Cynthia Lummis

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 849.

Ms. LUMMIS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I am honored to speak today about a remarkable man who has given decades of service to Wyoming and to our Nation: Tucker Fagan. Tucker's story begins in the New York City area, where he was raised alongside five siblings by parents who instilled in him a strong work ethic. His father, a firefighter, taught him to master whatever job he held, to be accountable no matter what, and to always keep a sense of humor along the way. That lesson would define his career. After college, Tucker enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in the late 1960s and was assigned to F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne as a missile launch officer. It was quite a change from New York City, but the Cowboy State would soon become home, and if you see him today in his wranglers, boots, and hat, you would never guess he wasn't born to it. During his time at F.E. Warren, he mastered every detail of the missile system, from circuit breakers to hydraulic lines. That expertise caught the attention of senior military leadership during the height of the Cold War, and he was assigned to help develop a comprehensive war plan for national security. His work eventually brought him to the Pentagon, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff selected him to lead the nuclear warfare branch. There, he became the Nation's foremost expert on our war plan, ready to walk through it at a moment's notice. At one point, he knew the exact location of every nuclear site in the world by latitude and longitude. Let me say that again: by latitude and longitude. His work also helped shape what we now know as the ``nuclear football,'' the case of critical information kept always within reach of the President. Tucker's talent for explaining complex military strategy in plain terms drew the notice of President Ronald Reagan. In one briefing, after Tucker described his role as the expert on our war plan, President Reagan turned to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and said, ``We go to war, this is the guy I want to talk to.'' It is hard to imagine a greater compliment. After 30 years of distinguished service, Tucker retired at F.E. Warren, the place he had come to call home. Wyoming's gain was significant. Gov. Jim Geringer recruited him to serve the State, and it was around that time that I first came to know him. As CEO of the Wyoming Business Council, Tucker helped make our State one of the most business-friendly in the country, working closely and effectively with the legislature. Like so many others who have spent time in a room with him, I was struck by how he could command attention, spark real debate, and still be one of the kindest gentlemen you would ever hope to meet. When I ran for Wyoming's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, I asked Tucker to join my campaign. He agreed, and after we won, I asked him to serve as my chief of staff. He accepted on one condition: that he remain in Wyoming. Being a Cheyenne girl myself, I understood completely. It was an unconventional arrangement, but it worked perfectly. For my entire tenure in the House, Tucker served as my chief of staff, trusted adviser, and friend. He also led my Service Academy Selection Committee, helping identify Wyoming's best and brightest for appointment to our Nation's service academies, work he continues as I serve in the U.S. Senate. After 8 years in the House of Representatives, I chose to not run for reelection and came home to Cheyenne. Tucker on the other hand, continued to find ways to serve Wyoming. He has been a longtime supporter of Cheyenne Frontier Days and was inducted into its Hall of Fame, quite an achievement for a man who had never ridden a horse before coming to Wyoming. He even officiated my daughter's wedding, somehow managing to work in a Mick Jagger reference, and it could not have gone any better. I have yet to find something Tucker cannot do, and believe me, I have tried. Tucker remains active in the community to this day. This August, he will be inducted into the Air Force Missileers Hall of Fame, a fitting tribute to a career defined by expertise, dedication, and service. Wyoming has been fortunate that the Air Force sent a young man from New York to Cheyenne all those years ago. If it were a lottery, we would have won the jackpot, though Tucker, ever modest, would likely just credit his father's advice: work hard, know your job, and never let anyone outwork you. Those of us who know him understand that his impact goes far beyond that. If he ever writes a book about his life, I will be first in line, asking for an inscription. Thank you, Tucker, for everything you have done for our dear State of Wyoming and our beloved country.