Martin Heinrich

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 5199, the GRID Savings Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from Ohio and I agree on one thing: AI data centers can mean higher costs for American families, and in a lot of places, they already do. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that data center demand has already pushed electricity prices across the Nation up by 2 to 6 percent--a number that they expect to increase to 20 to 30 percent by 2028. In the Mid-Atlantic region, that means an extra $840 per year, per family, for the next 2 years--840 bucks. We expect to see increases like this across the country as more AI data centers come online, but the Ratepayer Protection Act falls short of what we need to do to respond. When I open my mail and unfold my electricity bill and read how much I owe for the month, it doesn't say that I may pay that amount. It doesn't say that I should pay that amount. It is not optional. Just like every other bill-paying American family out there, I open that bill, and I have to pay it. The same needs to be true for AI data centers. If hyperscalers and other Big Tech developers need expensive new facilities and more energy, they should pay for it, not our hard-working families and small businesses. I think the Senator from Ohio and I agree on that principle, and plenty of Big Tech companies have said that that is their plan. But I don't think it is enough to just take their word for it. It is not enough for us to tell States to consider making data centers pay for grid updates. Rather than voluntary pledges or suggestions to States, Congress needs to pass real legislation with real teeth. That is why I introduced the GRID Savings Act--not a voluntary agreement--to require large load customers like data centers to pay for the facilities needed to connect them to the grid--not to consider it, not to make pledges, but to actually do it; to pay for the upgrades they need. That way, we can ensure reliable, low-cost energy to power everyday lives. My bill is what is needed to start to bring down energy prices. We also need to do more to get data centers to actually engage with communities from the beginning to the very end. We need to conserve local resources, especially water. And we need to protect communities from air pollution by using clean energy and battery storage. But we are not going to get there with the bill that the Senator from Ohio has proposed. Therefore, I object.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, this bill will needlessly punish the Northern Mariana Islands and significantly--or I should say further--harm its tourist economy, which is the islands' largest source of revenue and jobs. There is a current program in place. The current program requires any visitors who come to the Northern Mariana Islands through this program to undergo a two-step vetting process by the Department of Homeland Security, including having an in-person interview. That program has already reduced visitation from the PRC from over 185,000 visitors down to 18 in 2026--not 18,000 but 18. The purpose is to ensure that visitors do not pose any risk to the United States but allow the islands' economy to grow. The current visa program was put in place after a long and thoughtful consultation between the United States and our territory the Northern Mariana Islands. It successfully balances both our national security needs and supports the economic vitality of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Northern Mariana Islands are more than just an American territory; they are one of our most important partners in the Pacific to actually counter China's influence in this critical theater. We can't ask them to further decimate their tourism economy. This legislation, as well meaning as it is, would certainly undermine the stability of our partner and American territory. We should not abolish the program. Instead, we need to ensure the Department of Homeland Security is doing sufficient screening to prevent visitation that poses a risk. The Northern Mariana Islands do not have a voice in the Senate, and that is why I am objecting today in support of our partner in the Pacific. While I oppose the passage of this bill, I do stand ready to work with Senator Scott and others to support the security of our Nation in a way that does not harm the people and government of the Northern Mariana Islands. So I object to the request.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, why are we here today? We are here today because some people want to abuse the Congressional Review Act and use it in a way it has never been used before. The Boundary Waters is protected from copper sulfide mining because there was a secretarial order that was put in place, a narrow order authorized by statute under FLPMA--the Federal Land Policy and Management Act--which specifically spells out the Secretary of the Interior's authority to do this. It is not a regulation. The Congressional Review Act was written to prevent regulatory overreach. Regulations are broad. They apply to large swaths of the country. They are not things that are authorized specifically in statute. This has never been done before, and if we do this here, if we do it to the delegation from Minnesota, who has spoken up again and again and again about why this is wrong, what about when it is aimed at Montana? what about when it is aimed at Alaska? what about when it is aimed at South Dakota? This is wrong. And why are we doing it? To pad the pockets of the President's buddy from Chile so that he can take our minerals--our minerals, the American people's minerals--send them to China, process them in China, and then maybe sell them back to the American people with a tariff. This is nuts. Is that ``America First''? That is ``America Last.'' What is at stake? What is at stake is a million acres of the most pristine public lands in the United States, places where my kids have canoed and fished and forged their identities. We are going to do that to Minnesota? We are going to do that to the delegation from Minnesota? We are going to do that to the American people who cherish this place? Twenty percent of the National Forest Service System's freshwater is in these Boundary Waters, and we are going to pollute that with sulfuric acid? This company plans to dump millions of tons of waste rock on this site. That will never be removed. It will be sitting there, waiting for the air and the water to turn that waste rock full of sulfides into sulfuric acid. I can tell you as somebody who has been a natural resources trustee, who has had to negotiate with copper companies in my own State, that this type of copper mining has never been done without polluting the water--never. Not once. So we are guaranteeing that we are going to pollute the Boundary Waters. It is fashionable today to talk about selling off the public lands. These places--this place that people like Teddy Roosevelt and Sigurd Olson and so many others fought to preserve--they are the anvil on which we have forged our collective identity as a country. They are the places we are still free. They are not places to sell off to some foreign company for a few years of profit, a few years versus a century of identity for the people of Minnesota and this country. This is a dark day for this body. This is a stain on what the Senate used to be but certainly is not today. The public lands are the one thing, when I go home, that unites my constituents from left to right. Whether you are a bowhunter or a bunny hugger, it doesn't matter--they love our public lands, and they care about our public lands. There are many places that we can mine and do it right. My dad worked for Anaconda Copper. My grandfather was a gold miner. This is a boondoggle. This is wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for her endless advocacy for this special place, one of America's true gems. I do hope to make it to the Boundary Waters this summer. Last July, I was supposed to be in the Boundary Waters. I had long planned a trip with my family. It was to be our first time exploring the Boundary Waters. My family made it; I did not. My wife Julie and my sons Micah and Carter had an incredible time that they will always remember. They paddled their canoes across lakes. They portaged from lake to lake. They slept under a blanket of stars that most people in Washington, DC, could never imagine because they can't see it. I was supposed to be part of that trip. I was stuck here, fighting to strip out the public land selloff language from the Republican budget bill. They sent me lots of pictures afterwards, pictures of the northern pike here that my son caught--my son Micah. My wife Julie was able to spend some really quality wilderness time with both of our sons before they went off to their respective colleges for the year. She basically told me that they ate more food on this trip than most rugby teams. Like my family, millions--literally millions--of Americans have hunted and fished and paddled and traversed the Boundary Waters. In fact, it has an almost religious connotation among sportsmen in particular. It is somewhat amazing to me to see a Republican Party that used to have such fidelity to hunters and anglers basically roll all of the organizations that my colleague from Minnesota rattled off which said this is not the right place for this--organizations like Pheasants Forever, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and on and on and on--but that is where we are today. You know, stories from the Boundary Waters, stories of stalking whitetail and grouse are passed down from generation to generation in the Midwest. Legendary stories of lake trout and northern pike and walleye abound, sometimes with the fish actually getting bigger with each telling of the story. The water, as the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Smith, said, is some of the cleanest you will find anywhere in the lower 48. It is a bucket-list, once-in-a-lifetime designation for so many public land owners. And that is precisely what is at risk with this vote--one of our Nation's true crown jewels. So let's back up a little bit for folks who don't have firsthand knowledge of what the Boundary Waters is, where it is, and do a little explaining. The Boundary Waters is one of the most incredible intact wilderness landscapes left in our Nation. It is an absolute tapestry of lakes and streams, consisting of well over 1,000 individual lakes, 2,000 designated campsites, and hundreds of miles of rivers and streams. The Boundary Waters contains the largest contiguous landscape of uncut forest remaining in the Eastern United States. The 3 million-acre Superior National Forest in which the Boundary Waters sits contains fully 20 percent of all the freshwater in the entire National Forest System--an incredible figure. In fact, this wilderness was so important that Teddy Roosevelt himself, President Roosevelt, set it aside as part of the Superior National Forest all the way back in 1909. Almost half a century later, Congress voted overwhelmingly to include the Boundary Waters as one of the original units of the National Wilderness