time for us to accept our constitutional responsibility and try to get this mess under control with Iran.
If there was ever a reminder of the importance of the constitutional role of the people's elected representatives, it is in the declaration of war.
This current mess reminds us that those who wrote the Constitution had real wisdom, and those who are executing the plans for this war have not demonstrated that feature.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
SAVE America Act (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, as everybody knows, this last Sunday night, the world watched the people of Hungary achieve something very, very powerful. They voted an autocratic leader out of office. After 16 years of ``illiberal'' democracy, after 16 years of centralized power-- crony capitalism, dismantling freedom of the press, and shredding the rule of law--Hungarian voters overwhelmingly showed up to make their voices heard with nearly 80 percent of voters casting a ballot.
Meanwhile, here we are in the United States of America--in the U.S. Senate--continuing to debate a bill that would make it harder for Americans to make their voices heard in the electoral process.
Here we are, 2 weeks since Donald Trump signed yet another unlawful executive order. His order would make it harder for eligible Americans to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, to exercise their fundamental rights to vote, this time targeting vote-by-mail.
It is absurd; it is unconstitutional; and, most importantly, it is not going to work. American voters will not be silenced.
So he can try rigging the rules of our elections to desperately try to hold on to power, but it is not going to work.
He can try to silence the opposition in the media. It is not going to work.
He can try subverting democracy itself by shrinking the electorate and limiting how people can vote, but it is not going to work because if the No Kings marches are any indicator, the American people know what to do when our rights and our democracy are being attacked.
The American people show up and use every lawful option available to cast a ballot and make their voices heard. We know this because we have seen it before--yes, around the world, like in Hungary this last weekend but also right here in the United States--throughout the course of our history. And I believe strongly that we are going to see it again this November.
Now, throughout our Nation's history, we have steadily worked to expand the right to vote to strengthen our democracy through lawful and inclusive participation, not by trying to further restrict it or further deny access to the ballot.
From the fight for women's suffrage to the struggle against Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement overall, each generation has moved us closer to the promise of a more inclusive democracy.
But President Trump and his Republican enablers want to take us backward because with inflation up, the cost of living up, prices at the gas pump up, and our Nation spiraling deeper into an unpopular and unlawful war in the Middle East, Donald Trump sees the writing on the wall.
And if you can't rig the rules of the election, making it harder to register to vote if you are eligible, making it harder to stay registered to vote or actually harder to cast your ballot, then maybe there is a chance that he can hold on to power. That is his only hope.
Now, I know, colleagues, that we have been away for a couple of weeks. It was a State work period last week and the week prior, but here we are, coming back after a couple of weeks. And let me refresh our memories as to what is before us: the SAVE Act and what the SAVE Act specifically does.
First, it requires documents like a passport or an original birth certificate in order to register to vote, documents that tens of millions of Americans don't have readily available. A passport is just one example. Half of American citizens don't have a passport. And so it becomes a barrier to be able to register to vote, let alone trying to cast a ballot in November.
The language of the SAVE Act also says that if your name doesn't match--think about this--there are people who change their names, most typically when people get married and choose to change their names. All of a sudden, the name on your ID no longer matches the name on your birth certificate. So you are going to have to go through some extra bureaucratic hoops to be able to register and participate in our democracy.
Then this bill does more. It forces Americans to register, to update their registration, or to provide proof of citizenship in person if they have been falsely flagged as ineligible, meaning you are going to have to take some time off from work. And maybe the county elections office is near where you live or work or maybe it is quite the distance, but that burden is now on you to continue exercising your fundamental right to vote.
This bill also requires States to turn over their sensitive voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security. Why? The Department of Homeland Security has nothing to do with election administration. But under this bill, they will run the names and voter information from the States through databases that we already know are flawed and already falsely flag eligible American voters as potential noncitizens.
And when they do that, DHS then communicates to the States orders to remove them from the rolls. This isn't speculation. This is already happening in States that have voluntarily begun this exercise with DHS.
And don't forget, colleagues, the Republican bill attacks vote-by- mail, the same vote-by-mail that 48 million Americans relied on in the last election, the same vote-by-mail that Donald Trump himself repeatedly has utilized as an option to cast his ballot, including a few weeks ago in a special election in Florida.
So Donald Trump thinks voting by mail is safe and secure enough for him but not for the American people? What is with that hypocrisy?
So, in other words--again, this is a refresher; this is a reminder-- the SAFE Act is a bill that makes it harder to register to vote, harder to stay registered to vote, and harder to cast your ballot.
But we know what the goal is. To quote the Legal Defense Fund, which has spoken up on this bill, this is about ``shrinking the electorate and controlling who can vote in America.''
You can try to describe it some other way. You can try to characterize it some other way. But that is the bottom line. But with this bill stalling here in the Senate, President Trump is now trying to take matters into his own hands once again.
His aim is to--his words, not mine--``take over elections'' with this most recent illegal Executive order that I just mentioned. He wants to force States to rely on the Federal list of eligible voters created by the Department of Homeland Security, using those same flawed databases.
And he wants States to hand over not just the voter rolls, now, actual authority for absentee and mail voting to the Trump administration. And if they don't, the U.S. Postal Service won't deliver voters' absentee ballots? That is outrageous.
Let me say that again. If States don't follow Donald Trump's directives, ballots will go undelivered, meaning lawful votes cast legally by U.S. citizens will not be counted.