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, the summer months--and August in particular--are always my favorite time of year. The Cowboy State shines all year, but August brings outdoor activities, family gatherings, and one of my favorite annual events: the Wyoming State Fair hosted in Douglas. For more than 120 years, the Wyoming State Fair has drawn together the best of Wyoming's country fairs into one grand celebration. It is where you will find rodeo, good food, carnival games, and the finest of Wyoming agriculture on display. As a lifelong rancher, the State fair has always held a special place in my heart. It is a place to welcome the next generation of ranchers and honor those who have shaped agriculture in our State. The high point of the fair is the induction ceremony for the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Today, I have the distinct honor and privilege of recognizing Ken Hamilton as he joins this prestigious group. The Hall of Fame is synonymous with excellence--not only in one's profession, but also in their character. Ken personifies that standard, and his induction is richly deserved. Ken grew up on his family's ranch in the Big Horn Basin, raising sheep and cattle alongside his parents Merle and Eleanor and his brother Keith. He studied animal science at the University of Wyoming, then took his education abroad through the American Farm Bureau Federation's work exchange program, spending a year in Australia as a station hand and assistant overseer. Ken's passion of agriculture continued to grow. For 41 years, he devoted his life to Wyoming's agricultural industry and its future through his hard work, loyalty, and leadership with the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation. He began his career as a research and field assistant, before serving as director of field services, administrative assistant, and ultimately executive vice President in 2004--a position he held for 20 years until his retirement. His influence reached far beyond the office. Ken used his knowledge and expertise to guide State and Federal agriculture policies to support local farmers and ranchers. During his time with the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, he served on numerous boards and committees. He was general manager of WFB, Inc; secretary for the Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company; and a member of the 2006 State of Wyoming Brand Task Force, the Western Region Air Partnership Dust Forum, the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, the State of Wyoming Coal Bed Methane Working Group, American Farm Bureau Federation's General Counsel Advisory Committee, and the Legal Information and Networking Committee. Ken has spent his life advocating for Wyoming agriculture, on transportation, water rights, grazing policy, and wildfire response. His steadfast advocacy earned him the trust and respect of people across Wyoming. Just as important, he has mentored the next generation, passing along his knowledge and passion to those who will carry Wyoming agriculture forward. I could not be more pleased to see Ken inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame this year. He joins a distinguished group of men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to agriculture in our State. The legacy he has built is truly remarkable and serves as an example for others to follow. I tip my hat to him.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. I thank the Senator from Alaska for visiting about a local legislator. They are tremendously important to all of us. Digital Asset Market Clarity Act Madam President, yesterday I addressed this Chamber because we are wasting time we do not have to get the digital asset market structure bill passed, the bill called the Clarity Act. It is a strong bipartisan path forward that we have, and it is the best way for us to give digital assets, especially in this country, the certainty they need and ensure the United States leads on digital asset innovation. The way to do it is through bipartisan support of this bill. And, again, this is a very good bill, a bill created out of necessity because the status quo does not work. My friend Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and I released the Lummis- Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act together in 2022 to give the U.S. industry the regulatory clarity it needs to thrive on U.S. soil, to give consumers the confidence they need to participate in our digital economy, and give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on illicit finance and hold bad actors accountable. That 168-page bill would become the foundation for the Clarity Act. A year later, in 2023, we added 100 pages with stronger consumer protection provisions. Yet, we got feedback from colleagues that they wanted more. So, again, we listened. Today, this bill that was under 300 pages is more than 600 pages. That is hundreds of pages built over 11 months of daily bipartisan negotiations in windowless rooms where colleagues from both parties shared their priorities, and we worked diligently to incorporate them. Title I alone has 33 separate Democrat-driven edits. We added 23 new sections on illicit finance at Democrats' request. Democrats secured another 30 wins in the CFTC portion of the bill. Plus, we created the three entirely new titles they wanted. And that is all before we even get to ethics, where the President bent over backwards to get my Democrat colleagues to a ``yes.'' We have 100 clear examples of compromise, and yet for some this still isn't enough. Holding out for a perfect bill stopped being principled months ago. It has become an excuse not to legislate at all, and the people who pay for that excuse aren't in this room. They are the people we are about to talk about: the digital asset industry and the consumers who wish to participate with confidence in this digital economy, not to mention the future generations who will miss out because too many in this Chamber said: Not yet. I am not ready. I have got an election in November. Don't want to do