System. In many ways, Minnesotans rely on the Boundary Waters to support their local economy. Every year, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness draws more visitors--more visitors--than any other wilderness area in the entire Nation. This recreation supports 17,000 Minnesotan jobs, contributes roughly $1 billion in annual sales, and preserves and shares, more importantly, a way of life--a way of life that has been passed down from generation to generation. This is a place, this is an area that is no stranger to threats. In addition to containing so many of the natural resources that come with the wilderness, the area also contains copper. I should say, you know, for one, there is a long history of iron mining in this area. I grew up the son of someone who worked for Anaconda Copper, the grandson of somebody who was a gold miner. But I want to talk a little bit about the difference between some of these Iron Range mines that mine ore that is just chemically inert. It is chemically stable. When you mine for iron, you are basically mining iron oxide. You are mining rust, and then you are turning that back into iron. This is not that kind of mine. This is a copper sulfide mine, and the company that wants to mine here is called Twin Metals. And that sounds so Minnesotan. I think they might have picked it to sound Minnesotan. It is actually a subsidiary of a Chilean mining company called Antofagasta. They want to build this copper-nickel mine less than a mile upstream from the Boundary Waters on a spit of land between two waterways. Let me explain a little bit about what it looks like to mine copper in a place like Boundary Waters, particularly when you are mining copper sulfide ore. The company will have to dig some very deep shafts to reach these very deep ore bodies. They will then remove many millions of tons for processing, millions and millions of tons of copper sulfide ore. After they remove what copper and nickel are economically recoverable in that ore, they will dump as much as 100 million tons of waste rock and low-grade ore on the site, never to be removed. Now, deep underground, the copper is locked up in this ore rich in sulfur, but that ore has never been exposed to water. It has never been exposed to oxygen or air. And when you bring it to the surface and you let it sit out in a pile and you expose it to air and water, oxygen bonds with that sulfur, and when you bond oxygen to sulfur, you get sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is one of the hardest waste products you can imagine to try to control. The waste rock that has been dumped on the site will naturally form sulfuric acid. That acid will then dissolve toxic heavy metals present in the waste rock, and then you have this toxic stew of heavy metals along with sulfuric acid. Now, there is no plan to remove all this waste from the mine site, so it is basically a ticking time bomb of acid and heavy metals. Studies by the EPA say that the odds of sulfuric acid polluting the Boundary Waters under this scenario are highly likely. And I will do you one better: It has a perfect track record of polluting water. That is according to the peer-reviewed study on sulfide-ore copper mining that drove the 2023 decision to ban mining in the area. It is also my personal experience as a former natural resources trustee who had to negotiate with copper companies that polluted water with this same technology. So it is not just highly likely; it is guaranteed. Sulfide mining in the Rainy River watershed will cause certain irreversible pollution to the Boundary Waters. Think again about eating those fish that you caught or drinking that water you dipped from the middle of the lake, because the thing about sulfuric acid poisoning is it is invisible. You can't see it, but it makes water unsafe to drink. Sulfuric acid also lowers the pH level of water, changing entire ecosystems. At high levels, fish that rely on healthy water to live literally experience respiratory failure in water poisoned by sulfuric acid. They literally drown to death. They will not be able to reproduce normally. Their food sources will be tainted, meaning entire fish populations of lake trout and smallmouth bass will be at risk. The sulfuric acid produced by this mine will leach heavy metals like lead, mercury, or copper into that same water. That will then accumulate in the bodies of fish and wildlife that consume that water. And when people eat meat and fish with heavy metals, they accumulate in our bodies too. This isn't a myth; it is a virtually guaranteed outcome because we know that plans for the mine include storing over 100 million tons of toxic waste rock on the edge of the wilderness upstream of the Boundary Waters. Think about how much that is. Let's visualize how much waste rock we are talking about being dumped and never removed from this mine site. A hundred million tons is like 740,000 Boeing 777 airplanes. It is twice the mass of all the living people on Earth. It is 500 times the weight of the Empire State Building sitting there, generating toxic acid. It is the amount of toxic waste that Antofagasta--a foreign mining company that plans to sell the copper to foreign countries-- plans to store on the edge of the largest patch of wild rivers and forests in our country, the place that has 20 percent of all the freshwater in our National Forest System. The damage is really unthinkable, but it is also irreversible because currently we don't have any technology available that is capable of reversing sulfuric acid contamination. This is bad. It is so bad that in 2016, even before there was a mineral withdrawal, the Obama administration canceled the mine's lease. And in 2023, after years of review and overwhelming public support, a 20-year mineral withdrawal was established in the Rainy River watershed, home to the Boundary Waters. That decision reflects common sense. Some places are too valuable to gamble with. With today's technology, if it is a gamble, why not wait 30 years when maybe that technology is a sure bet? But it is not a sure bet today. That decision also reflected the voices of the American people because the assessment that led to the mineral withdrawal was completed by the U.S. Forest Service in 2022, and it included hundreds of thousands of public comments--675,000 public comments--over 95 percent of which favored the withdrawal area being withdrawn from nonferrous mining, sulfide mining. Today, 70 percent of Minnesotans oppose mining in the Boundary Waters. Instead of listening to Minnesotans and Americans from all over the country who care about this place, Republicans today are using an unprecedented, blunt-force legislative method that includes zero public comment--no comment period--to make decisions about our public lands without any input from the people to whom those lands actually belong. We can't talk about the Boundary Waters without also speaking of belonging and Tribal communities. Three Tribes--the Bois Forte Band, the Fond du Lac Band, and the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa--have extensive treaty rights in Northeastern Minnesota. These are rights to do things like hunt and fish and gather wild rice. These rights are guaranteed to them by the 1854 Treaty of La Pointe and have been reaffirmed by Federal courts over and over again. By overturning the public land order with a CRA resolution, Senate Republicans will not only cut Tribes out of the conversation, but they disrespect the Tribal treaty rights and directly risk those Tribes' guaranteed access to their traditional way of life and subsistence use of this place. So since my Republican colleagues are refusing to include constituents' voices in this process, I will bring a few of those from New Mexico to the floor here today. Dr. Brown, from Santa Fe, wrote me in urging that we oppose this vote. He said: I've canoed the Boundary Waters many times and can attest to its uniqueness . . . with some of the purest water in the U.S., these lakes are visited and admired by thousands of Americans . . . Pollution of the Boundary Waters would be a tragedy for the nation and the world. Dr. Merriman, from Albuquerque, said: Please vote no on HJ Res 140. Some things are worth more than money. Lee, from Los Alamos, wrote: I am writing to ask you to oppose H.J. Res 140 . . . The [Boundary Waters Canoe Area] is a national treasure--not just for Minnesotans but for me and other New Mexicans as well. From Naima in Santa Fe: This is a hideous giveaway to corporate profiteers and cannot stand. Please vote NO. From Dr. Bagne in Silver City: Any short-term economic gains would clearly not outweigh the long-term risks to the ecosystem and water supplies. Although it is in Minnesota, many similar public lands in New Mexico would be threatened by . . . relaxing mining rules. Please oppose. Judy, from Albuquerque, wrote: I am aghast . . . Please do all that you can to stop this giveaway of our wonderful public lands. This happened despite all the thousands of citizen signatures against the vote. From Roxane in Rio Rancho: Please vote against reversing the ban on mining . . . I am very concerned that the Trump Administration is flying under the radar and doing a lot of damage that will be difficult, or even impossible, to reverse. From Amy in Albuquerque: Please do not allow this to happen. [The Boundary Waters] belong to all Americans, not to a Chilean mining company with contracts to [process ore in] China. Their voices matter because the Boundary Waters are our public lands--all of ours. President Teddy Roosevelt, who had the incredible foresight to protect this beautiful place, had it right when he said that we ``should see to it that they are preserved for [our] children and [our] children's children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.'' The way I look at public lands is that they are the closest, most tangible thing we have to being able to represent true Jeffersonian democracy. They are the thing, as we saw last June, that often unites us across the political spectrum. If you take these public lands away, you tear away the places where we are the most free. This is an issue of our heritage, and it is an issue of our inheritance. It is an issue for Minnesota, but it is not just an issue for Minnesota--it is an issue for our Nation. It is about something bigger. It is a test of whether our public lands--as a friend of mine likes to say--our public lands that are the anvil upon which we have forged our collective identity. Can that be stripped from us? Can it be stripped of their protections? You know, I am going to summarize this one more time. We are going to allow a foreign mining company to take our minerals, to ship those minerals to China for processing, and then to sell those back to us with a tariff on top. Like, how is that ``America First''? It is not. And to risk this globally, incredible rare asset that is the Boundary Waters for that, boy, that just seems really shortsighted to me. I would urge every one of my colleagues--I would urge you--to vote no on this Congressional Review Act resolution.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. 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.