This order is unconstitutional; it is illegal; and it will not stand. As if that wasn't bad enough, this order goes further. This order threatens criminal penalties for election officials to mail carriers just for doing their job.
Colleagues, the Postal Service is an independent agency, and it is independent for that reason. So they cannot be subject to this Executive order.
The Postal Service is required to deliver all mail, period--including and especially election mail, like mail ballots.
The Constitution is crystal clear about who runs our elections. In case you were wondering where the authority argument comes from, read the Constitution. It is simple: States administer elections, not the President. Congress can have a say in the time,
Like the SAVE America Act, this Executive order isn't about securing elections; it is about controlling who gets to participate in them. It is a political move, and it is a power play, and it is based on a false premise. Voting by mail is, indeed, safe. It is, indeed, secure. It is a deeply American tradition that dates back not just a few years or a couple of decades but for well over a century.
Vote-by-mail was used by both Pennsylvania and New Jersey during the War of 1812. Union soldiers voted by mail throughout the Civil War because even in times of war, we should not have our women and men in the armed services sacrifice their fundamental right to vote. During World War II, Japanese Americans held in internment camps voted absentee in the 1942 and 1944 elections.
In 1978, California--my home State of California--became the first State in the Nation to allow no-excuse absentee voting to help more citizens vote securely and vote conveniently. Flash-forward to today. Now 28 States allow no-excuse absentee voting, plus an additional 8 States that have universal mail voting. You add that up, that is a supermajority of the country. Even American astronauts have been able to vote by mail from the International Space Station since 1997.
Yet, despite the years of experience, despite the years of success, despite the years of secure mail-in voting, we are seeing relentless attacks against it by Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress because expanding access to the ballot box does not serve those who want to limit participation.
But here is what we all need to remember: You can bring a bill designed to suppress the vote. You can keep signing illegal Executive orders. You cannot and will not stop the American people from voting. You cannot stop them from speaking up, and you cannot turn back the clock on the progress this country has made.
Democrats--we are going to continue to fight voter suppression bills like this one here in Congress no matter how long it takes, and leaders across the country will continue to challenge illegal and unconstitutional orders in the courts. But ultimately the most powerful response will come from the American people themselves this fall at the ballot box because Americans don't sit back or stay at home when their rights are threatened; Americans show up, Americans speak out, and Americans vote. And you can be sure they are going to do so again this November.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. President, the right to vote is the very bedrock of our American democracy. Two hundred fifty years ago, our Founders set out to create a nation governed by the people. At the time, they were renouncing a monarch who they called a tyrant for his overreaching actions.
The new government the Founders created in response, which has endured for 2\1/2\ centuries, was built upon entirely enshrining the fundamental principle that power lies with the people, and they exercised that power to hold their leaders accountable through their vote.
Two weeks ago, President Trump signed a sweeping and unconstitutional Executive order that would place the most significant restrictions to the right to vote in recent memory. There is no question this order is an attack on the right to vote, and it goes against the very heart of the free and fair elections that make our Nation a strong democratic Republic.
To preserve the power of the people to determine who their leaders are, our Constitution gives States the power to conduct elections. There is no authority for the President or the executive branch to make sweeping changes to our elections. The Founders designed it that way precisely to ensure that no single leader--especially one as powerful as a President--could hold sway over the outcome of those elections.
To be clear, in our country, the voters choose their leaders. Leaders do not have the power to choose their voters. But that is exactly--that is exactly--what President Trump is trying to do with his Executive order and what our Republican colleagues are trying to do by passing the SAVE Act.
Under this Executive order, President Trump is illegally co-opting the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that he can pick and choose who gets to vote. It is all done under the guise of protecting the security of our elections, under the guise that the 2020 election was stolen.
Well, Mr. President, the facts simply do not back that up. In fact, there is no evidence--no evidence--that election fraud or noncitizen voting is a widespread problem in our elections. And in the very few cases that we have, they are effectively prosecuted, and they should be.
But the President and his allies want to use the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to create a new ``State Citizenship List'' that will determine who is eligible to vote in our election. Every State already determines whether people who register are actually eligible to vote.
To ask Federal Agencies that have no election administration responsibilities to do this is not only against the law, it risks removing eligible voters from the voter rolls. The Department of Homeland Security has already admitted that the Federal data sources that would be used to compile these new State Citizenship Lists, such as the outdated Social Security records, are absolutely riddled with inaccuracies. If that data is applied to voting, it risks American citizens being incorrectly purged from voter rolls and denied their constitutional right to vote.
The President's Executive order also weaponizes the Postal Service. It forces them to play a key role in elections as a regulator of absentee ballots.
The reason the Postal Service is one of our Nation's most trusted institutions is because it is completely neutral. In fact, Congress intentionally created the Postal Service to be an independent establishment and gave the postal power to the Board of Governors. The Postal Service doesn't care which politicians you may support. Its only priority is to deliver the mail to every community in the country.
The President is now trying to corrupt--trying to corrupt--this mission. If the President is successful in forcing the Postal Service to play a role in running elections, he will completely erode the trust of this storied institution.
What is truly crazy about the President's Executive order is that the Postal Service regularly takes extraordinary measures to ensure that election mail is actually delivered on time regardless of partisan politics. In fact, mail-in voting is a safe and secure way for voters to participate in our democracy. Millions of Americans, including President Trump, use this method to exercise their right to vote. And the Postal Service record stands for itself. Last election, they delivered over 99 million ballots, and 97 percent were delivered within just 3 days.