it. The status quo in this industry doesn't work. It is not working for the digital asset industry or law enforcement or consumers. We have already watched exchanges collapse with no functioning bankruptcy framework built for this asset class. And we have already watched ordinary people stand in line for years waiting on bankruptcy courts to claw back pennies on the dollar of what they lost. When Celsius and Voyager went bankrupt, customer deposits didn't stay customer deposits. They became assets in a bankruptcy pool, fought over by creditors who had never even heard of the people who actually owned those assets. More than 4 million Americans lost access to their own money in 2022 because we don't have the protections the Clarity Act puts in place, and thousands of them are still sorting through bankruptcy claims today. That is what no regulation looks like. That is not a hypothetical or a talking point. That is real people suffering real losses, real years spent in bankruptcy court fighting for money that should never have been up for grabs in the first place. Customers will, once again, be put in a nasty fight with Wall Street law firms that they have no hope to win. If you believe in consumer protection, we must pass this bill to give consumers the protection in bankruptcy they deserve. Not passing this bill means everyone in this Chamber will have to deservedly hang their heads the next time a crypto exchange collapses-- because there will be a next time, absent regulation. No one in this Chamber gets to act surprised by that. It already happened. And if we don't get our acts together, it is going to happen again to our constituents under the exact same broken rules while we all sit here debating whether a bill with over 100 Democratic wins is still somehow not good enough. Another FTX is not a hypothetical we are guarding against; it is a guaranteed outcome of leaving this industry with no custody rules, no consumer protections, and no consequences when a platform fails people. And, by the way, foreign adversaries aren't just waiting around for us to finish deliberating. They are moving money through the exact gaps this bill closes--right now, today--while we hold out for something more perfect than what is already sitting on the table. To those who have already said they are a ``no'' vote, let me be clear: A ``no'' vote isn't a statement against President Trump because he has already given you what you asked for. It is a vote to keep American consumers inside a system we already know to be flawed on a theory that the fix wasn't good enough. It is a vote to drive American innovation, American jobs, and American oversight of this jurisdiction to Singapore or the UAE or whichever jurisdiction is happy to take what we are too foolish to accept. That is the actual choice that faces us, not Republicans versus Democrats. It is fixed or flawed. It is America leading or America sidelined. We have served up this win for you and set it in front of you--over 100 wins in the base bill, an ethics agreement no other President in American history has volunteered. And by someone who didn't even have to give an inch but did it because he believes that much in American innovation and what this asset class can bring for generations is worth protecting. Take it. Take it. Stop finding reasons not to. I know that if we fail here, this doesn't come back next year or the year after that. The realistic next change at market structure legislation is likely 2030, at the earliest. In the meantime, we will lose businesses to other countries. We lose investment and jobs and tax revenue to jurisdictions moving faster than we are. We inhibit law enforcement's ability to hold bad actors accountable, and we lose our seat at the table to shape how this industry grows. At the exact same moment, we have a chance to guide it responsibly. We didn't get here by ceding the internet to Europe, and we cannot afford to cede digital assets the same way, especially now that we have already done the hard work--5\1/2\ years--putting this bill together. The window to lead right now is wide open. The end zone is inches away. But that window will not stay open for a body that continues to respond to opportunity with: Not yet. I have got an election. I don't want to take a stand. Opportunity waits for no one. Let's cinch up. Let's punch the ball into the end zone and pass the CLARITY Act now. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the CLARITY Act, and about the years of work that brought us to this moment. Now, I only have a few minutes to get started, but I am just getting wound up. I am going to talk for a little while. Then I am going to be back tomorrow, and I am going to talk about this some more because I have got a lot of pent-up things to say. First of all, this is a very good bill--good for the country, good for consumers, and good for the people we all represent on both sides of this aisle. So, after 11 months of giving nearly everything that was asked of us, I am genuinely struggling to understand what else my colleagues across the aisle think it needs before we act. When I was elected to the Senate in 2020, I knew I wanted to work on digital asset legislation because Wyoming's legislature was already years ahead of Washington. It was building a legal framework for digital asset companies before most of the country was even paying attention. I wanted to do everything I could to keep those companies in Wyoming and, more importantly, to