Mr. HEINRICH. 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 movement, including the survivors of Chavez's violence. 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.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, nearly 5 years ago, I stood on the Senate floor, and I said that we were ``facing the most dangerous and overt threat to our democratic system in generations.'' I was speaking then in support of the John Lewis For the People Act. Along with my Democratic colleagues, I was pushing to expand Americans' right to vote and push back against the influence of dark money in our elections. But the threat facing us then pales in comparison to the one that we face today in the form of the Republicans' so-called SAVE Act because their SAVE Act does nothing to save anyone from anything. It does not protect our freedoms; it does not protect our elections; and it does not protect our country. Instead, it actively targets all three. So I rise again today to face down this new dangerous and overt threat, this time coming from within our own Federal Government. I rise again today in defense of our right to vote because our right to vote is the foundation of every other right that we have. From our right to bear arms to our right to peacefully protest, it is only through our right to vote that we can protect those freedoms and demand a government that does the same. We know this to our core, to our founding, to the genesis of our country. When, 250 years ago, we fought for independence from Kings, we did so for a government of the people, by the people. The future of that government right now depends on protecting Americans' right to vote. It depends on ensuring that this lever to hold our leaders accountable, to steer our country's future, and to deliver on our country's promise remains in the hands of Americans--that is, in the hands of all Americans. And when I think about the importance of this fight, I think about my former colleague whose office was right across the hall from mine when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I think about Congressman John Lewis. I think about him and the thousands who marched in Selma and put their lives on the line to call for the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I think about the thousands who fought against reading tests and poll taxes, folks who faced lynching for having the audacity to cast their vote, folks who ensured access to the vote wouldn't belong only to the wealthy, landowning men. I think about the thousands of women who organized and marched to demand passage of the 19th Amendment, the women who led that movement and the women who rightly demanded to be included within it. And I think about the legislative and courtroom battles that delivered the right to vote to Native Americans and Mexican Americans, a right so fundamental to our democracy but one that generations upon generations of Americans had to fight for, continuing into today. It is our right to make our voices heard through our vote, regardless of income or education, regardless of race or gender. When we, as Americans, exercise our right to vote, we hold in our hands the reins of this great democracy. And while I stand here in reverence of that incredible right and the decades and decades of work that have brought it into the reach of millions, I also stand here in defense of it because it is truly under direct threat right now. Republicans' SAVE Act would strip the right to vote from those who don't already have a passport or a birth certificate or the time and money to expedite getting one. It would strip the right to vote from women who took their husband's last name and don't have the means to get the affidavits or extra documents to prove that they are the same person they were at birth. It would effectively strip voters of the ability to register to vote by mail. And the substitute amendment that was offered yesterday would eliminate most mail-in voting altogether. This SAVE Act is today's poll tax, today's exclusion of everyday Americans. Senate Republicans claim that this is necessary to confront the threat of foreign citizens voting in our elections, but the requirements their SAVE Act imposes are neither necessary nor justified. They are by design. They are intended to reimpose a wealth requirement to vote, and they are intended to attack married women's right to vote. These are the real threats that this legislation poses. This is not a voter ID bill; this is a voter suppression bill. And while the consequences will fall heaviest on married women and those without the money and time to get the necessary documents, it is up to all Americans to push back--which reminds me of the words of Benjamin Franklin. When asked at the Constitutional Convention if our Founders had created a monarchy or a republic, Franklin famously said: A republic, if you can keep it. We can, we must, and we know how because generations upon generations have fought for our sacred right to vote, and in that fight, they have shown us the way because these are not the first threats we have faced to elections in our country's history or even in my limited time in the Congress. In 2016, we saw Russia execute a concerted campaign to mislead and divide Americans, all in an effort to influence that year's Presidential election. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I helped investigate those efforts, recommending reforms to push back and supporting funding to improve election security across the country, including in my home State of New Mexico. In 2021, we saw then-defeated President Trump push his Big Lie and urge insurrectionists to storm the Capitol to stop the 2020 Presidential election certification. As a Member of this body, I joined my colleagues in ensuring that the election certification would continue and, later, in clarifying our laws to fortify our election certification process going forward. And, last July, I helped introduce the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to fully restore that landmark legislation and to override the Supreme Court's 2013 decision that took an ax to the heart of it. But now, as we enter this midterm election, we see the threats for what they are--and who they are coming from. They aren't coming from foreign governments or defeated candidates this time. They are coming from within our own Federal Government and directly targeting American citizens' right to vote. They are coming from our Commander in Chief and they are coming from our Department of Justice and they are coming from many in the Republican Party. They are coming from folks who would rather sabotage and strip away Americans' right to vote than face the American people's dissatisfaction or, for that matter, be willing to tackle affordability. The legislation they are using to do that is their so-called SAVE Act, one of the most extreme voter suppression bills in recent history. It is intended to undermine our elections, using tactics that are straight out of an authoritarian playbook. But we know how to defeat this new threat: Vote no. Vote no on the SAVE Act because it would require every American to prove their citizenship with a passport or a document like a birth certificate every time they register or reregister to vote, because about 140 million Americans don't have passports and about 21 million Americans don't have ready access to documents proving their citizenship either. But the process to get a passport, that is not fast, that is not easy. In fact, that is not inexpensive. Requiring voters to purchase or renew a passport for $130 is a modern-day poll tax. This is Jim Crow 2.0. That is even assuming you can get yours in time to actually be able to use it to vote in this year's election. And while I support verifying citizenship, that process should not be limited to just passports and birth certificates. We already have ways to do this, like the motor voter program, which the SAVE Act would effectively eliminate. That program verifies citizenship. Vote no on the SAVE Act because it would require people whose names don't match their birth certificates, like women who have taken their husband's last name, to provide notarized affidavits, documentation that will undoubtedly take more time and more money to produce. Vote no on the SAVE Act because it affects our veterans too. With the SAVE Act, many servicemembers and veterans won't be able to register to vote or to vote with their military IDs, even people who fought for this country. Vote no on the SAVE Act because even if you happen to have the right documents, you will find that the bill all but eliminates voter registration drives, online registration, and automatic registration. Vote no on the SAVE Act because even when it is done eviscerating your rights to vote, the SAVE Act would turn its sights on election officials. It would require massive, unfunded changes on how elections are administered on the ground overnight, changes that local governments would be forced to pay for, all while exposing election officials to criminal and civil liability. If you are tempted to vote yes, let me ask this: What does it say about leaders whose sole strategy for remaining in power requires depriving American citizens of the right to vote? It shows they are weak. It shows they are scared. It shows that their allegiance is to power, not to the American people. And it shows that they have no intention of delivering what the American people actually want right now, which is to bring down costs. In the end, the conclusion is clear: The SAVE Act is straight-up voter suppression, and it is fundamentally undemocratic, un-American, and wrong. It is not just me saying that, not just my Senate Democratic colleagues saying that; my constituents see it for what it is too. Marie from Albuquerque writes: This act is a blatant attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters of their rights . . . it is a blatant attempt to undermine our entire election system. Deborah from Las Cruces says: Especially in New Mexico, so many citizens do not have the resources to get the sort of documentation [that] this act requires. It will target not only