American elections have a long history of being free, fair, and secure, and vote-by-mail is a key part of ensuring that more Americans can participate in our democracy.
The President's Executive order and the SAVE Act Republicans are trying to pass through Congress are basically nothing more than an effort to undermine the security and the integrity of our electoral process.
I urge my colleagues and every American to stand up to this illegal power grab and help protect the core values that have always made our Nation great.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, let's see if we all agree on something. People should not be allowed to vote in elections illegally. Is that a radical idea? I think it is a basic idea. It ought to be against the law for somebody who is not legal to try to vote in America. It is. It is a felony. Well, how often does this happen that people who are ineligible to vote--like immigrants--try to actually vote? Well, let's think of this possibility.
In a 20-year period of time, we did a survey of all the people who were caught trying to vote illegally in the United States. Now, keep in mind that in each election cycle, 25 to 50 million
In a 20-year period of time, 77 people in America who are ineligible tried to vote--77 out of millions who are being registered every election cycle. So the Republicans said that is enough--77 is enough. Let's make everybody in America reregister--everybody. We will catch those 77 or anybody who looks like one.
You think to yourself: Why are you doing this to me? I have been legally voting in America for decades and nobody has questioned it, nor should they. Why do I have to go through a registration? Well, that's because we shouldn't have anybody illegal voting. I agree we shouldn't. But with 77 out of millions, OK, you want to reregister to vote? The bill before us says there is a simple process you need to follow. You have to show identification.
Well, that is easy. I just got on a flight the other day, and I had to show my ID. Everybody shows their ID. But what ID did you show? Your driver's license, right? That is what I use. I have got one of those upgraded driver's licenses we are all supposed to have that proves my identity. They accept it, put me on an airplane. Nobody says: He is really a terrorist. He showed me his driver's license.
But their bill doesn't include a driver's license. If you want to prove your identity, you have to show a passport. That is one way to do it. Well, how many people in America have a passport? About half. About half do. And if you don't have a passport and you want to get one just in time for the election, get busy.
The first thing you need to do is be prepared to write a check for $165 for your passport and then you go through the process. It may only be 4 weeks, but it may be longer depending on how much you want to pay. That is one way that you can prove your identity.
The other way is pretty simple--produce your birth certificate. Got one handy? What name does it show on there? For a lot of ladies, it shows their birth name--what their family name was when they were born. They have since gotten married. They may have a hyphenated last name. The names don't match up, so birth certificates don't work out that well.
Why are we going through this hassle? Seventy-seven people tried to vote who shouldn't have in 20 years. That isn't what it is really about. I used to work for a fellow in politics who used to say: For every political issue, there is a good reason and a real reason. A good reason is to stop fraud in voting. The real reason: turn this election upside down in November. And why do they want to turn it upside down? Because this President thinks he is going to lose.
Why would he think he is going to lose? He might have been listening to the ``Hungarian Rhapsody'' over the weekend; and if he was, the people of Hungary threw out Viktor Orban and put in the person who is on the left. Despite the campaigning of Vice President Vance and the support of President Trump, the rightwing candidate lost-- overwhelmingly lost in Hungary. The fear is the President's party is going to lose in November. The voters have the ultimate decision.
The point I am getting to is there are so many things we could be working on now, but to have Americans reregister to vote with questionable identification services accepted, with people writing out a $165 check so that they have a passport so that they can vote in November, this is all unnecessary and overdone. What we are telling you today is, there are more important things for us to worry about in America.
First and foremost, let's get these gasoline prices down. Filled your tank recently? Mr. President, $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon? In Illinois, you run into both. It means that families are going to put a lot more money into the tank than they did before because of this President's undeclared war--that is what we are facing.
If this Chamber continues to debate this misguided SAVE America Act, we also must reconcile with the President's recently signed Executive order--listen to this--an unlawful, unprecedented attempt to meddle in elections under the banner of integrity. Why? Because it is a blatant attempt by President Trump to exceed his constitutional authority by directing the administration to determine the eligibility of American citizens to vote. This is a reckless solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Mr. President, 77 voters over 20 years.
This Executive order shouldn't come as a surprise. As I mentioned, the President has long sought to sow distrust in the integrity of our elections. Last month--listen to this--the President wrote, and I am quoting him now:
Hmm. Interesting. Public records recently revealed the President himself voted by mail--What? I thought it meant cheating--in a recent special election for a State house district that includes Mar-a-Lago. So according to President Trump, vote-by-mail is cheating when the nurse who is working strict work hours or the elderly person with mobility issues uses it, but it is totally fine when he himself personally uses it to vote. The hypocrisy of this White House knows no bounds.
There are serious concerns that the processes and systems that Federal Agencies would employ to enforce the President's Executive order are filled with errors and produce unintended consequences.
Under this order the Department of Homeland Security--this is the President's Executive order--the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration would be responsible for determining a voter's citizenship status, empowering them at the Federal level to create a list of approved voters who may receive mail-in ballots; however, nearly a quarter of the Social Security Administration records lack any citizenship information.
They haven't thought this through. The same bad data already used by DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements--or SAVE Program-- which has repeatedly misidentified American citizens as noncitizens. They make mistakes; they question whether you can vote. And people who are doing this legally and accurately shouldn't have to put up with it.