keep them in America. The person I have been most proud to work with is Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. People have raised an eyebrow for years that a Wyoming Republican and a New York Democrat have worked hand in hand on this bill, but we have become genuine friends, and I trust her. In June 2022, we introduced the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act together--the first real attempt at a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets, dividing oversight between the SEC and the CFTC and regulating stablecoins. That was a 168-page bill. We had to start by deciding whether to create a unique, new, stand-alone regulatory framework or lay digital assets over the existing framework. We chose the latter, and then we took off from there. We reintroduced Lummis-Gillibrand in 2023. That was a 274-page bill. It contained provisions that cracked down on mixers and tumblers and crypto ATMs. It required plain-language customer agreements and regulated crypto advertising. It was a very strong bill for consumers. From a consumer protection standpoint, it had improved dramatically. That partnership is now the foundation this bill stands on, and it is why I reject any suggestion that this bill is partisan. This bill is bipartisan. It has always been about keeping an industry we want here-- here to stay--but regulated in the right way. In Wyoming, we used to call it ``growth on our terms.'' This bill is growth on our terms. It is growth on American terms--protecting consumers and protecting us from illicit finance. Today, we have a 616-page bill because I have listened to my Republican and Democrat friends, incorporated their priorities, and tried to create the best bill possible. That is how we got to a 15-to-9 bipartisan vote out of the Banking Committee in May. Now, plenty of people have told me to try to move this through on Republican votes alone and skip the headache. I have rejected that every time because the only way to get a bill through Congress that actually lasts is to build it together. We have earned support not only from every corner of the digital asset industry, but we have earned the support of major cornerstones in our financial industry, like Goldman Sachs and Fidelity. Just this past Friday, the National Fraternal Order of Police endorsed this bill--an organization that spent months telling us this legislation would tie the hands of law enforcement investigating crypto crime. We listened and worked to secure dozens of illicit finance and anti-money laundering provisions that give law enforcement the tools they need, and they can hold bad actors accountable now. When they saw that, they came around. That is what good-faith negotiations produce. Before any one of my Democratic colleagues tells me this bill doesn't do enough, I want to show each of you what 11 months of negotiations produce--provision after provision. I want the record to show precisely what was asked for and what we delivered. Title I alone reflects 33 separate Democrat-driven edits, including tightening the bill's core definitions so companies can't structure their way around Federal securities laws; building a mandatory SEC ``front door'' certification process; adding anti-evasion authority so the SEC can look at the totality of facts and circumstances, rather than being boxed in by a technical loophole; cutting the annual fundraising cap from $75 million to $50 million, with a hard $200 million lifetime limit; barring felons convicted of fraud or money laundering from using this framework at all; and tightening the related persons resale restrictions from a 5-percent ownership threshold down to a 3-percent so insiders can't quietly dump tokens on the public. We also built three entirely new titles at the Democrats' request. We added 23 additional sections combating illicit finance, including determining when a decentralized finance platform is really decentralized or whether it is just decentralized in name only, and when they are subject to the securities laws and Bank Secrecy Act requirements; sanctions compliance for DeFi platforms; new sanctions authority that can be used to target crypto platforms that facilitate money laundering to Russia, Iran, and North Korea; $150 million in new FinCEN funding and mandatory Treasury and GAO studies on mixers, foreign adversary activity, and financial stability risk; Federal protections for digital asset ATMs, consumer disclosures, Federal Trade Commission authority, and a joint SEC-CFTC financial literacy mandate. Democrats also got more than 30 wins in the agriculture division of this bill, the CFTC portion, including a private right of action for consumer protection violations; capturing meme coins in the CFTC's jurisdiction; a stronger ``conflict of interest'' rulemaking than the House-passed bill; exchange-based consumer protection disclosures; best execution rulemaking; anti-manipulation and credit rulemakings; $150 million in CFTC appropriations; a new office of the retail digital commodity advocate; and requirements for digital commodity exchanges to recruit culturally diverse boards of directors. This isn't a courtesy list. Every single one of those items was something my colleagues across the aisle insisted on and something Republicans agreed to because a partisan bill doesn't survive the next election, the next administration, or the next market turndown. We put what is best for American innovation ahead of politics. I am simply