those in need, but also women who have recently married and changed their name, people who have moved to a different home, Native Americans with little access to the bureaucracy to [even] obtain documents, and older people who may have been born at home and never had a birth certificate to begin with. Dawn from Rio Rancho writes: It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement, streamline, and add staff because we would all have to go in-person. And if you live in a rural community, the whole process is even harder. Mariah from Santa Fe writes: This is a brazen attempt to strip the voting rights of trans, immigrant, and women voters across the country, and the GOP's way of putting their thumb on the scale of America's future . . . ALL of us deserve a part in the great experiment of American Democracy. So much progress is made when we're all included, not excluded. And Ms. Marsh Davis from Bloomfield says: This legislation is not about election security. It is a coordinated effort to suppress lawful voters by turning registration into a bureaucratic obstacle course. . . . Voting should not hinge on flawless paperwork. When officials are afraid to register voters, democracy suffers. . . . Voter suppression is not always loud. Often, it works through inconvenience, confusion, and quiet disqualification-- ensuring voters only discover the problem when [it's] too late. These are the voices of my constituents from New Mexico, and they are not alone because right now most Americans know that the SAVE Act is not the answer; they see through Republicans' voter suppression scheme; and they are asking us here in the Senate to fight back. So let me close with some words from U.S. Senator Dennis Chavez of my great State. Either we are all free, or we fail; democracy must belong to all of us. I have a passport. I have the same last name today as I did when I was born. The SAVE Act won't stop me from voting, but it will stop thousands upon thousands of my constituents. I will repeat: This is not a voter ID bill; this is a voter suppression bill. All American citizens should have the same right to vote as the Senators in this room. All American citizens deserve to hold the reins of this great democracy in their hands. So for those constituents, for all Americans, I say again: Either we are all free, or we fail; democracy must belong to all of us. I call upon my colleagues in the Senate: Choose freedom, choose democracy, and say no to this so-called SAVE Act.

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

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, let me start off by pointing out that New Mexico is home to one of the most important living cultural landscapes in the United States. You may have heard of it. It is known as Chaco Canyon. It is a world heritage site and a national historical park. It is truly breathtaking if you have ever been there, and when you are there, with the immense sky above, you feel like time is converging centuries and centuries of history--the bustling lives of farmers and architects, builders, astronomers, and religious leaders from centuries ago, converging with the scurry of nearby wildlife and the hushed murmurs of respectful, odd visitors. These are all layered onto each other in what for many remains a living, sacred place. It is designated a national historical park to tell the stories of the people who lived on this land long before America was even a nation and of those who continue to use these lands to connect to a story bigger than any one person. Every year, millions of Americans and international visitors alike learn parts of our Nation's story through the places preserved and stewarded by the National Park System--places like Chaco Canyon. These places tell the story of us--how we became America and how we have grown and changed as a nation. It is a story of triumph, of hardship, of resilience, and sometimes of cruelty. Not every chapter in this story is uplifting, but to understand who we are as Americans and our journey to become what Ronald Reagan rightly called a ``shining city upon a hill,'' we have to learn from all of it. We can't erase or turn away from the hard parts because those parts and, more importantly, how we learned and grew from them are our shared history, our shared story, and they should never be erased or twisted for politics. But that is just what the Trump administration is trying to do--to censor our history. One year ago, President Trump signed an Executive order directing Federal Agencies to review how national park sites portray American history. The Executive order required officials to make sure that the Park Service sites did not display content that ``inappropriately disparage(s) Americans past or living.'' As a result of this order, they have already removed some content, and much of it is in the most popular national parks in the American West. In a spreadsheet summarizing the Interior Department's first review last year, Mother Jones found that from 33 sites in the Park Service region that includes my State, 81 submissions had been flagged for review. Of those 81, the Department decided that 46 should be altered or removed entirely--over half. But this isn't only happening in the West. Signs related to ecology and the Wabanaki cultural history were completely removed at Acadia National Park. At Stonewall National Monument in New York, mentions of Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera--pioneering activists central to the 1969 Stonewall uprising--were scrubbed completely, and this photo showing what enslaved people experienced at the hands of their enslavers. Let that photo sit with you for just a moment. This photo, which shows how painful our history can be, was ordered to be removed because it is ``disparaging of Americans.'' This is not disparaging. This is truth. This is reality. We cannot be a better nation or a stronger one if we ignore or hide from our own past. We are a great nation because we have learned from our past, especially from our mistakes, but we can't do that when we take photos down like this one. Unfortunately, this was just one of the Trump administration's attempts to hollow out our American story. Another came earlier this year when the Department of the Interior asked National Park staff to spend hundreds of hours reviewing their own exhibits to report signage that might be in violation of the Executive order. At Glacier National Park in Montana, mentions of climate change--of course, which is literally melting the very glaciers the park was named after--were erased. At Yellowstone, which was established on land from which the U.S. military forcibly removed Tribes, any mention of Native Tribes was ordered to be removed. They are even asking visitors to report any material they find offensive. I find that offensive. Last June, the Trump administration instructed Park Service staff to post QR codes that visitors could scan to report signs they disagreed with. So far, there has been little clarity on the process and, of course, zero public input. But some brave public servants anonymously uploaded the list of reported violations to a public site. Examples from across the country include the entirety of the Emmett Till exhibit in Alabama; reviewing covers of books on the topic of slavery, including autobiographies; and reviewing content in Junior Ranger books about emancipation, the cause of the Civil War, and freedmen's colonies because they all might be ``disparaging of Americans.'' So far, the Department has reviewed more than 2,000 pieces of media and has ordered the removal or alteration of hundreds of signs and exhibits, and we know they aren't done. So what more could be at risk in the coming days? Well, in New Mexico, we have Park Service signs that share Tewa translations. That is a language that has been spoken in our part of the United States since long before the Colonies were founded. Because this language is a language other than English, these signs are at risk of removal. Other Park Service signs in New Mexico include Spanish translations, and that should surprise absolutely no one given our history under Spain and Mexico before being ceded to the United States in 1848. In fact, New Mexico's State Constitution recognizes Spanish as a protected language. But because these signs have a language that is not English, under the Trump administration, they risk removal. Other exhibits at risk are not about language. The Trump administration claims it is removing signs because they ``cast a negative light'' on American history. But this is our history. Someone just doesn't want our history to be told. That is putting the telling of our history at risk. It is, in fact, already under attack, and that is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. It should anger every single American listening today. When we erase information about who we are, when we silence people's stories, we promote a narrative that ignores and manipulates what truly happened. So let me tell you what they are trying to erase. It is true that some of our forefathers founded this country on the enslavement of other human beings. It is true that those human beings built much of this country, including the building we are standing in here today. And we fought a civil war and amended our Constitution and guaranteed rights to millions of Americans as the result of all of that because we demanded better of our country and of ourselves. It is true that some of our forefathers forced Tribal people from their homes, making them walk hundreds of miles on death marches to resettle in small tracts of land far from the land they knew. And today? Today, the daily work of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources and Indian Affairs Committees is to protect the rights and advance the well-being of some of those same Tribes because we demand better of our Nation and of ourselves. It is true that this country did not apply the American values of democracy and justice equally in the beginning and that women, Black people, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, LGBTQ, and persons with disabilities--just to name a