Pete Ricketts

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, 13 years ago, an inspired and patriotic 18-year-old by the name of Charlie Kirk launched a political organization. He wanted to identify, train, and organize students to engage in American politics. His dynamism, his tenacity, and his convictions helped inspire a generation. Charlie Kirk was participating in the very American act of political dialogue when he was assassinated. He was a husband, a son, a father-- had two little children--and he was murdered in broad daylight. It is horrifying. It is very disheartening not only for me but I know many young people. Tragically, it is all too common. Charlie Kirk isn't the only political figure to be impacted by violence. In recent years, he has just been added to the list of people like Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Congressman Steve Scalise, Minnesota House speaker Melissa Hortman, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and, of course, President Donald Trump. No matter our political beliefs, all of us should be able to affirm a simple truth: that violence against political figures is unacceptable. It is actually anti-American, period. It is an attack upon our very values. It is an attack upon our Republic. Our level of sympathy should not depend on the political views of the person who violence has been perpetrated against. Our level of outrage should not depend on the political views of the victim or the perpetrator. In our great country, we settle disagreements with ballots, not bullets. The way to combat speech you don't like is with more speech, not less speech. This makes us better, sharper, and more American. That is what Charlie Kirk was doing when he was assassinated. It might seem unnecessary to say these things in the wake of an assassination, but the tragic reality is that not every American believes what I just said; not everybody believes these statements are true. A recent YouGov poll found that only 72 percent of Americans said that political violence is always wrong, and 11 percent said that political violence can sometimes be justified. Eleven percent of people think that it is justifiable to commit political violence. That number shocks the conscience. Let that sink in. The people who believe that are siding with the bad guys. We must reverse this trend. We must make sure that political violence isn't normal, that it is not accepted. Each of us has a role to play in that. Each of us can be a part of restoring American civic virtue. We need to focus on what we know to be good and true. Let's spend more time in prayer. Let's spend more time outdoors rather than on our phones or our devices. Let's spend more time getting to know our neighbors and investing in our community. Let's relearn civil discourse. Civil discourse sharpens our arguments and makes us better, and it is better for our communities. It is what makes us human and what makes us American. The civil discourse in our great Republic is what makes us great. There is no time to waste, and we all have a role. God bless Charlie Kirk, his wife Erika, and their children. May Charlie rest in peace. Now, Mr. President, I would like to say a prayer not just for Charlie but for our entire country. The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: And I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the loss of a man who had a great impact on the city of Chicago, the Chicago Cubs, and my family. Ryne Sandberg was the greatest second baseman to ever play for the Cubs. He came to the Cubs in 1981 as part of a trade where the Phillies sent Larry Bowa to the Cubs, and Dallas Green insisted on Ryne Sandberg being a part of that trade because he had seen him play. From the get-go, Ryne Sandberg made an impact on the Chicago Cubs. Just a couple of short years later, in 1984, Ryne Sandberg led the Cubs to their first playoff appearance since the 1945 series. It was an MVP season for him. He had 19 home runs, and that was just the beginning of a fantastic career. I was just getting to Chicago around that time, and that season is what made me a Cubs fan. I recall going to many games and watching Ryne Sandberg play. He was one of the best second basemen in the game. He set records for home runs by a second baseman, for fielding percentage--96 consecutive games without an error. The man could do it all. Throughout his tenure at the Cubs, he did a fantastic job. In fact, in 1984, who can forget the game--with all due respect to my colleagues from Missouri--in 1984, he hit a home run in the 9th inning to make sure that we had extra innings in that game against the St. Louis Cardinals and then again in the 10th to beat them. That was the kind of competitor that Ryne Sandberg was. Throughout his career, he got a lot of hardware. He went to the All- Star game 10 times, 9 Golden Gloves, 7 Silver Slugger Awards. All of these accolades reflected the kind of person he was and are one of the reasons why Ryne Sandberg is a Hall of Famer. There was a statue of him in Wrigley Field for his contributions to the Cubs and to the game of baseball. Ryne was just synonymous with the Cubs while he was playing, and he was the kind of baseball player you were proud of. He didn't say much, but when he did, people listened. But as great a baseball player as he was, the man was even better. Ryne Sandberg was the type of player you were proud to have on your team. He was a man of integrity. He did what he said he was going to do, worked hard, was tenacious, was great in the clubhouse. He was a player, a coach, an ambassador for us. He gave back to the community, whether it was through Cubs charities or his own Ryno kids foundation, where he helped sick kids stand up to cancer. All of those things he did to give back to the community. He was one of those people that was just a pleasure to be around. Somebody who understood the importance of the game but also knew the people were more important. So, now, Ryne Sandberg is playing that eternal baseball game up in the sky, but his legacy will live on here. Countless fans will go to Cooperstown, read about his baseball exploits. But his family--his wife Margaret, 5 kids, 11 grandkids--and all the folks in the Cubs organization know how Ryne Sandberg was a man that was more than just a baseball player. He was the kind of man that was an example for all of us in this country, who played America's pastime but knew the values of America meant taking care of our fellow citizens. Ryne will be missed, and I hope we can all reflect upon what he meant to the game, to the Cubs, and this country as an example of how we should all be.