asking my Democratic colleagues to do the same. Nowhere are our concessions more apparent than on ethics. When my Democratic colleagues brought their concerns to me, I didn't ignore them. In fact, I took them straight to the President, and as a sign of good faith and commitment to American innovation, President Trump voluntarily delivered the strongest set of ethics provisions in U.S. history. I put my own relationship with President Trump on the line--so did Bernie Moreno--to get a deal on ethics, and he agreed to it. No court, regulator, or statute compelled him to accept or offer any of this. He agreed to it because he believes so strongly that America, more than any other country, should be the one leading the way on digital asset innovation. We are talking about a first-of-its-kind ban on any covered individual--the President, Vice President, every Member of Congress, every Federal judge, and their spouses issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for consideration. He is willing to put his existing digital assets in a blind trust or to divest himself of them entirely under established ethics procedures. No sitting President has ever been asked to do such a thing, but President Trump will do it. The Attorney General is directed to bring civil enforcement actions against any covered individual who knowingly and willfully violates the ban. Digital asset exchanges face civil penalties of up to $250,000 per violation per day. Violating officials must disgorge every dollar of profit and pay a penalty of up to 10 percent of what they receive or $500,000, whichever is greater. That is what my Democrat friends asked for, and that is what the President gave you. President Trump said yes to a standard no one else on Earth could have forced on him, and I still hear that it is not enough. If you give a mouse a cookie--children's literature informs us--he will ask for a glass of milk, too, but we have now given our Democrat friends the entire cookie, factory, and a tanker-load of milk. I want to be very direct with this Chamber because I am done being careful about this. I have spent my entire term working on this, and for the last 11 months, I have been stuck in windowless rooms with my friends on the other side of the aisle who have told me, over and over, that ethics would be the sticking point; that if the President put his holdings in a blind trust and if he were to accept enforcement and penalties and disclosures, that would be the signal my colleagues needed. We got it. Senator Moreno and I were elated. We were amazed that the President would accept this. But it is not yet enough. I didn't come here today to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith. I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle are acting in good faith. I came here to simply ask: What specifically is left to give that is reasonable? Tell me the section number, because you have over 100 significant wins in the base text and an ethics agreement that has more teeth than George Washington had, with no precedent in American history. My friends, at some point, continuing to say ``not yet'' isn't cautious; it is a deliberate decision to run out the clock and kill a bill, rather than risk a ``no'' vote on the record, with constituents and industry to answer to. I have more to say. I am going to say it. I am going to say it before we get a vote on this bill--just not today. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I have been very proud to work with my colleagues and very much want to continue to work with my colleagues to make our currency work better for all Americans. That is why, a year ago this month, Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act. It did exactly what my friend from Oregon just asked us for, which is to concentrate on how we can make our currency in our country work better for the American people. That is why we passed no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security benefits--so we can help the very working families who are struggling in this economy. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of the benefits provided them in the Working Families Tax Cut, but not a single Democrat voted for the bill--not one. So, instead of focusing on what is on our Nation's currency, I would urge my Democratic colleagues to join Republicans and focus on pocketbook issues that impact all Americans. I might add, interestingly, that I, too, was thinking: Wow. Why would we build an arch in Washington, DC, or near Washington, DC? That sounds a little French to me, like the Champs-Elysees. I found out that it has been planned for years. It wasn't planned by President Trump to self- aggrandize. It has been planned for years, but nobody built it. Then President Trump talks to his friends who are willing to open their pocketbooks to do things that haven't been done previously but that have been planned for our Nation's Capital. When we recognize the risk that we now put our Presidents in when we have large events like the National Press Club or, you know, a press dinner at the Hilton hotel here in town, where an attacker with guns was just about to enter a roomful of elected officials and Cabinet Secretaries and the President and the Vice President and their spouses and shoot the place up, the President recognizes we have to have a secure ballroom that we can use to entertain foreign dignitaries; in which to have special events; that has special bulletproof glass that is