few--all had to struggle to gain the same rights as other groups of people because they demanded better of our Nation and for all of us. Like the stories of families that traveled over oceans, like mine did, and traveled over mountains to be a part of the American dream, the stories of those fights are the stories of how America became the country that it is and how we will continue to lead. The hardships, the pain, the suffering--they aren't false, and they aren't fictions. They made us stronger, and they don't negate the progress we have made or the pride we take in our country as we continue to strive for a more perfect Union. Because every good story is rooted in place, I often say that public lands are the anvil on which our collective American identity was forged because these lands preserve where much of that history happened. From our historical parks and our historic trails to our national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas, these lands hold the echoes of our ancestors. They hold the good and the bad. And knowing the truth makes us better. It makes us stronger. That is what makes us demand more for our country and more for ourselves. New Mexico tells us this. Take the story of the Manhattan Project in my home State. You know, we now have a national historic park to tell that story, but you can't tell the story of the dawn of the atomic age without telling the whole story, without recognizing the people from our New Mexico communities whose health was sacrificed to build those powerful devices. You can't hold up the amazing scientific advances made under J. Robert Oppenheimer's supervision without also telling the story of his political persecution and the removal of his clearance. You know, George Orwell predicted a lot of things, and he once wrote: The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. Right now, President Trump is dumbing down our history. He is cheapening our national parks. But he will not take our history from us. We will tell these stories again and again and again as long as it takes and long after he is relegated to the history books.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I am here today to join my colleague Senator Whitehouse in talking about permitting reform. I want to start with a story from my home State of New Mexico. Right now, across my State and Arizona, hundreds of workers are putting the finishing touches on a 3.5-gigawatt wind farm and a 550-mile transmission line. For context, 3.5 gigawatts is roughly the equivalent of 3\1/2\ nuclear reactors. This project is literally the largest clean energy project in North American history, bigger than the Hoover Dam. That is pretty unbelievable. But what is even more unbelievable is that the permitting process for that transmission line and that generation started over 17 years ago, and the project is being energized, as we speak. Think about that. It took nearly two decades to get the permits needed to build the project. That is 17 years of redtape. That is 17 years without the jobs this could create; 17 years of lost income, lost local spending, lost tax revenue; 17 years without the energy our Nation needs to grow; and 17 years without the roughly $20 billion of economic impact on the southwestern part of our country that we are finally seeing--because the reality is that electricity is what powers our communities, our innovation, our economies, and our lives. And electricity has powered this country since the 1880s. But, right now, we are facing an energy crisis of the Trump administration's own making. First, electricity is becoming prohibitively expensive. While we know that permitting reform will help lower costs, the Trump administration is dismantling the permitting process that we use to build new energy projects and get cheaper electrons on the grid. Put simply, costs are high. We need reform, and the President is blocking our ability to do just that. It is no secret that, right now, Americans' electric bills are going through the roof. Since Trump took office, electricity prices have risen an average of 13 percent in just a matter of months. That is double digits in well under a year. Beyond the growing costs, demand is growing too. Grid Strategies, the power sector consulting firm, predicts electricity demand will grow 32 percent by 2030, just 5 years from now. Across New Mexico and the country, people are looking at their bills and asking how they are going to find the money to keep their lights on. The answer is that Americans need more affordable energy, more electrons on the grid, not less, and they need it now. But we can't build a future using the last century's infrastructure and redtape. We need to set up a system that can reliably get to a yes or a no on a permit in 2 or 3 years, not 10, not 17. We know that permitting reform can work. Scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimate that by 2050, transmission expansion could save $270 to $490 billion--billion with a ``b.'' And for every dollar spent on new transmission, over $1.50 would be saved in system costs. That is a 150-percent savings margin. That is a deal that is hard to argue with, and it is one of the reasons why I have been such a strong advocate for Congress taking up bipartisan permitting reform. But instead of working to get Americans more affordable energy, the Trump administration has been orchestrating a reckless, vindictive assault on new energy projects. On July 15, the Interior Department began requiring Secretary Burgum's personal review and approval of every single wind and solar project on public lands, not to mention things as trivial as rights of way. What this really turned out to be was a de facto moratorium on new projects, new electrons on the grid. And so far, 22 gigawatts--the equivalent of two New York Cities--of solar, storage, and wind have been stalled because of this new review requirement. That doesn't even include other actions from the administration. We have seen stalled an additional 116 gigawatts of energy. If we are counting, that is the equivalent of powering 12 New York Cities. Or, to put it bluntly, more than half of all the new power planned to be built in the United States over the next few years is tied up in one way or another. Let me repeat that. This administration has halted more than half of all the new power planned to be built in the United States, to be brought onto the grid over the next 4 years. And it gets worse. President Trump's Department of Energy canceled 26 projects that would make our power grid more reliable. The Department of Energy estimated the transmission built through these projects would have helped add 35 gigawatts of clean power to the grid over the next 5 years. Now, that is gone too. That is over 17 New York Cities' worth of power that the Trump administration has stalled, canceled, or taken away. The truth is that permitting reform in this building has not been a partisan issue. It is about building big things again in the United States, providing hard-working Americans, skilled trades union people with affordable energy, growing our economy, and a good job. But to do any big energy project, you need a permitting system that actually works. Right now, when Americans need more energy than ever before, our permitting system is frozen in place. It definitely isn't going to work if Federal Agencies ignore statutory timelines, stall approvals, issue illegal stop work orders on partially constructed, fully permitted projects, pause leases, and cancel projects that were already under construction. So what this administration is doing doesn't just undermine one of our cheapest sources of power; it wrecks the trust that is needed with the executive branch to do bipartisan permitting reform. It poisons the well. Certainty is what is required for developers, for utilities, for consumers to benefit from faster permitting. Any permitting deal is going to have to guarantee that no administration of either party can weaponize the permitting process for cheap political points. By raising electricity prices and killing American jobs, this administration has made it crystal clear that they are not interested in permitting reform or bringing down the price of energy. The bottom line is this. The Trump administration needs to follow the law. They need to reverse their illegal stop work orders, and they need to start approving legally compliant energy projects--full stop. Finally, I will say one last thing because something that the Senator from Rhode Island said bears repeating. The challenge to doing permitting reform is not in this building. Oftentimes, the problem of getting to yes is in this building. It is not the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is not the chairwoman of the EPW Committee. It is this administration that is poisoning the well. If we can turn that around, then I think we can all get back to the good work of trying to make our permitting system work for our country and for our economy.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have said a number of times now, I am not willing to send Democratic bills to the House without an agreement to get them through the House and to the President's desk. Just last week, we saw the House pass a Senate Republican bill without the Senate Democratic bill that it had been paired with. Both bills are bipartisan; both even have a budget score, and yet the Democratic bill sits with no plan to get it signed into law. We need to pass bills over here in a way that ensures that both Republican and Democratic priorities and bills become law. In addition, I do have substantive concerns with S. 1084. I was not the ranking member of the previous Congress, but it would give away public land without an equal value exchange or payment for conservation of other public land. The public is simply left out of the equation. That is not something I can support, and I am certainly willing to work with the bill's sponsor on finding a path forward. But in its current form, I must object.