So they basically tested the President's SAVE Program to see how many people were actually not voting properly. They went to Boone County, MO. More than half of the voters that were flagged as ineligible turned out to be American citizens. The system doesn't work.
The President's Executive order also requires the Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to the administration's approved list of voters. So if you want to use a mail-in ballot--and more than half the people in Illinois do--you have got to pass muster and approval by the President first; your name has to clear the list. As a result, when eligible voters are misidentified as noncitizens, they will not receive a ballot to vote by mail and will be purged from the voter rolls essentially blocking access to the ballot.
The point I am getting to is this: This right to vote that we have in the United States is a key to our democracy. People died to give us this chance to be American citizens who have the right to vote and make up our minds about who would be sitting in this chair or that chair or the other chair. That is your decision, nobody else's. This President should not be able to take it away from you or complicate your life to the point where you have to start dreaming up identification services to go and reregister to vote. That is just wrong.
We are only a few months away from this election. We can't let this happen. The reason we are debating this issue on the floor today is to make sure that they don't hurry and pass this provision without thinking it through. Millions of people's opportunity to vote is at stake.
I come to the floor today to say: If you can't protect the right of Americans to vote however they want to vote in their conscience, then you have forgotten the very basics of our democracy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I rise today alongside my colleagues to speak
The deceptively named SAVE America Act is all about sowing doubt in our elections and making it harder for American citizens to register and to vote. It is all part of an effort by the administration to pick who votes rather than allowing voters to pick who wins.
Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that the SAVE Act was important ``to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders.''
President Trump endorsed the SAVE Act because it will ``guarantee the midterms.'' He said that Republicans ``should take over the voting in at least 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.''
Steve Bannon agreed that, in his words, ``President Trump has to nationalize the election. You've got to put--not just, I think, ICE-- you've got to call up the 82nd and the 101st Airborne. . . . You've got to get around every poll.''
As I will explain, the SAVE Act is precisely the vehicle that Trump, Noem, Bannon, and others will use to trample the Constitution's provisions that States run elections and sow doubt about this fall's election result.
The SAVE Act isn't about election integrity. It is yet another power grab by President Trump. It is no different from him begging the Republican secretary of state in Georgia to find votes in 2020 or failing to act when a violent mob invaded the Capitol on January 6.
The President is interested in one thing and one thing only--himself. Look no further than putting his name on the Kennedy Center, tearing down part of the White House, or adding his face and signature to our currency. It is always about his ability to stay and seize more power, and the SAVE Act is no different.
Here is how the SAVE Act is another power grab for President Trump. First, under the guise of solving the illusory problem of noncitizen voting, the SAVE Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. That means presenting your birth certificate and a government-issued photo ID in person at the time you register.
Well, many people, such as married women, do not have a birth certificate that currently matches their name or cannot find their birth certificate. Nationwide, there are 69 million married women who have changed their name, and 21 million people don't have ready access to a passport or a birth certificate. I do not think the Federal Government should be in the business of making it harder for these people to vote.
Second, it would require government-issued photo ID to vote in person. Now, I represent a State that requires voter ID. Rhode Island has taken a sensible approach. But the list of acceptable forms of ID to vote under the SAVE Act would be much narrower than what is required under Rhode Island law.
Every State has developed its own rules for verifying eligibility status because that is what the Constitution directs. I am opposed to the Federal Government telling Rhode Island what to do.
Third, it would require anyone voting by mail to also include a photocopy of their ID, adding more items to a mail ballot process, particularly for American citizens who are already registered. It will only make it harder to process the ballots in an accurate and timely fashion.
It also represents an invasion of privacy because election officials will see actual copies of Americans' most sensitive documents, containing their personal information, in a way that has never happened before.
We all treasure the secret ballot, which allows people to go into the polling place, register their approval or disapproval, but not have it identified with them unless they choose. And this bill will upset that tradition and that safeguard on democracy.
Fourth, it would require Rhode Island to turn over its voter rolls to the Federal Government, including your Social Security number and other private information. This is especially insidious.
It is an unconstitutional intrusion into Rhode Island's authority to determine the time, place, and manner of elections under article I, section 4 of the Constitution. And depending on how President Trump decides to implement this provision, he could require that some people reregister before the 2026 election, and he might just pick out blue States or swing States. But here is the key point: The SAVE Act gives Donald Trump the power to decide who has to reregister and who gets to vote.
And, fifth, it would place an unfunded mandate on Rhode Island taxpayers to pay for new voter forms and signage, as well as advertising to alert voters to the dizzying and complex array of Trump- mandated restrictions on their fundamental right to vote.
I note that my Republican colleagues used to be opposed to the Federal Government commandeering State officials and micromanaging their affairs.
In the New York v. United States case before the Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor wrote that, in her words, ``even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.'' This case was decided in 1992 and overturned Federal mandates for States to dispose of nuclear waste.
And in the Supreme Court case of Printz v. United States, Justice Scalia took this anti-commandeering principle even further by writing:
This case was decided in 1997 and overturned Federal mandates to States to conduct background checks on firearm purchases.
So based on the logic of the SAVE Act, it is fine under the Constitution for State officials to be compelled to help President Trump avoid the accountability that a Democratic Senate or House might bring after November, but State officials cannot be compelled to help clean up nuclear waste or make sure that violent felons don't buy firearms. That doesn't make much sense to me, and I hope my colleagues feel the same way.