very expensive on the windows; and that has a foundation structure that will support all that because it is very heavy. The design is so complementary to the White House. The design is very much in keeping with the historic facade of the White House. It is going to be safer for elected officials and visiting dignitaries. It is going to be elegant, and it is going to be befitting of the White House campus that it sits on, in celebration of our 250th anniversary. Come on. Let's quit attacking the person who holds the Office of President, every day with every bill, and maybe think about what he is doing for the American people, with nontaxpayer money, to make Washington, DC, something we can be totally proud of--safe, clean, and beautiful. And why don't we, as a Congress, focus on ways to make Americans' lives better so they can keep more of their own money, so they can self-determine how they spend it, so they can maybe buy a house or help their kids buy a car or help their kids buy an education. You do that by keeping more of their dollars in their own pockets. That is what we did last summer with the Working Families Tax Cut provision, and we can do it again this year. So I would encourage my Democrat colleagues and friends to join us in helping the American people instead of obsessing about who is in the White House right now. So, Mr. President, I object.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that the postcloture time with respect to the Traynor nomination be expired, and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination immediately following disposition of the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180, or at 12 noon if no motion is made; further, that it be in order for Senator Van Hollen or his designee to make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180 from the Foreign Relations Committee.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that if Senator Van Hollen or his designee makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 180 from the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge at 11:30 a.m.; further, that at 1:45 p.m., the Senate execute the order of Tuesday, July 21, with respect to the Pozos nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during tomorrow's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of my Democratic colleagues.

Ms. LUMMIS

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

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled recess begin immediately.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that, at its core, asks for something almost embarrassingly simple: That the person registering to vote in an American election is actually an American citizen and that the person showing up to cast the ballot is actually who they say they are. The SAVE Act does not reinvent our elections. It does not add redtape for the sake of redtape. It asks for documentary proof of citizenship at registration and identification at the ballot box--the same basic verification we already accept without complaint when we board an airplane, open a bank account, or pick up a prescription. If we trust that system to protect a checking account, we should trust it enough to protect the vote. That is not extremism. That is common sense, and it is long past time this Chamber treated it that way. This past Saturday, I was riding in the Cheyenne Frontier Days parade alongside Senator Barrasso. Cheyenne is my hometown. It is the world's largest outdoor rodeo. And we have great parades--four of them--during the course of the week of the world's largest outdoor rodeo. It is an exceptional tradition in my hometown. Senator Barrasso and I are riding along the parade route, the same parade route Wyoming has watched for generations. And as we came down the street, I could hear it from my constituents over and over: Pass the SAVE Act, Senator. Pass the SAVE Act. Not once. Not from just one corner of the crowd, all along the parade route. That is not a talking point; that just happened last weekend. That is the people of Wyoming telling us what they want. So, I came home from that parade wondering if Wyoming was maybe a little ahead of the country on this. It turns out, Wyoming is right where the country already is. And it turns out these constituents aren't just in line with the people of Wyoming; they are in line with the country. A Gallup poll found 84 percent of U.S. adults favor requiring photo identification to vote. In that same poll, 83 percent--just one less-- support requiring proof of citizenship for new voter registrants. Mr. President, 83 percent. That includes 71 percent of self-identified Democrats and an overwhelming majority of Independents. In this town, we can't get 83 percent of anybody to agree on the weather. This is not controversial outside the walls of this building. It has simply become controversial inside them. Would we expect to go to Mexico or Canada and walk into an election booth and have them let us vote in their elections without an ID, without proving we're a Canadian citizen or a Mexican citizen? They would have nothing to do with the process that allowed a U.S. citizen to vote without identification in their elections. No country would. So is the opposition to this bill just another symptom of Trump derangement syndrome, where any policy this administration touches becomes reflexively toxic the moment it reaches this floor? Or do my colleagues across the aisle actually believe it is bad