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, nestled in the far northeast corner of Alaska is one of the wildest and most untouched places left in North America: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been blessed to see this refuge with my own eyes. I have seen its towering peaks; I have seen the critical habitat on the Coastal Plain where caribou drop their calves; and I have seen its polar bears. Over the course of a year in the Arctic Refuge, you might also see one of the last great spectacles of migrating caribou, dueling musk ox straight out of the Pleistocene, or rare spectacled eiders nesting on the Coastal Plain. In fact, the Arctic Refuge is home to hundreds of iconic wildlife species, including 200 species of birds that have called this landscape home since long before humans stepped on this continent. Simply put, the Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of the American National Wildlife Refuge System, and it has been ever since it was set aside in 1960 by President Eisenhower to protect its wildlife and habitat values. But that is only part of its story. The Arctic Refuge is also deeply connected to the traditions and daily life of the people who have lived there for thousands of years-- longer than this building, this city, this country have existed-- because the refuge is not just land. For wildlife, it is essential habitat. For many people who live there and are sustained by its caribou, this place is literally their grocery store. It is not just a reminder of the past, it is hope for the future. But that future is at stake. The Arctic Refuge is under threat from the Trump administration's relentless attacks on public lands, attacks that put so-called energy dominance above every other use, every other value. Today, the Senate will vote on a congressional resolution of disapproval to overturn the management plan for the Arctic Refuge. And instead of a targeted approached that emphasizes things like subsistence hunting, wildlife conservation, and a focus on Tribal consultation, a vote for this resolution will--redundantly--open up the entire Coastal Plain of the refuge to be leased for oil drilling without local input. I say ``redundantly'' because the Trump administration has already overturned this management plan. The Republicans in Congress have already passed legislation requiring this area--a national wildlife refuge-- requiring it to be drilled for oil, despite a complete lack of interest by legitimate industry players. Now, we could be discussing ways to lower electricity costs, which are spiraling out of control or doing something about the skyrocketing healthcare costs in this country right now. But instead, we are talking about industrial oil and gas development in the beating heart of our greatest wildlife refuge, literally developing the place where the porcupine caribou herd drops their calves every year. Now, when Congress first debated whether to allow oil development in the Arctic, America's energy landscape looked very different. We were importing significant amounts of oil, much of it from our political adversaries. Oil prices were rising, and U.S. energy could not meet demand. Yet, even in that context, in those challenging years, for decades and across both political parties, Congress recognized the irreplaceable, ecological, and cultural importance of the Arctic Refuge. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle understood that some places are sacred, some places are simply too unique and important to sacrifice, and together they kept these lands closed to industrial development. In fact, it was not until 2017 that a Republican majority reversed that longstanding commitment and opened this refuge to exploitation. They turned their backs on the American people who own this refuge and embraced the development-anywhere-and-at-any-cost approach, doing so despite the fact that the United States was already experiencing record oil production and was on its way to being a net energy exporter. And now they have done it again in their ``Big Bad Bill.'' But this time they want more and more. To what end? We know this hasn't worked before. We know previous efforts to offer leases here have actually been a failure. Now, they told us that development of the Arctic Refuge would bring in a billion--billion with a ``b''--a billion dollars to the Treasury to pay off the tax cuts that were in the 2017 bill for billionaires. But as we all remember, that came up a little short. In fact, it came up $993 million short to be exact. And it is because development in the refuge is so complicated and so expensive. It is costly in time. Seasons are short. Days can be even shorter. There is not a lot of time to break new ground. There are no roads, no infrastructure even remotely close to this part of the Coastal Plain. That is why it is estimated that oil prices would have to be at least $75 a barrel just to break even on oil from the refuge. Compare that to today's average cost for a barrel, which is hovering around $60. Legitimate investors knew these pitfalls. In 2023, the six largest banks in the United States, the five largest banks in Canada, and 29 other international banks all issued policies against financing drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The banks, insurers, too, followed suit, which is why the second justification that they are using to do this just doesn't make sense--that producing oil in the refuge will make gas cheaper for everyday Americans. You can see from the map that this is not remotely true. If construction and drilling costs are so high that a barrel of oil has to be almost $20 more expensive just to break even, what do you think that does to the prices at the gas station when you fill up your car? It doesn't mean cheaper gas. The last thing that they will tell you is that we have to drill everywhere in America because we are ``in an energy emergency.'' But the truth is, the only energy crisis in America is the one that President Trump has created himself. It is the skyrocketing utility bills that Americans are facing because of the Republicans' relentless attacks on affordable American- made clean energy. Opening precious wilderness to industrial development is not going to fix that, especially when it is to drill for oil that costs so much to produce. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not going to make energy more affordable, and it seems to me, as I stand up here to speak about yet another attack on our public lands, that no place is sacred from this extract-at-all-costs playbook--not even wildlife refuges. So what is next? Are we going to develop geothermal energy in Yellowstone? Maybe more uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. I think Teddy Roosevelt must be tired from rolling over in his grave. The bottom line is that the Arctic Refuge is too unique, too globally important to develop. It is a wildlife refuge for a reason. Now, proponents love to hide the fact that this is, in fact, a national wildlife refuge. They call it all kinds of things so that they don't have to use the phrase ``wildlife refuge.'' They will call it the 1002 area. They will call it ANWR. It sounds like someplace in the Middle East that you would expect oil and gas production. They don't want us to pay attention to how crazy a prospect developing one of our last remaining untouched landscapes is. The Arctic Refuge provides subsistence fish and game for people who live in the region. It serves as a seasonal home to species you might see in your own State, species like Arctic terns and all sorts of waterfowl. And it is a remarkable, vast, and breathtaking wilderness that should inspire us to be better stewards of our wildlife heritage. The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System, and it belongs to every single American and deserves our protection. So I would urge colleagues to vote no on the CRA today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Reserving the right to object, what we have in front of us are four bills, two Democrat and two Republican. My concern remains the same as it was, literally, 11 months ago; that passing bills one by one does not guarantee their final passage or being signed into law or that important local priorities from Democratic States will be honored along with those from Republican States. As the chair said, I do not have substantive policy concerns with these particular bills, but we passed a set of bills as a test like this over the summer, and we have seen no action from the House. And continuing to pass individual bills in this manner, when we have so many stacked up in committee, will be unproductive until our House colleagues work with us on a path to get bills actually signed into law. We need a way to ensure that Member priorities, transparently-- regardless of size, political party, or State--have a way to be considered and actually become law. This current process is not working. I remain committed to working with the chair to find a solution that ensures the priorities of both Chambers and both parties can be met. In the meantime, I do have a proposal for the chair. I would like to take these four bills and pass them together under a single bill number. This is not a large, ominous package. These have all been vetted. Each bill in this set has been supported by the Republican caucus and the chair, and it remains two Democratic priorities and two Republican priorities. But by combining these bills together under one bill number, it helps to ensure that none of the priorities are left behind on the cutting-room floor and all have an equal pathway to becoming law. Therefore, I would ask that the Senator modify his request and, instead, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which combines the text of the aforementioned four bills and is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HEINRICH. I object to the original request.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HEINRICH. The remedy to a statutory change that is in statute is not a resolution. It is to fix the statute. I think we should work with our colleagues in the House to address the underlying issue of protecting Members without the outrageous damage provisions that were retroactively put into this statute. I object.