Now, this legislation has not yet been passed through the Senate because I think it lacks votes on both sides of the aisle. Many of my colleagues know this is bad policy, know that it is unconstitutional, and know that it would disenfranchise millions of their own voters, particularly rural voters. They know that the SAVE Act would cause chaos because it is effective immediately.
The 2026 elections are already underway. Several States, like Texas, have already had primary elections. And all of my Republican colleagues were elected under the State-run election system that this bill would decimate. But today, because Trump has said so, they are claiming that this very system is rigged and must be completely overhauled, with immediate effect.
President Trump realizes the SAVE Act doesn't have the votes to become law, so he is running his usual playbook to try and implement pieces of this legislation in a lawless and haphazard manner.
First, Trump's Department of Justice has tried to amass private and personal voter roll data from nearly every single State. It has sued 30 States plus the District of Columbia for refusing to comply with those demands. I am proud that my State of Rhode Island is among them. But DOJ is not fighting fairly in court. According to reporting by WIRED Magazine, DOJ lawyers misled the Federal judge in Rhode Island overseeing this case about how the Federal Government is using this data. The lead DOJ lawyer initially told the judge that the Federal Government had not conducted any analysis on that data. But 2 weeks ago, DOJ filed a brief, in their words, ``to correct and clarify the record that preliminary internal data analysis of the nonpublic voter registration data has begun.''
They are using sophisticated cyber and AI tools to generate the list of people, I believe, who they think should not vote. That is very startling and
And, mind you, the lawyers at DOJ who are doing this are not career prosecutors who do things by the book. They are being led by Eric Neff, a partisan loyalist to Donald Trump, a member of the MAGA movement, who helped Trump perpetuate the Big Lie that the 2020 elections were stolen. And that is exactly what they are preparing to do for 2026 and 2028.
Second, Trump has signed an Executive order to make it virtually impossible to vote by mail. He is trying to demand that the Postal Service deny a mail ballot from any voter who is not preapproved by his administration. That is a gross violation of States' constitutional authority to run elections, and that is an illegal and unfunded mandate for the Postal Service, which is already in deep financial trouble and has not been a part of the Federal Government since Richard Nixon was President.
You can bet that, under Trump's direction, the Postal Service, which is supposed to do the ministerial function of collecting and delivering the mail, will be conscripted to support his power grab.
I am very proud to be here today, joined by my colleagues, in sounding the alarm about this bill. We want to help our fellow citizens participate in our elections because only their participation will ensure that the government is truly accountable to the people it represents.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will understand that and oppose these efforts to suppress the right to vote, which is a fundamental right of the people and has been protected by generations of American men and women wearing the uniform in the United States. And not only do we dishonor the Constitution through this bill; in my view, we dishonor their sacrifice.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, Donald Trump has been trying for quite some time to coerce the States into handing over their voter lists since his first term. That is so he and Stephen Miller can create a list of people they do and, most importantly, don't want to have voting in Federal elections. It would allow Trump to block his political enemies.
His Executive order is a desperate attempt by a failing President to cling to power by taking control over how States run their elections, and the reason I am here is its effect on States like Oregon that rely on vote-by-mail.
I am the country's first U.S. Senator elected completely by mail, and I can tell you the people of my State understand better than anyone that vote-by-mail is safe, easy, and effective. We have been doing it for over 30 years. Oregon is one of nine States that currently conducts elections by mail.
Trump talks a big game about vote-by-mail being riddled with fraud. As usual, he exists in his own reality. States that use mail-in voting experience fewer instances of voter fraud than any other system. A review of the vote-by-mail system by Oregon's Legislative Fiscal Office found that, from 2000 to 2019, there were approximately 61 million ballots cast, and, of those, 38 criminal convictions were obtained for fraud, amounting to a 0.00006 percent fraud rate.
So let's be clear. First of all, this Executive order is unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly grants States the power to establish the times, places, and manner of elections, including creating and managing voter lists. That power does not rest with the President.
The State of Kansas passed a similar law that was struck down by the courts because it illegally blocked 31,000 eligible voters from registering to vote.
Second, this Executive order is illegal. The creation of a national voter database would give the Trump administration unprecedented access to private voter data. Forcing the Social Security office to share private voter data with another Agency is a clear violation of the Privacy Act.
When news dropped about the Executive order, I immediately wrote to Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, demanding more information about this data-sharing agreement. This would force Social Security employees to put aside their real jobs--helping seniors and Americans navigate Social Security benefits--and, instead, they would have to execute Trump's voting witch hunt.
Americans are already being forced to endure long waits to receive their hard-earned benefits because of Trump's intentional mismanagement of the Agency. Under the order, they would have to wait even longer because the Agency is too busy doing Trump's illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical bidding.
From day one of his Presidency, Donald Trump has shown as much consideration for the personal privacy of the American people as a bull in a china shop. He essentially handed over the keys to the kingdom when he gave Elon Musk and DOGE unfettered access to the government's internal data systems. We still don't know who ended up having access to the data. Now he wants to do it again--this time, to create a database of voters that allows him to pick and choose who can vote. What he would be doing is weaponizing a fundamental democratic right-- the right to vote--and potentially target his enemies.
Given this administration's track record of mishandling and weaponizing Americans' personal information and data, we can be sure this is a blueprint for who-knows-what with respect to chilling abuses by the Trump administration. There is no legitimate justification for a provision like this.
Anybody who facilitates Donald Trump's directive to create a voter database would be a willing and blatant voter suppressor. They would be as culpable in this travesty as Donald Trump.