policy for only American citizens to decide American elections? Because, really, those are--as near as I can tell--the only two explanations on offer. The same is true of protecting girls' and women's sports. Gallup has found 69 percent of Americans believe athletes should compete on teams that match their biological sex. I am surprised it is not a higher number, but it is 69 percent. This is not a fringe position. It is the plainly stated view of most people in this country, arrived at through a basic, widely shared sense of fairness: That girls who train and compete deserve a level playing field where they can compete safely. They don't have to worry about a man who identifies as a woman or as a transperson spiking a volleyball so hard that it does brain damage and causes concussions and lifelong injury to a young high school athlete. We owe that to our female athletes. Wyoming didn't send me here to just spew political jargon, to play politics, because these things are simple; they are timeless; they are understood values. We can't bend and shape thousands of years of common sense with new, woke ideology. Wyoming sent me here to conduct myself in a manner that reflects their common sense, their values. So it is time to send the SAVE Act to President Trump's desk. I heard that on the parade route in Cheyenne, WY, last weekend, and I hear it on this floor. We need to pass the SAVE Act. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following interns in my office to be granted floor privileges until July 22, 2026: Petra Cernicek, Spencer Killpack, Elise Newton, Megan Terrell, Aaron Bujan, and Isabel Young.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the basic duty we all took an oath to carry out--and whether we are living up to it. The U.S. Senate was never designed to be easy. It was designed to be deliberate, to force people who disagree to sit in the same room and work something out anyway. That only works if everyone here still believes in the underlying premise that we were sent to govern no matter who is the President. The goal is not to defeat the other side for its own sake but to do the hard, unglamourous work of running this country together, in good faith, even when we would rather not. Americans did not send Republicans and Democrats to Washington expecting us to agree on everything. In fact, my constituents would be very concerned if we did. They sent us here expecting us to take the job seriously. That means engaging with the substance in front of us, debating it, amending it, fighting for it on the merits, rather than reflexively blocking whatever comes to the floor simply because of who sits in the White House. Last week, this Chamber fell short. There is a real difference between principled opposition and blind obstruction, and the American people can tell which one they are watching. Opposing a policy because you believe it is wrong for the country is exactly what this institution is built for. Opposing something simply because you dislike the President and you are trying to jam him when there is international conflict is something else entirely, and it corrodes the very system we are sworn to protect. I was very troubled to watch every Senate Democrat vote against even beginning the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that has, historically, enjoyed strong bipartisan backing. Now, I am not suggesting Members can't or shouldn't oppose the NDAA when they have genuine concerns; that is a legitimate part of the process. Voting no is often the easy move around here, and I have done it myself when I thought it was warranted. But this looked less like principled opposition and more like reflexive obstruction, a decision to block the process itself rather than engage with the substance of an important bill. I also think of the SAVE America Act when I say this because it is a case in point. Here is a bill built around a premise that 83 percent of the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike-- already agree on, that only citizens should decide American elections and that voters should be able to prove who they are when they cast a ballot. This is not fringe. This is not one party's obsession. It is about as close to consensus as the American people get on anything these days. And yet it cannot get a real hearing on the merits in this Chamber-- not a real debate, just a wall. That is not principled opposition. That is the process itself being blocked on a question the country has largely answered. Good faith is not a partisan virtue. It doesn't belong to one side of the aisle or the other. It is the minimum the American people are owed by everyone who serves here. They are watching to see whether we can still disagree honestly, argue our positions openly and persuasively, and still find a way to get the Nation's business done. When we can't, when the obstruction becomes the default setting instead of the exception, we are not defending the Constitution. We are quietly letting it fail. We are stewards of something bigger than any one bill or any one election cycle. We are stewards of a system that only survives if the people who serve in it still believe in doing the work, in doing the right thing, in doing what the Constitution outlines is our duty to the American people. That is what Americans expect of us. It is time we start living up to it every single day, not just when it is politically convenient. I yield the floor. (Mr. ROUNDS assumed the chair.)

