Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have great respect and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma. When I listen to the arguments being presented, I am reminded of a couple of things. No. 1, these claims arise out of and relate to a treaty--a treaty going back to 1805. Those claims had the opportunity, more recently, to have been litigated in front of the previously existing Indian Claims Commission. Congress, in recognizing the need at the time to open up what might have been a confusing set of legal circumstances or an inadequate availability for relief, opened up a 5-year window for claims related to this treaty that was entered into with the Miami Tribe in 1805. They opened that up for a period between 1946 and 1951. Jurisdiction over what was previously the Indian Claims Commission has since been transferred over to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Interestingly, the Court of Federal Claims still maintains jurisdiction over such things, but it lacks the ability to enter orders, and the statute of limitations has long since passed. There was this 5-year window under which they were able to bring up claims like this. Now, during that time period between 1946 and 1951, the Miami Tribe did pursue and litigate on a number of claims related to that treaty, enough for them to have received a remedy--a remedy of about $11 million at the time. I am told that, in 2024 dollars, that is about $200 million. There are reasons why we have statutes of limitations. Those reasons have to do with the fact that, at some point, a stone rolling down the mountain has to come to rest. When you are dealing with litigation, especially litigation on claims dating back a couple hundred years, it is especially important to have finality. Now, my friend and colleague refers to the need to reopen this window today to remove what he describes as a cloud to the chain of title. The problem with that argument is that it overlooks the fact that the United States is an indispensable party for any and all such claims as might arise so as to underlie the punitive cloud to any chain of title on these lands. As an indispensable party, the United States must be added, or the court can't handle anything like that. The court, under existing law, can't address them in the absence of the indispensable party, and because the United States is and has been deemed an indispensable party pursuant to rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no such claim exists. Therefore, any and all claims that could create the asserted cloud to the chain of title are, in fact, illusory--entirely illusory--as the U.S. Department of Justice articulated well when delivering testimony in July of 2019 on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice--Environment and Natural Resources Division of DOJ--before the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources. These claims are especially important here. In other words, the existence of a statute of limitations is especially important here. Here is what they say: Statutes of limitations serve valuable purposes. They are designed-- In supporting Supreme Court precedent here-- to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until the evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. Those concerns are particularly acute here, where the United States will be required to litigate claims based on events that occurred more than 150 years ago. Such litigation can be complex and expensive, and it typically requires hiring expert historians and other professionals. There is no valid basis to expend Federal resources to undertake this effort here. I concur with that assessment and would add that this would add a layer of complexity, create a massive slippery-slope problem, and open up settled expectations and understandings regarding Federal land ownership that had been settled long ago and as to which statutes of limitations have now run. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, if my colleague left me a message, I am unaware of that. I did look and see that he tried to call me today. I have had a million calls today and been in and out of a lot of meetings. If he left me a message, I haven't seen it on my phone, and I apologize for that. I had a lot going on today. I will say this. My staff has met with my colleague's staff on a number of occasions to discuss this. The concerns here should not be a surprise either to my colleague or to my colleague's staff. With regard to the question of whether we should just let the court decide, I understand what he said, but that is literally not what this is about. It is not about whether the court can decide whether to reopen the statute of limitations. That is not for the court. That is for Congress. That is for us to decide. The punitive reason for reopening the statute of limitations, which has been closed since 1951 for claims going back to an 1805 treaty, the purported reason for reopening it is the alleged cloud of title on the chain of title. What I am saying is that is an entirely illusory cloud on the chain of title because there is an indispensable party under rule XIX of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You cannot litigate that. Unless the United States is a party and unless the United States has abrogated its sovereign immunity sufficiently to allow the United States to be added as an indispensable party, it cannot be litigated; thus, making any claims entirely illusory. So if there is some other argument, we can pursue those on the merits. But there is no cloud on the chain of title because there can't be because the United States has not, since 1951, recognized an abrogation of U.S. sovereign immunity to a degree sufficient to allow the existence of any type of a cloud on the chain of title.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, it is December 20. We are on, likely, the last legislative break before we break for the Christmas holidays. The first time I personally became aware of this issue was this afternoon. So it is not as if one could argue that there has been dilatory conduct on my part and not listening to it. I didn't even know this was an issue. I didn't know what it was until just a few hours ago.