Vote-by-mail makes it possible for millions of Americans to make their voices heard. Stephen Miller would tell you that if you can't vote by mail, you can vote another way. That will have drastic consequences for millions of rural Americans, seniors, and people with disabilities. They would be shut out--no voice in our democracy.
An elderly woman living in Eastern Oregon would be forced to drive for hours to the nearest election office to cast a vote. If she doesn't have a car or if she can no longer drive, she would have to find a neighbor or a friend to drive her.
If your mom lived in a nursing home, she wouldn't be able to cast her ballot by mail. You would be forced to find time in between running your kids to soccer and holding down a full-time job to get her to a polling place.
This is exactly what Donald Trump hates about vote-by-mail: It encourages voter participation. It makes it easier for people to be heard, and it makes it harder for Trump to rig elections in his favor. He is terrified of vote-by-mail because, if he doesn't suppress votes, he knows he can't win. It protects the constitutional right to vote.
From his postmarking rule changes to consolidating the Postal Service, shutting down mail processing facilities, and now this, he is in the spaghetti-throwing phase of his midterm election strategy. He knows his platform of pardoning pedophiles and making life more expensive is going to lose him the midterms. Instead of trying to lower costs and improve life for ordinary families, he is hell-bent on making it harder for people to vote.
His Presidency is failing, and the Republican platform becomes more unpopular by the day. That is why they are making such a desperate attempt to get the SAVE Act passed before November. Republicans know they don't have the support in the Congress--certainly not to overhaul Federal elections and enact a voter suppression bill. They are wasting our time debating it because not one of them--not one--has the backbone to stand up to Donald Trump.
Oregonians will be damned if we let Donald Trump do away with how we conduct our voting so Donald Trump could rig another election.
I will fight to make sure Trump's election-rigging scheme dies the death it so richly deserves on the floor of the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Unanimous Consent Request: S. 4293 (Executive Session)
Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent in a few minutes that the Senate pass my legislation, the No Funding to Honor Crime Scenes Act.
Last month, America was shocked to learn that Cesar Chavez, who was famous for his leadership in the Civil Rights Movement, had a long history of preying on women and children. It is appalling that someone hailed as a hero for the rights of farmworkers was in the meantime molesting the very people he was supposedly advocating for. Perhaps it is even more shocking that his misconduct was actually widely known within his social and business circumstances and that the victims were encouraged to remain silent in order to protect this man's legacy.
As a father of two daughters, I consider child sexual abuse one of the most heinous crimes you can imagine, which is why I have long been an advocate for victims of human trafficking and sexual assault.
America should not celebrate the legacy of Cesar Chavez, nor use taxpayer dollars to do so. It should also not pay for and maintain the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, which stands at the very scene of some of his crimes. It must be closed. For this reason, I have introduced legislation to defund any Federal tribute bearing Cesar Chavez's name and nullify President Obama's Presidential proclamation that enacted this monument in the first place.
The No Funding to Honor Crime Scenes Act would direct the Secretary of the Interior to immediately close the monument and sell any and all Federal land that includes Chavez's home, his grave site, the memorial garden, and any contents of his personal office, which is where we know child sexual abuse occurred.
Not only would it close the monument glorifying this disgraced perpetrator, but it would go one step further to right the wrong by helping victims of abuse. My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer any funds set aside for the monument to the Debbie Smith Act, which supports survivors by providing State and Federal law enforcement agencies with resources to complete forensic analyses of crime scenes and untested rape kits.
I have led the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act many times with bipartisan backing, and I would hope this legislation would receive that very same support here today.
Taxpayer dollars should never be used to celebrate the abuse of women and children.
I urge the adoption of the legislation.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4293, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the sexual assault, the abuse that Ana Murguia, Debra Rojas, and Dolores Huerta have described is horrific, and it necessarily and profoundly changes Cesar Chavez's legacy and how he should be remembered. I am extremely grateful to the women who have courageously stepped forward. Many, like Dolores Huerta, feared that speaking up would enable those who had always opposed the workers movement to erase it, along with Cesar Chavez, and I stand here today to ensure that is never the case.
The movement Dolores Huerta and so many others fought for was bigger than any one man, and when we learn shocking or terrible things about our history, the right answer is to tell the truth, never to hide it.
I am concerned that what my colleague from Texas is proposing could do just that--hide the truth about Cesar Chavez and, unfortunately, the incredible farmworkers movement with it.
The legislation that Senator Cornyn is asking us to approve today would not only abolish the Cesar Chavez National Monument, it could erase the foundational history of the farmworkers movement in the process. It would follow through on the threat that silenced the survivors of Chavez's abuse.
Let me be clear. I agree unequivocally that we should no longer have a monument named after Cesar Chavez, but we absolutely should not erase the monument's telling of the story of the farm labor movement. That is a story that belongs to many people, including the survivors of Chavez's violence.
Abolishing the monument would serve only to sweep his violence under the rug, and it would sweep the stories of Americans involved in the farmworkers movement under the rug with it. This is a movement that wasn't just founded by a single man; it was a movement because it was propelled by the many. Among those leading it was Dolores Huerta, a native New Mexican and a hero to an entire generation of Hispanic and Latino men and women alike. If we erase this monument, we also erase her work, her legacy, and the countless other leaders in this photo from the monument.