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Flowers nomination.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Reserving the right to object, I will be completely unaffected by the bill the gentleman from Georgia is proposing because I won't be here next year, but I reserve the right to object because there are alternatives. For example, when I arrived here, I was placed on the Banking Committee, and the Banking Committee has issues that might conflict with my financial assets. So I put my meager--stress on ``meager''-- assets in a blind trust. That blind trust was approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. The specific language was approved by our own Senate Ethics Committee. I don't know whether the investments that I placed in that blind trust are still there. I don't know whether they sold some and traded them for better investments. I won't find out until next January when I leave here and get my assets out of the blind trust and see what is left. In other words, there are ways to avoid conflicts of interest in the committees on which we work. There are also many restrictions on what Members of Congress can do and not do while they are in office. For example, as a rancher in the West, half of my State is public land. I am not allowed by law to have a Bureau of Land Management grazing lease. It is an issue that very few people in the Senate have to deal with, but several of us do, and so we had to divest of that while no one else has a similar restriction. Our Ethics Committee and our Rules Committee can ensure that Members comply. A blind trust is sufficient to ensure conflicts of interest are appropriately mitigated. Further, the House is currently working on the Stop Insider Trading Act, which is another vehicle to address concerns similar to the gentleman's from Georgia. So this issue is an important issue to bring up, but it should go through regular order so it can be thoroughly discussed. Another point with the bill under consideration at the moment is the language does not define cryptocurrency. So what is cryptocurrency? Are stablecoins used for payments included? Are nonfungible tokens included? So this language needs clarification. This should go through regular order. This should go through committee. It should be thoroughly vetted. The language should be clarified. For these reasons, I object.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I object. And excuse me. Let me start with this: I reserve the right to object. I have respect for the Senator's tenacity in making these arguments, but we are being asked, through this resolution, to accept the most dire narrative that is built on projections and models rather than proven causation. The data cited here conflates correlation with causation. The U.S. Senate should legislate based on evidence, not based on unrealized projections and fear. The resolution cites a $7.4 billion real estate loss in five southeastern States, between 2005 and 2017, and attributes it to sea level rise. But we shouldn't forget what also happened during those years. We lived through the 2008 financial crisis and the housing collapse, the worst real estate market in generations. Property values fell across the entire Nation, but they were particularly bad in Florida. So future projections and predictions are a troubling thing upon which to base legislation. Models are tools, not crystal balls. Models predict outcomes based on assumptions fed to them, and those assumptions can be wrong. There were many projections that cattle cause climate to be worse. At Oxford, in England, and in Italy, studies were done that changed the projections, and the new projections determined that cattle are good for the environment. They not only are not making things worse, but they are making things better. So if you change the assumptions and the projections, models can produce a different result. So we should not assume that every model has been fed the right information. We cannot make policy based on worst case scenarios from computer models. Mr. Chairman, I actually do believe that climate is changing. But even during the Obama administration, when I was on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, we had some witnesses come to the committee from National Labs and testify. And one of them was asked what percentage of climate change is caused by mankind, the activities of mankind. And the response was it is a single-digit number. And that scientist, from a U.S. National Lab, was never allowed to testify in front of our committee again because he gave an answer that didn't comport with the narrative that the administration was trying to sell. Climate change is happening, and I wish the Senator were making his remarks in China, rather than the United States, where the air is so bad that--I was in South Korea, in Seoul, and one day the weather was beautiful, the climate was beautiful, the air was fabulous. And the next day, you couldn't see two blocks because there was so much pollution. And I said: What happened here? They said: We know what our air quality will be in Seoul, South Korea, when we look at what the air quality was in China 48 hours ago. So it is coming from a very polluted environment. The United States has been exemplary, since the passage of the Clean Air Act, in cleaning up its air. We have extremely clean air, and especially so since we are an industrialized nation. I am proud of what the United States has done to address the Senator's concerns, but climate cannot be used to address the issue of concern to the Senator. Therefore, I object.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 786, which is at the desk.

Ms. LUMMIS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.