Mr. LEE. This is a problem to bring something like this up that could have, potentially, an economic impact on the U.S. Government of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. To rush something through like this at, literally, the final hour before the end of a legislative year, before the end of a Congress, is not something that we do. And for my colleague to suggest that I have been dilatory, when he is bringing this up to rush this through by unanimous consent at the last possible minute, under an argument that is legally specious and vacuous. The alleged cloud on the chain of title does not, cannot exist. So the argument doesn't work. If he wants to bring this up in the next Congress, let's do it. Let's talk about it. Let's have it go through regular order but not at the last hour, at the last day, at the end of the Congress.

Mr. LEE. Look, we are in fact at the last effective legislative day of the year and of the Congress. And what my colleague from Oklahoma is saying is that we should call it up and pass it tonight. Now, whether he thinks I should have been aware of this issue long ago--fair enough. I wasn't. But the way this is supposed to work around here is, unless there is unanimity, we don't pass legislation. That is a significant issue. Nor should we pass legislation that could and would expose the United States, potentially, to tens--if not hundreds-- of billions of dollars in liability for a lot of transient reasons that haven't been fully vetted on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. The economist Milton Friedman once said: Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much the government is spending, because that is the true tax. . . . If you're not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you're paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. The Senate is poised to enact another tax on the American people this week--tonight, in fact--a $200 billion tax that will leave a hole in the Social Security trust fund. This tax will give extra Social Security benefits to just 4 percent of the American workforce at the expense of the other 96 percent of hard-working Americans. We must be honest with ourselves in acknowledging that this bill is fiscally irresponsible. To make matters worse, it is entirely unnecessary at this moment in time. There is no reason why we have to be pressed to pass it tonight. Congress is up against no particular deadlines, nor is any program at risk of expiring. Social Security is already on a dangerously unsustainable path. The trust fund is projected to run out of money in the next decade, which would lead to an across-the-board benefit cut. This bill would accelerate that crisis. To tax the American people to the tune of another $200 billion is ludicrous by itself, but to do so when there is no immediate need is nefarious. To that end, the pending measure, H.R. 82, would cause an increase of $197.81 billion in the level of Social Security deficit relative to the level deemed for budget enforcement. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure under section 311(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S. 4511 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 8666 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent 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. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I appreciate the passion and sincerity and hard work of my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who is a dear friend whose presence I will miss here. We have a situation in which we have got a new administration coming on board, and President-elect Trump has asked that we hold off on confirming additional Presidential nominees until he gets into office. It is an understandable request, but particularly in these circumstances, I agree with him. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Congress must address the challenges facing Social Security. Unfortunately, the Social Security Fairness Act fails on all counts and doesn't even come close to living up to its name. Let's start with the flawed benefit calculation this legislation seeks to return to. The government pension offset, or GPO, and the windfall elimination provision, or WEP, were enacted to fix serious problems in how Social Security benefits were calculated. Before the WEP existed, individuals with mixed careers in public and private sectors often received more in Social Security benefits than they were entitled to receive. Imagine two people, each earning $85,000 annually in their respective primary jobs. One worked in the private sector and paid into Social Security, but the other person worked in the public sector, contributing to a State pension fund instead of Social Security. Both earned an additional $10,000 a year from the side job that did pay into Social Security. Without WEP, the public sector workers would receive Social Security benefits as though they were a low-income earner, based solely on their $10,000 in side income. This miscalculation would grant them overly generous Social Security benefits on top of their public pension and act contrary to and against the interests of other Social Security beneficiaries. The GPO addresses a similar issue with spousal benefits. It ensures that spousal benefits are adjusted to reflect income from public pensions, preventing unfair overpayments under Social Security. The WEP and the GPO are far from perfect. They are very imperfect. They were enacted at a time when Congress lacked access to the full data needed to make precise adjustments, but they were designed to fix real problems, and they do exactly that. If Congress repeals these provisions without replacing them with a better system, we will revert to a broken model that unfairly rewards some at the expense of others-- and that is not ideal. But let's talk about what this bill would mean for the solvency