The monument may be named after one man, but we can change that, and we can change that without erasing the history of tens of thousands of American farmworkers across decades, including the history of his victims. That is an effort that is, in fact, already underway-- expanding the mission and scope of the monument to encompass more of the histories of the farmworkers themselves. This includes incorporating the stories of Filipino Americans in California whose long history of advocacy and activism for farmworkers' rights deserves to be remembered and lifted up.
The rich legacy of farmworkers in building and sustaining this country is proof that a national monument dedicated to their story and their movement for fair labor practices should persist.
The question is, What should happen to this monument? What should happen to it next should include input from survivors and from other Americans involved in the farmworkers movement. I do not know, frankly, what they will say, but I do know what I have already heard.
Yesterday, I received a letter from multiple organizations that included the Hispanic Access Fund and the Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation. What those groups made clear is that they do not support abolishing this national monument, saying that it would ``erase the nationally significant story of the broader Farmworker Movement, including the many leaders, activists, and workers who fought for dignity and fair wages.''
These groups just want a voice in what happens next, and they point out quite clearly that the legislation being considered now was crafted without having that conversation with all the affected communities.
That is why I will ask to amend my colleague's proposal to instead temporarily close the monument and require the National Park Service to complete a new special resource study for the monument in consultation with all of those who are part of the farm labor
The study should consider what sites and properties are appropriate to include in a farm labor movement monument. This is what we need to ensure that the monument is focused on honoring and reflecting the full story of the farmworkers movement, not Cesar Chavez.
I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request to include my amendments at the desk; further, that the bill, as amended, be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modifications?
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, so if I understand the Senator correctly, on the same day that two Members of Congress have resigned as a result of sexual misconduct, we are going to not address this travesty that Cesar Chavez has inflicted upon his victims--women and children--out of concern for the farmworkers movement.
Now, I am happy to work with the Senator to try to reflect on that history, but you can't separate the name of Cesar Chavez from this movement because it is his house, and it is his grave site and memorial garden.
Our colleague says: Well, we are going to shut it down and do a study.
Well, that is not good enough. He also will strip out the money that would otherwise go to the Debbie Smith Act, which I have worked on for many years now, honoring Debbie Smith, who championed the testing of rape kits that had been sitting in evidence lockers for many years. This is a very important part of our service to these victims of sexual abuse.
I think it is entirely appropriate that the money that comes from this monument go to help fund future victims of sexual assault.
One of Cesar Chavez's victims was just 13 years old when he sexually assaulted her in his office, which is where this site is located. This is literally a crime scene. He was 45 years old and a world-famous political figure, but she was just a child. He used his home office to rape and molest her repeatedly over the coming years. She contemplated suicide and lived in terror for more than half a century before coming public about it. But thanks to her courage and the courage of many other brave survivors, we now know the truth about Cesar Chavez.
I say this with all due respect to the Senator from New Mexico, but his amendment is an insult to the countless victims of Cesar Chavez's sexual misconduct. Instead of taking action to end taxpayer funding celebrating this predator, for a monument to honor their abuser, his amendment would simply require the government to shut down the monument to public access while the government does a report. In other words, his amendment would ask my constituents and all Americans to continue paying their hard-earned money to preserve this crime scene celebrating a serial child rapist.
This amendment would also deny justice to, as I said, future sexual assault survivors by stopping the redirection of funds to the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog elimination program.
In other words, his amendment would protect the legacy of Cesar Chavez and does nothing to honor sexual assault survivors. This is the kind of political gamesmanship that makes people hate Washington-- pretending to be concerned about an issue but yet doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to address it.
We don't need a report or a further study to delay action. We know that Cesar Chavez's victims--from his victims that he was a sexual predator. I choose to believe those victims, and I hope the Senator from New Mexico does as well.
We should completely defund, permanently close, and divest this monument and use the savings to prevent future serial rapists from escaping justice.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the original request?
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think what we agree on is that Cesar Chavez should not be lionized and his name should not be associated with a monument in the United States of America and a unit of the National Park Service.
I also think we should tell that story, not sweep it under the rug, and more importantly, tell the stories of the victims and the stories of the people who made that movement successful in standing up for human dignity. We should engage the survivors. We should engage all the communities that were part of that movement. And we should take this as an opportunity to tell that story fundamental to the American experience.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, we can do what the Senator from New Mexico suggests. We can have a discussion about what would be an appropriate way to recognize the contribution of farmworkers in this country without honoring a monster in the process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Wildfire Prevention (Executive Session)
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to sound the alarm on a crisis that is a freight train speeding toward the Western United States in the form of what could be one of the worst wildfire seasons in modern history.
I was home in Oregon this month where I received a fire briefing from officials in Southern Oregon. What I heard that day was just jaw- dropping. Snowpack is at historic lows at home. Some parts of the State have less than 10 percent of their normal snowpack. Our beloved Crater Lake received its lowest snowpack in 100 years.
At the time when snowpack should usually be peaking, it is completely gone less than a month into spring. Western States, including Oregon, were already suffering from horrendous drought, and now this year's record low snowfall is going to make it worse.
Simply put, there is no water, and come summertime, Oregon is going to be like a tinderbox waiting to go up in flames. This is a recipe for disaster, but it has been made even worse by Donald Trump's failed leadership when it comes to preparing us to deal with wildfires. Last year, for example, DOGE took a sledgehammer to Federal wildfire programs.