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I have four 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: committee ON ARMED SERVICES The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee ON FINANCE The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee ON FINANCE The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Madam President, Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. This has been a redline for decades, going back to President Clinton. The reason is because the results would be catastrophic. It would create an existential threat to our allies and partners in the region, such as Israel. Even worse, it would create a threat to our heroic servicemembers, at a time when Iran and its proxies have already shed blood and have that blood on their hands. It would trigger a regional arms race, as countries threatened by Iran's persistent malign aggression seek their own nuclear deterrent. And it would lead to an even more assertive and aggressive Iran that would be emboldened by its perceived security guarantees that come with a nuclear weapon. That is why Israel's recent military campaign against Iran, which culminated in successful airstrikes ordered by President Trump on Iran's key nuclear facilities, is so important. Iran is now as weak as it has ever been since the 1980s, probably weaker. The strikes have delayed Iran's path to a nuclear weapon by a few years. But in order to seize this moment, the United States and our allies must impose maximum pressure to the highest extent possible to force Iran to permanently and verifiably end its nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich uranium. This is why the snapback of U.N. sanctions is so important. Ten years ago, Iran made commitments under JCPOA, including reducing its enriching of uranium and its uranium stockpile, limiting the enrichment of uranium and its centrifuges, and allowing intrusive monitoring. As a result, the U.N. passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA. In exchange for Iran's compliance, it provided for the eventual termination of all previous U.N. sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program after 10 years. It also sunset U.N. arms restrictions on Iran after 5 years and U.N. prohibitions on Iran's missile and drone activities after 8 years, both of which have now expired. However, even before the prohibitions ended, Iran was blatantly violating them, sending suicide drones to Russia and weapons of terror to its proxies, like Hamas and the Houthis. These sanctions should not have been allowed to expire in the first place, especially when the price was destruction of European cities and the lives of American citizens threatened by Iranian weapons. Under 2231, any signatory to the JCPOA--which includes the UK, France, and Germany--can trigger the snapback of these waived sanctions and restrictions if Iran is in ``significant non-performance of [its] commitments under the JCPOA.'' Not only has Iran blatantly violated these commitments, but it has done so repeatedly for 6 years, all without consequences from the U.N. On top of that, in June, the IAEA, the world's nuclear watchdog, for the first time in two decades, declared that Iran had failed to comply with its IAEA safeguard obligations. And how did Iran respond? By threatening Director General Grossi and effectively kicking out the IAEA's remaining inspectors and booting them out of the country. From breaching the cap on its stockpile of uranium and enriching to 60 percent, to expanding its nuclear facilities, Iran has trampled on its obligations under the JCPOA. So where does that leave us? The West has 87 days before we lose our ability to snap back tough U.N. sanctions on Iran. That opportunity permanently expires on October 18. But the real deadline is much sooner. The snapback process takes at least 30 days to fully complete. Adding to the urgency, Russia is set to take over as President of the U.N. Security Council in October. This would allow Russia to use its position to delay the process and run out the clock. Iran knows this. Just yesterday, Iran held talks with Russia and communist China to discuss preventing the activation of the snapback. This cannot be allowed to happen. Our European allies have said that they are prepared to trigger snapback by the end of August if no firm, tangible, and verifiable nuclear commitments from Iran are in place. This is being done in coordination with the Trump administration, which continues to pursue diplomatic talks with Iran. I commend our allies for setting a deadline; however, this path is under a timeline that leaves little room for error. Unsurprisingly, the Iranian regime is resorting to its longstanding play book to delay, to delay, to delay and prevent snapback from happening. Later this week, the Iranians are scheduled to meet with the E3 in Istanbul. There are rumors that discussions could center on under what conditions the E3 would postpone the snapback. But today, I stand to urge our European friends to hold the line and not to bend to Iranian threats or be fooled by Iranian assurances. After 10 years, Iran does not need more time; it needs more pressure. A window now exists to completely change the trajectory of the Middle East for the better, but that window will close unless we convince Iran that its nuclear weapons program will never be tolerated, period. That is why this resolution urges the E3 to snap back sanctions as soon as possible. We must not let Iran off the hook. At this point, I would certainly love to hear from my esteemed colleague from Idaho. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Idaho's remarks because they are spot-on with regard to what is going on here. Under previous administrations like the Obama administration and the Biden administration, the strategy was to try to buy off Iran, to try to give them enough money to be our friend. And that is a failed policy. It has been demonstrated to be a failed policy. Under the Trump administration's first term, where they applied maximum sanctions, they were able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. When that happened, Iran did not have the money to be able to fund terrorist organizations like the Houthis or Hamas or Hezbollah. When the Biden administration came in and opened up the valves for them to get their oil money again, that is when we saw this problem reoccurring. To my colleague's point, if you look at what is going on, the enrichment they are doing right now is not for civilian nuclear programs. Mr. President, 23 countries in this world today have civilian nuclear energy programs, and what they do is they get their enriched uranium from other sources; they don't enrich it themselves. This allows them to have a civilian program. This is what Iran needs to go to. They cannot be allowed to have an enrichment program. Maximum pressure is what works. It has been demonstrated to work in the first Trump administration. The appeasement of the Biden administration only encouraged them to fund terrorism around the world. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. So I believe that the European countries need to snap back these sanctions. This will help us in negotiations with Iran right now. As I mentioned, they are at their weakest state since the 1980s and may be weaker. So we must snap back these sanctions. This resolution will encourage our European allies to do that. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 81. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the Ricketts amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my esteemed colleague from Kentucky has argued that we should pursue diplomacy, and, indeed, the Trump administration is pursuing diplomacy. However, the path he is arguing for right now was tried by the last administration and failed miserably. What Iran respects is strength. While we are certainly not advocating regime change, what we are advocating is the use of policies that were effective in the first Trump administration. As I stated already, in the first Trump administration, by applying maximum pressure, the Trump administration was able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. They may have had the desire to fund terrorism, but they did not have the ability to fund terrorism. That is what these sanctions would continue to do, is put pressure on Iran. We may not be able to change the regime, but we can make them poor so they cannot fund terrorism. Yes, by all means, we should continue diplomacy, but we should do it from a position of strength, which is why we are encouraging the European nations of France, Germany, and the UK to snap back those sanctions, to give us that strength going into these negotiations to convince Iran that there is no path for them to have a nuclear weapon. They must give up that plan; they must give up their enrichment. Therefore, I will not modify my request.

Mr. RICKETTS

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

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, this week is National Police Week. Thank you to all of our law enforcement officers across this great country who work to keep our communities safe. In particular, thank you to the women and men who put on the blue in the State of Nebraska. They face danger every day on our behalf, and they serve with courage. I believe that Nebraska's law enforcement is a model for the rest of the Nation--their professionalism, their diligence. I will use the example of the Omaha Police Department. The Omaha Police Department has a homicide clearance rate of 100 percent. This is in a time when the national homicide clearance rate is under 60 percent. It is a testament to their excellence and dedication. Omaha has also seen its murder rate decline in each of the last 4 years. Many cities saw the crime rate go up during COVID. What we see in Omaha now is that murder rate coming down in our great city. In Nebraska, we back the blue. We support the women and men who protect our communities. It is one of the things that--I am very proud of Nebraskans and the way they do this. We give them the tools and the training, and we have strong laws. In Omaha, we have a prosecutor, Don Kleine, who prosecutes the criminals. We have a great police chief who enforces the law. That is one of the reasons why we are able to bring down, for example, the murder rate. When I was Governor, we passed one of the most comprehensive law enforcement and public safety packages in our State's history. We were able to create hiring bonuses for our police departments to be able to help attract and retain law enforcement officers. We increased the educational benefits, the retirement benefits. We invested in our law enforcement training center to be able to do a better job training our officers. And we invested in our crime lab to be able to help our law enforcement agencies solve those crimes and be able to provide that justice to the victims of crime. All this is because we, in Nebraska, support the blue. Americans want this Congress to support our law enforcement officers as well, just like we do in Nebraska. I am also very proud of the work our law enforcement did when we had the southern border crisis under Biden. Joe Biden's lack of attention and terrible policies led to a flood of illegal drugs coming across our southern border. Law enforcement agencies like the Nebraska State Patrol stepped up to be able to interdict those drugs. In fact, in my year as Governor, Nebraska State Patrol was able to take twice as much methamphetamine, 3 times as much fentanyl, and 10 times as much cocaine as they had done just 2 years prior because of the open border policies of the Biden administration and what that allowed, those illegal drugs in. But our law enforcement stepped up to keep our community safe. Here, in