of Social Security. Social Security is already on a dangerously unsustainable path. The trust fund, which has been raided time and time again by Congress, is projected to run out of money in the next decade, which would lead to across-the-board benefit cuts. This bill would not fix that. In fact, this bill would accelerate that crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the GPO and WEP would cost $196 billion over the next 10 years. It would push Social Security's insolvency up by 6 to 8 months, making an already dire situation worse. Congress must focus on solutions that strengthen Social Security's financial health, not hasten its collapse. Look, there is just no reason--certainly no legitimate reason--to force a vote on this issue right now before we have an administration that will prioritize meaningful, fiscally responsible reform. Republicans should focus on advancing solutions that align with our principles. We have an incoming Republican Senate majority and an incoming Republican President. We should stick to the principles that have gotten us elected and reelected. This bill is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to the vast majority of Americans who have paid into Social Security their entire working lives. About 96 percent of the workforce contributes to Social Security. They rely on it as an important part of their retirement security. This bill would force those workers--96 percent of them in America--to subsidize overly generous benefits for the 4 percent of the workforce--those who do not participate in Social Security--and, instead, contribute to noncovered pensions. Most State employees already pay into Social Security and would be harmed, not helped, by this legislation. The Social Security Fairness Act would reward a small minority at the expense of the vast majority of American taxpayers. That is not fair. When we look at the overwhelming majority--96 percent--those who would be harmed by this--it is not fair to take something away from them to move up by 6 to 8 months the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund just to address the other 4 percent. Now, that is not to say that those 4 percent don't need to be addressed in some way, but the way that this bill does it isn't fair, and it is unsafe. Look, the challenges of Social Security require solutions that prevent further mismanagement. The Social Security Fairness Act--a somewhat Orwellian name as I think about it--would take us back to a broken system, push the trust fund even closer to insolvency than it is already, and unfairly shift costs onto hard-working Americans. I have been in this Chamber before when this body has voted to raid the Social Security trust fund. I have raised the alarm, and it has happened anyway. It is unpleasant; it is not an experience I care to revisit. But never have I seen us raid that fund to this degree--to the tune of almost $200 billion. This is reckless, but it is worse than that; it is cruel. We need real solutions that address the root causes of these challenges. Repealing the GPO and the WEP without fixing the underlying issues would be a step backward--a huge, painful step backward--and profoundly unfair. Congress has a responsibility to address Social Security's flaws with clarity and with courage. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed legislation and commit to reforms that serve all Americans, not just a select few. To reiterate, there is no reason why we have to rush this. This particular problem was many decades in the making. We can fix it. We can fix it responsibly. We don't have to rush it. I implore my colleagues: You don't have to do this. We can fix this next year and fix it the right way. I ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed. Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3324 and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills, en bloc: Calendar No. 277, S. 1097; Calendar No. 528, H.R. 2468; Calendar No. 530, H.R. 4094; Calendar No. 640, S. 5005; Calendar No. 660, H.R. 7332; and H.R. 3324.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment, where applicable, be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, yesterday marked a somber milestone: 1,000 days since Russia invaded Ukraine. Over a million lives have been lost or wounded--a staggering human toll. Yet, instead of seeking a path to peace, the Biden administration is choosing escalation. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled into this conflict with little or no oversight and no end in sight. It is as if writing blank checks has become our primary foreign policy strategy. This has extracted a huge human cost. Just days ago, President Biden authorized Ukraine to use American- provided long-range weapons to strike inside Russia. Let me repeat that. We are now enabling attacks using U.S. weaponry inside Russian territory. When I first saw the headline, I didn't believe it. I hoped it was maybe a joke or fake news. It was neither. It was real. Now, this is not a step toward deescalation. Nothing could be further from that. In fact, this is a dangerous provocation, one that brings the United States perilously, unacceptably close to a direct conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary. In response, Russia has updated its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. This is not a game. The rounds are live and flying--and, I would add, deadly. The specter of nuclear war is now looming larger than it has in decades. Yet the administration seems undeterred, even willing, as if eager to risk U.S. security for the sake of scoring one last cheap political point against the incoming Trump administration and the American people. Now in the twilight of its tenure, the Biden administration is quietly attempting to forgive half of Ukraine's economic aid package from the last supplemental appropriations bill--a whopping $4.7 billion given away for free if President Biden has his way. The American people are being deceived by the Biden administration. Americans were told Ukraine would repay that sum when