Between funding cuts that bullied Federal employees into taking early retirement and pressure campaigns to leave public service, it was a tough time. Mr. President, 1,400 qualified firefighters left the Forest Service in the first year of the Trump Presidency.
These are known as red card holders. They might work in other areas of the Forest Service as technical support. They might work in administrative roles, but they are trained, qualified firefighters who can be called up in particularly bad years. That is this one.
And to make matters worse, firefighting personnel were caught in the crosshairs of Trump and Vance's immigration agenda of chaos and cruelty. While immigrants put their lives on the line to battle fires, Trump's immigration enforcement officers were actually arresting them and removing them from the fire line. Let me repeat that so there is no confusion: arresting firefighters in the middle of fighting fires--the safety of our communities be damned as long as Donald Trump gets a FOX News segment. These are immigrants who chose to put their lives on the line to defend all of us. And how were they repaid? Donald Trump repaid them by arresting them on the frontlines and throwing them in detention centers while the fires were actually still raging.
Locking up firefighters isn't an immigration agenda that makes us safer. It is so self-sabotaging, it makes your head spin.
The fact is, Donald Trump has actually kneecapped the ability to reduce fire risks altogether. Thinning and prescribed fire are proven, science-backed tools to reduce the risk in the woods. Each year, during the colder months, hazardous fuel treatment is conducted to reduce the build up of fuels in our forests that act as kindling for fires during the summer.
Last year, I asked the Trump administration for an update on how much treatment they had actually done in the woods. The Forest Service Chief confirmed to me in September that the administration's treatment levels were roughly a million acres below previous years.
Just a few weeks later, Donald Trump plunged us into the longest government shutdown in the country's history. That put hazardous fuel treatment on hold and set treatment levels back even more.
Now, last week, I got another letter from the Chief confirming the current treatment levels remain significantly behind their levels at the end of 2024.
So the administration wants to call this a win, saying they almost met their treatment goals. Here is some breaking news for Donald Trump: It is easy to do a victory lap about your achievements when you set the bar on the floor.
So here is the current lay of the land: Hazardous fuel treatment levels are down millions of acres. The Forest Service is still down 1,400 firefighters and countless other employees. Budget cuts have yet to be restored. Oregon and the rest of the West have massive fuels buildup in our forests and no water.
So what are Donald Trump and his assistants doing? It sure isn't staffing up the Forest Service with qualified firefighters.
It is not making sure States have enough money to prepare for the blazes to come.
It is not keeping up our forests to reduce fire risks.
It sure as hell isn't funding FEMA, the Agency that plays a critical role in helping our communities recover from wildfires and remains mostly shut down under the failed leadership of Donald Trump. In fact, Donald Trump has so slashed staffing at FEMA, cutting the Agency's ability to respond to emergencies, that we are concerned about the days ahead after watching what happened with the floods in Texas Hill Country last summer.
Donald Trump is play-acting as a dictator, starting illegal wars in the Middle East. And now he wants Congress to give him $200 billion so that he can keep bombing Iran.
I am going to wrap up by saying it this way: Let's use that $200 billion here at home. Let's use it to manage the forests.
You should know that the picture that I have painted of my State also looks like it is going to affect something like two-thirds of the West, and I know my colleague is interested in following that.
We should be reducing the risk of fires that burn down homes and livelihoods. Let's use the money that Donald Trump wants to put into the war to hire and pay the courageous firefighters that put their lives on the line every year, lives that we always care about, especially because they are protecting our communities.
True to form, Donald Trump always finds a way to make things worse. Just last week, in the midst of the brewing catastrophe I have described, Donald Trump announced he is going to dismantle the U.S. Forest Service. At my 11 townhall meetings across the State here over the break, I heard about this recently.
The Agency is the one that is in charge of preparing for and fighting wildfires, and Donald Trump is doing away with existing experts and authorities from the region to, no doubt, be replaced with people who will do his own bidding.
So Donald Trump defunded 57 research stations dedicated to researching the impact of drought and forest management on wildfire risk. The administration called it a harmless reorganization.
Anybody with a pulse can see this for what it really is: an intentional stunt to kneecap firefighting capabilities and leave Oregonians literally in the line of fire.
Come summertime when these blazes are strong, the Forest Service will be in complete upheaval, too busy rearranging offices and desk chairs to fight fires. I guess that is what Donald Trump intended in the first place.
This is like needing open-heart surgery, and a few weeks before your operation, learning that the hospital has replaced your heart surgeon with Hannibal Lecter.
It is another casualty of the Trump crusade to sell off our forests and public lands to billionaires and corporations.
The bottom line, Mr. President--and you and I have talked about this--public lands are just that, they are public. Once you sell them off, you can't get them back.
Donald Trump doesn't care as long as his billionaire buddies and the Epstein class get to build their own personal resorts.
I will close with this. Donald Trump campaigned on cheaper eggs and lower gas prices. Instead, aided and abetted by Republicans in the Congress, he is doing everything to drive up costs and, as I am pointing out with respect to the West, making Americans less safe. Winners under the Trump Presidency are the people at the very top, the corporations and the Epstein class. He sure as hell isn't looking out for the working people who feel like they are getting pushed off an economic tightrope.
When our communities are ablaze this summer, there is going to be no time to waste, no time to wait for the training of new firefighters because Donald Trump fired everybody who was qualified, no time to do fire risk reduction work. Donald Trump has set Western States up for failure this fire season, and I very, very much fear the outcome in the West will be catastrophic.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