Mr. HEINRICH. I defer to my colleague from Michigan with my time.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, last week, Republicans in Congress passed a government funding bill that denies affordable healthcare to millions of Americans. But what most people don't know is that they also voted to provide millions of dollars to a few Republican Senators in a blatant, taxpayer-funded cash grab. Here is what happened. In the process of passing government funding legislation, Senate Republicans airdropped a provision into the bill at the last minute. This provision allows eight Republican Senators to collect millions of dollars from the U.S. Government, when what the Department of Justice did was to lawfully subpoena those phone records during a grand jury investigation. But now these eight Senators can sue the government for at least half a million dollars for each individual instance of a lawful access to those phone records. That means that each Senator could actually pocket millions of dollars, and that money would be paid from your hard-earned tax dollars--and that is even though the law was followed by the government at the time. Frankly, this is just outrageous to me. This is at the exact same time as 22 million Americans could see their health insurance premiums skyrocket because Republicans refuse to extend the ACA tax credits. This is at the exact same time as millions of seniors and veterans and families are learning that they will lose their SNAP food assistance altogether because of President Trump's ``Big Bad Bill.'' It is at the exact same time as families across my home State of New Mexico and across America are wondering how they will put Thanksgiving food on the table or how they will put presents under the tree in a month, how they will fuel their car to get to the job that is in jeopardy now because of President Trump's cancellation of Federal grants, exorbitant tariff taxes, and overall recklessness. But instead of fixing all of that, instead of tackling the affordability crisis in this country, instead of blocking President Trump's tariffs and undoing his war on American jobs, instead of fighting to protect the 41 million people whose SNAP benefits were in jeopardy during Trump's shutdown, Republicans made time to insert this payoff. It is unprecedented in American history. Let's put it another way. Everyday people are struggling. While one TikTok account called Dollar Tree Dinners--an account that teaches low- income folks how to make filling meals from Dollar Tree ingredients-- has over 3 million followers, U.S. Senators could receive over $3 million from your wallet. There are no existing records of Congress creating a taxpayer-funded cash pipeline for Senators to sue the government for doing its job. That is probably because it is so patently wrong. Even House Speaker Mike Johnson agrees with me, and when Speaker Johnson and I agree something is bad, you know it is really, really bad. As ranking member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, where this provision was inserted, I can tell you that the process to include it was not normal. It was not in our markup. Normally, we have the opportunity to review new language, provide edits, and negotiate. None of that happened. This was slipped in at the eleventh hour, and now the American people are expected to pony up. I am furious that the Senate majority leader chose to airdrop this provision into that bill in particular with zero negotiation with the subcommittee that actually oversees this work. It is why this week, I introduced a bill with U.S. Senator Mark Kelly to shut down this taxpayer-funded payoff. We must reverse this last-minute giveaway that lets a few Senators pocket millions of dollars of taxpayer money while millions of Americans are revisiting their budgets to figure out how to make it to the end of the month. Like my Anti-Cash Grab Act, H.R. 6019 will eliminate the retroactive $500,000-per-instance cash claims for Senators. It will block millions in taxpayer-funded kickbacks to politicians. And it still keeps the door open for legitimate reforms to notification requirements without any of the self-enriching loopholes. Now, I disagree with the title of H.R. 6019, but I agree on the substance, and that is what matters here. The truth is that a country where a sitting elected official can get half a million dollars or more in one go while people around the country see their monthly costs rise by hundreds or thousands of dollars--that is a country that is not serving the people. This is not the America I know, and it is not the America we should be. This is a test. This is a test of whether Congress works for hard- working families across America or for DC insiders. It is, to put it clearly, a test of our accountability, our transparency, and most of all, our integrity. I know which side I am on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6019, which was received from the House and is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, just last month, I stood here on this floor to speak about the dangers of using a congressional resolution of disapproval to change resource management plans for public lands around the country. I described how using congressional resolutions to circumvent public input would upend decades of public land planning practice, how it would put our entire public lands management process at risk. Since then, Congress has passed three separate congressional resolutions of disapproval to amend resource management plans: one in central and northern Alaska, one in eastern Montana, and one in North Dakota. And now, this week, the Senate will vote on a new resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act--this time for northeastern Wyoming. While none of those first three have been signed by the President yet, I stand here today, as we prepare to vote on this new congressional resolution of disapproval, to reiterate the message that I shared weeks ago: We cannot and we should not manage our public lands through the Congressional Review Act resolutions. First, there are very real consequences of reversing decades-old resource management plans, and those consequences could be devastating to communities, to businesses, to jobs, and to our public lands. Until this year, Congress had never used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration ever considered land use plans to be ``rules'' under the law. Let me say that again. No administration, Republican or Democratic, since the Congressional Review Act became law in 1996, has ever treated these land use plans as ``rules.'' Here is what that means: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, as is required for rules. What does that mean? Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to Congress and no administration has ever submitted a land use plan to Congress, ever, then if these plans are rules, every land use plan after 1996 never actually went into effect. If they never went into effect, then all of the leases and the permits and the rights-of-way that were issued under them may not be legally valid, throwing us effectively into chaos on our public lands. We are talking about every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreational permit, timber sale, or, yes, oil and gas lease issued under a plan finalized after 1996. All of them are now open to litigation--every single one. The actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating. For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on our public lands. The damage could be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to the communities that depend on these places to make a living. Secondly, we know that CRAs cut the public out of land use planning. This vote and all the votes like it sweep away years and years of public input in conversations both about the public lands on a particular landscape and public lands nationally. To put it bluntly, Senate Republicans found a way to rewrite the rules of the game because they didn't like the outcome, and every vote they take to do it is insulting to the public. Resource management plans are meant to include communities in the process of deciding how to use our public lands, not exclude them. Does that mean everyone agrees with what is in these plans? No, of course not. I know I don't necessarily agree with every piece of every resource management plan that I have read. But there is a process to address that. It takes work. It takes conversations. It takes advocacy. That process cannot and should not be replaced by one that only involves Senators in Washington, DC, deciding that they know better. From coming together to decide where to prioritize recreation and where to protect wild game habitat to identifying what lands should be used for grazing or which cultural sites should be protected, resource management plans take time because they incorporate input from the folks who own our public lands--Americans across this country. When these plans are amended, that takes time too. Resource management plans aren't meant to be one and done; they are meant to evolve over time. Here is how that works when it is done the right way: First, the public gets a say about what in the plan needs to be updated. Based on those comments, the Bureau of Land Management drafts a plan that includes alternatives. Those alternatives capture the range of public comments, making space for all of the voices that have weighed into the process so far--voices calling for more energy development, voices calling for more conservation, voices identifying important areas for recreation for the benefits of locals and businesses alike. Once that draft is completed, the public gets another chance to engage. In person and with written comments, the public gets to say what they think the Agency got right and what should be considered moving forward. Based on that, BLM prepares a final product. When BLM releases the final product, the public has another chance to engage--this time through a formal protest period where individuals can register their objections. Throughout the entire process, the BLM meets with public land users, with Tribes, with community members, and with the leaders and elected officials in these communities. The common theme here is clear: When it is done right, the public shapes how public lands are managed. That is not the process being proposed here on the Senate floor. It isn't one that invites the American public in; it is one that shuts them out. By undoing resource management plans through congressional resolutions of disapproval, Congress is telling Tribal communities that their opinions don't matter about their ancestral lands; they are telling hunters that their opinions don't matter about what lands they just happen to use to fill their families' freezers; they are telling hikers that their opinions don't matter about the routes they know like the back of their hand; telling local communities that the way their land is used is no longer of importance; telling all of us that our voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that make up our American birthright. When we vote for CRAs as a way to manage our public lands, we vote against including communities in the process; we shut them out