this bill passed. In fact, that is part of how they got it passed. It was, you might say, a ``without which not'' of that bill's passage. Now they are being stuck with the tab. Now, let's be clear: Forcing the American people to pick up this tab removes an essential point of leverage for the United States to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table. It prolongs a bloody war. It drains our own scarce precious resources and gives Ukraine a freebie we don't extend even to our closest allies, all without accountability or a strategy that prioritizes America's interest first. But it is worse than that. It does so in a way that puts us in the firing line--the firing line of a nuclear-armed adversary. Moreover, a significant portion of this sum was allocated to fund the salaries of President Zelenskyy and Ukrainian bureaucrats. What kind of message does that send? At a time when American families are pinching pennies--pinching pennies--because we spent money we don't have, causing us to print more money, causing every dollar the American people earn to buy less, it is absolutely unconscionable that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to underwrite the administrative costs of a foreign government and the salaries of foreign bureaucrats--all in a way that makes us less safe, all in a way that puts us in a precarious position we haven't faced since most of us were children. Our constituents are tightening their belts and making tough decisions about healthcare, education, and basic necessities. Yet we are being asked to finance the operational expenses of another nation's government. Madam President, we have a duty--a solemn duty, a sacred duty--to our constituents to ensure that their hard-earned money is spent wisely and ethically and, at a minimum, not in a way that makes them less safe, not in a way that paints a target on their back or an adversary with nuclear weapons. We certainly have a constitutional duty to prevent unnecessary escalation that could lead to catastrophic consequences. And we have a duty to uphold the will of the American people who very recently--just over 2 weeks ago--voted for a different President with a different foreign policy, one that works for the American people and not against them. Instead, as a final parting gift--and, yes, I use that word very, very euphemistically--the Biden administration wants to saddle the American people with a tab that they don't want, that they never agreed to, that they expressly rejected at the ballot box, and that they cannot afford. That is why I stand in full wholehearted support of Senator Rand Paul's joint resolution of disapproval to block this misguided, dangerous, reckless, wealth transfer to a corrupt foreign government. I call on all of my colleagues to do the same. We need to halt this dangerous path and give the incoming administration every tool to pursue a strategy that prioritizes peace and America's interests. The American people have spoken and resoundingly, with good reason, rejected the policies of this administration that escalate conflict and prolong wars. The American people deserve better. They should expect more. They strive and yearn for peace. Rand Paul's measure would help advance that. Doing nothing would impair it.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Democrats' talking points against the SAVE Act are being proven wrong day after day after day. We heard them say repeatedly: Noncitizens, including illegal aliens, don't vote because they can't vote. That is to say, they don't vote because they are not allowed to vote because Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections. But they do. They have. And existing laws make it, unfortunately, far too easy for them to do so. In fact, Oregon officials, to cite just one example, admitted just recently an error of the State's automatic voter enrollment problem. And they acknowledged that it was much more significant an error than they previously thought, having registered 1,259 possible noncitizens just since 2021 alone. Some of the mistakenly enrolled noncitizens, thereafter, went on to cast a ballot, according to Oregon's secretary of state. This enrollment error in Oregon was first unearthed earlier this month with officials admitting to wrongly registering around 300 voters through an Oregon DMV program that registers legal citizens when they obtain a driver's license or a State ID. But this week, the DMV and the secretary of state's office said a complete review showed 1,259 people who didn't provide proof of U.S. citizenship were added to Oregon's voter rolls, a number four times the previously acknowledged and reported figure. Unfortunately, Oregon is not unique in this regard. There are other States that have acknowledged problems--a long list of them--including States like Texas and Virginia, each clearing thousands of noncitizens from their existing voter registration rolls. Yet Democrats say this isn't happening. They continue to dismiss the need for the SAVE Act, citing an existing law under which noncitizens are, in fact, already barred from voting in Federal elections, as well they should be. They are barred; but the fact that they are barred doesn't mean that a combination of circumstances based on existing law makes it far, far too easy for noncitizens to vote. As I said a moment ago, they do, even though they are prohibited from doing it; and in many circumstances, they have. But we are seeing it happen in realtime. This is our final chance to address this issue before what I think most of us would acknowledge is going to be one of the most consequential elections of our lifetimes. If Democrats truly believe, as most Americans do, that voting in U.S. elections should be reserved for American citizens, then they must agree to pass the SAVE Act. This is not too heavy a lift. This is something that just makes it possible for us to enforce existing law--existing law that, to my knowledge, nobody in this Chamber or the other legislative Chamber down the hall has suggested we change. That is all this does. That is all the SAVE Act is about. This is, in fact, the last chance to prove that they care about election integrity in order for it to matter in enough time that it can make a difference between now and the November general election. After all, since the Biden-Harris inauguration, over 10 million undocumented immigrants entered the United States illegally. This figure--just that figure of 10 million who came into the country illegally in the last 3\1/2\ years alone--that figure exceeds the population of most of our States--36, in fact. A supermajority of all of our States have populations smaller than the population of illegal immigrants that have come through unlawfully under the Biden-Harris watch. With millions of unauthorized people on U.S. soil--a total of 30 million noncitizens living in the United States--the potential for election fraud through ineligible voting is not a hypothetical risk. This means the foundational principles that underpinned our republic-- or any republic, for that matter--are under attack. It is under attack because President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and ``Border Czar'' Vice President Kamala Harris refuse to enforce the law. With the influx of illegal aliens under this administration, if even a fraction--let's just say, 1 in 100--were to vote, this could translate into hundreds of thousands of votes. Depending on where they are located and concentrated, this could be far more than enough to sway many of our most tightly-contested elections and alter their outcomes, especially in the case of the Presidential election. So make no mistake: This matters. It has consequences. And what we do or choose not to do will make a difference. This is concerning considering a recent study. And in that study, we found that noncitizens have ample openings and significant opportunities, repeatedly, to vote unlawfully. This study found that anywhere from 10 to 27 percent of noncitizens in the U.S. are, in fact, today registered to vote. And anywhere from 5 percent to 13 percent of noncitizens in the United States currently do vote in Presidential elections. So, no, don't tell me this doesn't happen. Don't tell me it is already unlawful so we don't need to do anything about it. We know that existing law, while it prohibits noncitizen voting in Federal elections, existing law makes it far too easy to do. And that is what we want to do in America with our elections. We want to make it easy to vote; hard to cheat. The last thing we want to do is make it easy to vote for those who will cheat--who do cheat by virtue of their voting because they are not entitled to do it. It is what it means to be a citizen in a republic. It is what it means to be a country and to have a vote. You are stealing other people's votes. You are diluting their votes. You are, in fact, disenfranchising legitimate votes when you participate unlawfully, fraudulently, feloniously, but in a way that current law makes far too possible. Across the Nation, instances abound where States have inadvertently, apparently, facilitated this crisis. Who knows to what degree of inadvertence this was, but it is always referred to as an inadvertent error. And unless or until we can prove otherwise, we have to deal with it. But regardless of the degree of awareness and intentionality that went into it, these things did, in fact, happen, everything from unsolicited voter registration forms being mailed directly to the addresses of noncitizens and driver's licenses being issued without adequate checks, relying merely on the honesty of illegal aliens as they complete forms. All of these practices have opened up the floodgates to voter fraud. Now, there is no law in place telling the States, as they process voter registration forms under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA--this is the so-called Motor Voter law. It is a law that allows people, when they apply for a driver's license, to simultaneously register to vote in Federal elections simply by checking a box and signing their name. Nothing in the NVRA or in any other current provision of Federal law tells the States exactly how or what they must do in order to verify the citizenship of voters who plan to participate in Federal elections. Regrettably, a few years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the NVRA, based on the fact that it doesn't instruct the States on how to verify citizenship, as somehow precluding, prohibiting the States from asking for proof of identification verifying citizenship at the time someone registers to vote under the NVRA in a Federal election. This really was wrong, in my opinion. It was a majority opinion of the Supreme Court, and I believe they got it wrong. It is the Court's ruling, nonetheless, and it stands. It was issued over the strong dissent of Justice Alito, who pointed out the reasons why it shouldn't have been interpreted that way, but that ruling stands nonetheless, and the States have to abide by that order. So, to be clear, under the law as it now stands, somebody going into a State and applying for a driver's license--as you are allowed to do, by the way, as a noncitizen, in all 50 States. You can apply for a driver's license in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. If you check the box on the attached NVRA form saying you want to register to vote and then sign your name saying ``Yeah, I am eligible to do this,'' that is it. The State isn't even allowed to ask you for any kind of identification. That is the end of the matter. A mere check of a box and a signature is all it takes, with little to no risk of being caught. In fact, noncitizens are being encouraged to vote and not warned of the consequences of doing so. The fact that the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted Federal law to ban States from requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters via Federal forms makes it all the more urgent and important for us to do this. This signals loudly and clearly that this is how you get around this thing. We have to fill this gap. An increasing number of localities permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. Now, that is their decision. I think it is a terrible decision on their part, but it is a decision over which we as Congress, we as the lawmaking branch of the U.S. Government, have no control. But what we do have control over is who may vote in Federal elections. That part is our business. Prominent Democrats have openly discussed these tactics as beneficial to their agenda--``these tactics'' meaning deliberately bringing about the registration to vote in Federal elections by noncitizens and participating in Federal elections and casting ballots unlawfully as noncitizens. Only months ago, every Senate Democrat voted to count illegal aliens in the census to help them shore up more seats in Congress and more votes in the electoral college. This cannot continue. It is one thing to do that in the context of the decennial apportionment count--the part of the census that is used to distribute seats in Congress and in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college; it is quite another thing to let them actually vote. No sane republic would or should do that--certainly not this Republic. The American people agree overwhelmingly on this. If you are an American citizen, you can vote in Federal elections; if you are not, you can't, and you shouldn't be able to. It is our responsibility, it is our imperative to close these gates-- these gates that have been left wide open as a result of a combination of circumstances, including the NVRA, the wrong interpretation of it by the Supreme Court a few years ago, and then the 10 million-plus illegal aliens coming in in the last 3\1/2\ years alone and the total of 30 million-plus noncitizens living in the United States today, coupled with the fact that it has never been easier to apply for a driver's license in all 50 States and the District of Columbia even if you are a noncitizen. My bill, called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act, would be a vital step in securing the electoral process, ensuring that every vote cast must be legitimate, that every vote cast must be cast by a U.S. citizen, and that every voter be duly and lawfully registered. The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act so that States can ensure that only U.S. citizens may participate in Federal elections. The SAVE Act requires States to obtain concrete documentary proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration. It specifies that acceptable documentation must be provided, and it explains what kind of documentation. It also requires States to establish alternative verification processes for those rare cases where standard documents might be unavailable. In that respect, the SAVE Act is far easier to comply with than other examples we can identify under existing Federal law where Americans routinely can be and are required to produce proof of citizenship in order to do a certain thing. The most common of these instances of Federal law requiring proof of citizenship involve the submission of the form known as the I-9. If you are not familiar with that, I can guarantee, if you are a U.S. citizen and you have ever had a job, you filled one out. The I-9 is the form that you have to present whenever you start new employment. If you are starting as an employee, you have to fill out the I-9. Attached to the I-9 has to be proof of citizenship. Typically, it is most easily satisfied if you have a U.S. passport. If you don't have a U.S. passport, you have to show a U.S. birth certificate and then, I think, a couple of forms, a government-issued photo ID, to prove that you are the person identified on that birth certificate, and then you are good. The SAVE Act is even more flexible than that. That is not too onerous by itself, but recognizing that the right to vote is at stake and that some people might not have or might have lost some of these documents, it provides myriad other avenues by which they may prove their citizenship. This is not too onerous. It also requires the States that set up these verification processes to make sure that they can get this done. It provides incredibly expansive ways to prove citizenship, and if you don't have any documented proof, you can do it. This will in no way make it hard for any U.S. citizens to vote, not even the poorest or the least fastidious about recordkeeping among us. Every one of them will be able to vote if they are U.S. citizens. Indeed, it will prevent their votes from being canceled by foreign actors trying to bring about what really amounts to foreign interference with U.S. elections, which is something we all claim to care about and be opposed to aggressively. Furthermore, the SAVE Act compels States to proactively remove noncitizens from voter rolls and introduces severe Federal penalties for those individuals who knowingly register noncitizens to vote. The bill echoes the sentiments of the American people themselves, from coast to coast, from north to southeast to west. It transcends political affiliations and speaks directly to the core of what makes our country great: fair, free, and secure elections. There is a lot that divides us here, that sets Democrats against Republicans and that can result in us disagreeing on the basis of a genuine disagreement among our voters, among our constituents. Republicans and Democrats, voters and Senators alike, often just disagree depending on our political alignment. But in this particular instance, it is the Senators who are opposed to each other, not reflected in the way the American people feel. Among the American people, this is like an 80-percent issue. Like 80 percent of Americans believe that we should be doing this. In fact, they feel like it is absolutely crazy to not do it. This is about transcending those political affiliations and going back to what is so important about being a U.S. citizen and casting our vote. Your vote doesn't mean much if it can be canceled out by somebody else who is not entitled to be here. There is not a corporation in America that would allow nonshareholders to participate