from the decision-making process when we should be inviting them in. Third, today's vote does not account for the hundreds of millions of dollars per day that are generated for local economies by public land recreation and recreators. Recreation on public lands is an economic powerhouse. The recreation industry generates $128 billion in economic activity from public land every single year. It drives $6 billion in Federal tax revenue. It creates jobs. From Bureau of Land Management land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs and contributes more than $12 billion--billion with a ``b''--in economic output. These numbers are big, and they matter. They matter to outfitters. They matter to small businesses. They matter to local communities. They tell the story of just how valuable these lands are to Americans-- valuable both as a birthright and in dollars and cents. That rings true in Wyoming, where the plan we are voting on today is located. For example, in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation contributed $2.2 billion to Wyoming's economy. That is over 4 percent of Wyoming's GDP--the fifth highest rate in the Nation. The industry supported almost 16,000 jobs that same year. That is over 5 percent of the State's total--total--employment. Now imagine that all of that is put at risk through congressional actions that leave no room for public comment to voice their concerns. There is no planning process--just unilateral decisions made in Washington, DC. So instead of amending the plan and allowing for more public voices to be heard and more communities to weigh in, as we have done for decades before, they just decide to override the whole process, box the public out. Well, you don't have to imagine it because that is what we are doing right now, and you deserve to know. No land management plan is perfect. All of them need to be reviewed, updated, and improved. But we have a process for that, and it includes listening to our constituents, letting them drive the decisions. CRAs don't do that. They are a blunt instrument. They do the opposite-- shutting out the public and rigging a process to guarantee an outcome of Senate Republicans' choosing. So I stand here today, and I urge all of you to vote against this CRA. Public lands belong in public hands. They belong to all of us. That means that every single person deserves a chance to provide input on how they are managed. I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on this resolution of disapproval. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I rise today to object on behalf of my colleague from California Senator Padilla and my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee does have a long tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation when it comes to passing very local and oftentimes very parochial land bills. Typically, this is negotiated in a package rather than the piecemeal approach that we are seeing today--for many reasons but in part because we have literally hundreds of bills within our committee's jurisdiction that need action, including the ones that my colleague is talking about today, with most representing very important local priorities in our States. Unfortunately, attempting to pass individual bills through unanimous consent in this manner tends to favor one party or one Chamber's priorities and is often ineffective at actually getting legislation signed into law. Senator Padilla, Senator Bennet, and I are happy to sit down with my colleague from Alaska and with the chairman to make sure that both our Chambers--both our parties' priorities can be put together in a way that we see them reach the finish line. Therefore, in support of my colleague from California and my colleague from Colorado, I must object at this time.

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HEINRICH

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, there is a national monument in New Mexico that is extremely important to me and our community. It is called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. It has rocky spires that jut into the sky and preside over bustling communities in southern New Mexico. It is also home to nearly 250 archaeological sites, including some of the earliest Native American heritage sites in North America, and places like Shelter Cave, Conkling Cavern, and Aden Lava Flow Wilderness. This January, the Bureau of Land Management issued its most recent monument management plan for Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks. It sets out in this plan how the land will be used over the coming decades, and it came after years--years--of engagement with public land users. From comment periods to public meetings to feedback sessions, input from public land users is the heart of how we administer our public lands across the country. In the end, land use plans like this one take time and are the result of hundreds, even thousands, of people's work--work that deserves respect. And that is why I am here. Beginning this week, the Senate is voting on three resolutions of disapproval on resource management plans prepared by the Bureau of Land Management. Now, resource management plans are a pretty simple idea. Every decade or two, public land managers look at a region as a whole and figure out how to balance all the competing different uses of public land across that landscape. They figure out where recreation should be prioritized and where prime game habitats should be protected. They figure out what lands should be available for uses like grazing or oil and gas production. They identify important cultural sites and historic resources that deserve our protection. They also determine which land use requirements can be eased for things like pipelines or transmission lines. They do all of this with the input of local communities, recreation businesses, public land users, Tribal governments, energy developers, and more. But I am here now because Republicans want to rescind these land use plans through the Congressional Review Act. By doing that, they brush away all of the local voices and community input that went into making these plans. Imagine telling Tribal communities that their opinion no longer matters on their ancestral lands, telling hunters that their opinion no longer matters on the lands they use to fill their families' freezers, telling hikers that their opinion no longer matters on the routes that they know like the back of their hand, telling local communities that the way their land is used is no longer of importance--telling all of us that our voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that are our American birthright. And here is the thing: They are doing it across the board--on every resource management plan since 1996--without even admitting it. So let me walk you through what they are hoping that you won't notice. First, it is important to understand that resource management plans affect nearly every use on public land, from bird watching to coal mining. These plans get a whole rewrite every few decades, but, in between, smaller amendments are made to address specific places and specific uses that need to be updated. These amendments have been the normal way for new administrations to change plans that they have disagreed with, until today. Now, instead of using the usual amendment process, which involves all of those same stakeholders, Congress is voting to outright overturn and repeal these plans. Until today, Congress had never ever used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration has ever considered these land use plans to be ``rules'' under Federal statute. Let me say that again. No administration--none--since the Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996 has ever treated land use plans as rules. So here is what that means legally: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, a legal requirement for rules. It has never happened. Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to Congress-- and no administration has ever submitted one--then every land use plan after 1996 never legally went into effect. And if they never went into effect, then all of the leases and permits and rights-of-way that flow from those plans may not be legally valid. That means that every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreation permit, outfitter guide permit, timber sale, and even oil and gas leases issued under a plan finalized after 1996 could be litigated--every single one. That is bad and not just because it is unprecedented but because the actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating. For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on public lands. One of the resolutions under consideration this week is for a land use plan in Alaska. A vote for that resolution would mean that the Ambler industrial corridor will be built. This is a 211-mile, private access road that would destroy some of Alaska's wildest habitat and waterways to produce minerals--all for a foreign company. As someone from American Hunters and Anglers said, in using slightly more colorful language that I will leave out, this move obliterates ``years of public input from hunters and anglers,'' and uses taxpayer dollars to prop up--I will say it again--a foreign-owned mining company. The headline describing this road in ``Outdoor Life'' magazine reads: The Ambler Road Project Would Jeopardize One of the Last Great Wilderness Hunts in America. Now, I have been fortunate enough to hunt caribou in Alaska, and I have to say I doubt that my grandchildren will ever have that opportunity. What is even more concerning to me is the impact the Ambler industrial corridor will have on subsistence hunting and fishing. This private industrial mining corridor will carve its way, in addition, through Gates of the Arctic National Park. You heard me right. We are sacrificing one of our most spectacular national parks to enrich a foreign mining company. I have to think that Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave. The damage will be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to one of the largest caribou herds in Alaska and the communities that depend on that herd. Imagine sweeping away years and years of input and conversations not just about the public lands on one landscape but about public lands across this country, all because you--what?--found a quicker, easier way, one where you didn't have to listen to anyone? one where some Senators in Washington, DC, get to override and replace the opinions of every single American who contributed to those plans? That is nuts. Even if you don't care about how land is used by hunters or hikers or Tribes or cattle growers or energy producers--if all you care about is how our lands are used to produce fossil fuels--then look no further than my State. Look at the Bureau of Land Management leases that have been issued in the Permian Basin. Know that, when you vote for these resolutions, when you turn these resource management plans into so- called rules, you call into question those leases--all of them. Know that what you are choosing may be easier, but it is wrong, and it is destabilizing. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on all of these resolutions of disapproval.