in a shareholder election. They wouldn't let a nonshareholder vote if the whole point of the vote was to let shareholders vote. If I were to wander into the Senate Democratic caucus as they are holding their leadership elections or any other important deliberation where they have to vote, they wouldn't in a million years let me vote in there because I am not a Senate Democrat. When I arrived in the U.S. Senate, each of the three times I have been sworn in as a U.S. Senator, I had to produce documentary proof that I had, in fact, been elected in Utah. I had to produce an election certificate issued by the chief election official in the State of Utah, the Lieutenant Governor, who indicated that I won my elections--first in 2010, then in 2016, then in 2022. Without being able to prove that I was entitled to be here and to cast a vote here, I would never have been allowed to vote, nor should I be. It is no less true with U.S. elections. We cannot let those who are not entitled under the law to do it because they are not citizens, to vote in our elections. This is about protecting our elections from foreign interference-- something my Democratic colleagues claim to care immensely about. Every day that we delay, the foundation of our electoral processes erodes a little more. We can't wait for this administration to enforce the law. This bill will make it harder to cheat in elections and ensure the integrity of every single ballot that gets cast. There is really no valid argument against it, so heretofore people opposed to it have just been throwing out red herrings like ``It is already illegal,'' which, for reasons I explained a minute ago, means nothing if there is no way to enforce the law, and existing law makes it far too easy to cheat without getting caught or, alternatively, just ignoring it altogether. But there is no valid argument against this bill. That is why you don't hear any valid argument against this bill--it doesn't exist. The only reason to oppose this bill would be if you need or are counting on illegal votes to win elections, if you want to rely on them--perhaps in the first instance or as backup; I don't know. But there is no valid, legitimate reason to oppose it. By passing the SAVE Act, we would send a clear message that in the United States, voting is not just a privilege of citizenship but also a protected and cherished right, one that we need to protect. As debates about election integrity rage, the SAVE Act stands out by guaranteeing that only American citizens will have a say in our elections. American elections must be decided by Americans, by American citizens. Without that, without them, we have no right to be here. We have no right to pass laws on behalf of the people without those people being citizens. So we have to make sure that those people determining who is here, who is in the Chamber down the hall, and who sits in the White House, are, in fact, U.S. citizens. I acknowledge the presence of my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. LEE. I recognize the presence of my friend and colleague the senior Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 439, H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act; 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. LEE. Madam President, my distinguished friend and colleague the Senator from California makes an impassioned plea that we not pass this bill. I appreciate his thoughtfulness and care and consideration that he routinely gives to matters pending before the Senate. I wish I could say that always translates into accurate statements. Today, it didn't. He made several statements that are just not accurate. First and foremost, he suggested--not just suggested, he said that this bill--the SAVE Act, which I am trying to pass right here, right now--failed to pass in the House of Representatives; that even in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives it couldn't get the votes to pass. That is not true. It is 100 percent false. In fact, this has passed the House of Representatives. It passed the House of Representatives not only with the Republicans voting for it but they picked up five Democrats along the way. So they passed it. They passed it with a bipartisan vote. Now, he may be referring to the fact that there was another vote-- another vote cast last week in which they attached the SAVE Act to a spending bill. It was the spending bill that caused the combined measure to fail. But, in fact, the SAVE Act has been passed by the House of Representatives. It was passed with a bipartisan vote because even these Democrats, who joined with all the Republicans over in the House of Representatives, acknowledged that this is a problem. The problem has been created by a combination of Federal laws that have grown too loose, that have been further loosened by the Supreme Court of the United States in its interpretation of it, and that the need for it has, in fact, escalated. Point No. 2 that he makes--this is the third time--sounding, I think, a little frustrated by the fact that we tried to do this multiple times. Well, forgive me, but the case for it has continued to build. It has continued to build steadily, even at the same time that the House of Representatives has now passed it. This does matter. So he is mistaken here in that nothing has changed. He says that there is no evidence of this. That is not true. That is news to me, given that the world learned yesterday of this evidence that just came out from the secretary of state's office in Oregon showing that complete review revealed 1,259 people in that State who didn't provide proof of U.S. citizenship, and they had been added to Oregon's voter registration rolls a number of--four times the previously reported figure. That is also news to States like Texas and Virginia, just to state a couple. There are more that have been going through their voter registration rolls and discovered a lot of noncitizens. I mean, you add them all up, and we are talking about thousands of noncitizens registering to vote. Then he pivots a little bit, and he says that there is no evidence of massive voter fraud. If thousands of illegally registered voters-- people who illegally register to vote in Federal elections--if that is not massive, I don't know what is. Now, as to the next point that he makes: Ballots have already been mailed out. I don't dispute that. I am absolutely certain that that is the case. That is in no way, shape, or form an argument against the SAVE Act, nor is it an argument against passing this now. In fact, there is no reason not to pass this now. There is good reason to pass it now, given that in fully 22 States in the United States of America--fully 22 States allow voter registration up to and including the day of the Presidential election. So in addition to the thousands of persons who are noncitizens and therefore may not lawfully register to vote or vote in a Federal election who have already registered to vote, many of whom have been shown in past elections to have voted illegally--we don't even know what the total number is. We don't even know what the total number of people is who might register to vote and then vote unlawfully between now and the 5th of November when the election is held. Yet in addition to the 22 States where you can register to vote, up to and including the day of the Presidential election, there are a whole lot of others who allow it, to varying degrees, at some point between now and election day. Then he goes back to the fact that this is not a serious proposal. I don't know what that means, other than Democrats don't like it. And I understand that they don't like it. It is serious. I assure you, Madam President, and I assure my colleagues, this is a very serious matter when people register to vote and vote illegally. That disenfranchises actual U.S. citizens. Finally, I do take exception to something. I take exception to the suggestion as to motive, suggesting that the reason I am here to do this is to disingenuously plow what he refers to as ``fear and uncertainty'' as to the legitimacy of our elections. Not only is this kind of speech uncalled for and prohibited under rule XIX of the Senate rules where you are not supposed to characterize somebody's motive as something devious like this, if I were out here deliberately trying, just for kicks and giggles, to undermine the legitimacy in the outcome of the election, that would be inappropriate. That is not accurate. There is not a scintilla of proof for that. And there is a mountain of proof that we have darned good reason to bring this about. I am deeply disappointed that we can't pass this. This is not a heavy lift. It is not too much to ask that we put something in place, putting teeth into existing law that has been on the books for decades that Americans overwhelmingly agree with and says you can't vote in a U.S. election unless you are a U.S. citizen. The House passed it; we could pass it today. This could make a difference. We should pass it. It is inexcusable that we are not.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, directing the Office of Government Ethics is an important position due to the Office's role in aiding the President with the nominations process and assistance to the Senate in evaluating potential conflicts of interest for Presidential nominations. This point was, of course, made clear in Mr. Huitema's HSGAC hearing, as he testified to the committee that nominee vetting would be not just a priority but priority one for the Office of Government Ethics and would dominate the next year, meaning the year that is about to arrive. Given the fact that this position serves, once confirmed, for a 5- year term, it is also important for us to remember that we are now just a few weeks away from a Presidential election, a Presidential election that will determine who will serve as President of the United States for the next 4 years. So in light of that, we should wait to see who is elected before confirming this person to a 5-year term. It is concerning to me that during his hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Huitema left open the possibility of supporting a partisan policy, a partisan approach, from a nonpartisan position, one that can be used as a means of further weaponizing our government against officials who might be appointed, should President Trump win, in a Republican administration. Individuals responsible with directing the Office of Government Ethics must not engage, promote, or tolerate partisan lawfare. Particularly in the midst of unprecedented lawfare and political weaponization of the U.S. Government against Donald Trump by the Biden- Harris administration, I have got grave concerns that have led me to oppose their partisan nominees and policies considered in this Chamber, particularly between now and the election. The Biden-Harris administration forfeited that courtesy when they decided that they wanted to govern more like a banana republic than the United States of America. Now, after these two assassination attempts that we have seen so far on Donald Trump, continued lawfare by Democrats at both State and national levels and unacceptable rhetoric from Vice President Harris, who has brought foreign leaders to campaign for her in a key battleground State, it is clear that they have changed their tune. And so I am not going to change my tune. We have to remember that the President of the United States, at any given moment, for constitutional purposes, is the executive branch, is the living embodiment of the executive branch. This is an office that really ought to be filled at least with Members being allowed to take into account the outcome of a coming Presidential election. With that Presidential election just weeks away, there is no reason this has to be done today. In fact, there are very, very good reasons for us not to do it today. Let's take this up after the Presidential election. That is the appropriate time to raise this. If Mr. Huitema is willing to further clarify his position and the next sitting President appoints him to fill the position, I am happy to revisit this question. Until then, I object.