the U.S. Congress this year, we passed the HALT Fentanyl Act. That will create stronger penalties and make sure that fentanyl is listed as a schedule I drug. When you have stronger penalties, you are going to have tougher sentencing and less fentanyl in your streets. That is important because we, in Nebraska, have seen the tragedies of fentanyl overdoes. Taryn Lee Griffith was a young mom whose life was taken because she took a pill that was laced with fentanyl. These are the stories that we want to end. We have got to make sure our young people are not being killed by the scourge of fentanyl. I will continue to work with President Trump to secure our border to give some relief to our law enforcement officers across this country so that they don't have to continue to see stories and tragedies like Taryn Lee Griffith. We have got to make sure we are supporting our law enforcement officers. I will continue to fight to give our law enforcement officers the tools they need. I co-led the Back the Blue Act, which would increase the penalties for those criminals who are targeting law enforcement officers and give law enforcement other tools to protect themselves. My colleague from North Dakota was just talking about the Thin Blue Line Act, and I am a cosponsor of that as well. Senator Cruz introduced that bill. We need to make sure we, in the Congress, are doing what we can to support our law enforcement officers. During this Police Week, we also recognize those officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. Ross Bartlett was a police officer from Ceresco, NE, Police Department. He lost his life in the line of duty. His cruiser was rammed by a driver who allegedly was distracted while texting and came into the shoulder. He was killed last year. This week, his family is in Washington, DC, as part of Police Week, and they rented an Airbnb in Maryland. When the owner of that Airbnb discovered why they were here--and by the way, that owner is a Capitol Police officer--when that Capitol Police officer found out why they were there, he comped their entire stay this week at that Airbnb. That is the demonstration of the brotherhood and sisterhood among law enforcement officers, and it is one of the stories that all too often gets overlooked of how our law enforcement officers take care of each other as well as take care of our communities. We recognize the loss of the Bartlett family and honor Ross Bartlett for his service and sacrifice to the community of Ceresco and our State of Nebraska. During Police Week, I encourage everyone in Nebraska and across the country to say thank you to our law enforcement officers. These women and men protect our communities and sacrifice much for us. Say thank you this week and every week throughout the year and recognize and honor what they do for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I echo my colleague from Arkansas' comments with regard to TikTok. Let's recall that in communist China, there really isn't such a thing as a private company, as much as ByteDance might want to say it is. The Chinese communist law is very clear that companies in China have to do what they are told to do by the Chinese Communist Party, and that is one of the reasons TikTok is so dangerous. TikTok, as has been covered by my colleague from Massachusetts, reaches 170 million people; 52 percent of those people say that they regularly get their news from TikTok. As I have risen on this floor in the past, I have discussed specific cases where the Chinese communists have been pushing their propaganda through TikTok. Now, let's also bear in mind that we would not allow any American TV, news station--even newspaper--to be able to own as much of the American marketplace as TikTok has today--170 million people. Current law says that you can only own 39 percent, for example, of the TV marketplace across the country. That would roughly equate to about 50 million households in the United States--far above what we are seeing here with what TikTok has access to. So if we are not going to allow Americans to be able to have such broad access to our population, why on Earth would we allow the Chinese Communist Party to do it? And by the way, the Chinese Communist Party has no First Amendment rights in this country. ByteDance was given 270 days to make a deal. The Communist dictator Xi Jinping clearly did not want it. They tried to lobby us. They avoided getting a deal done. President Trump came into office. They are still avoiding getting a deal done. The people who are taking on the liability here are the companies that are the facilitators. I urge those companies to reconsider. You should think carefully about what you are doing. The law is very clear. TikTok needs to be sold to an American owner to continue operation, not some half-baked plan, as my colleague from Arkansas was describing, where the Chinese Communist Party would still have influence on the TikTok algorithm, still have the ability to push their propaganda to the American people. That cannot happen. We need to make sure that the Chinese Communist Party cannot do that in our country. Again, we won't allow other TV or radio stations to have that much access. Why on Earth are we doing it with the Chinese Communist Party? It is absolutely ludicrous. We need to keep the pressure on. We need to make sure that TikTok is sold. I echo my colleague's comments with regard to any sort of future Chinese ownership that would allow them to be able to continue to do this. We need to make sure this is no longer going to threaten our young people. Therefore, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in talking about the fentanyl crisis that Joe Biden created in our country. Joe Biden had 4 years of open border policies. Millions of people crossed illegally into our country. But on top of that, we saw a surge of fentanyl coming into our country--fentanyl that is killing our young people. My colleague from Florida just referenced 70,000 people dying from fentanyl. Fentanyl is the leading cause of death among our young people age 18 to 45. That fentanyl starts in communist China, where the precursors are made. It then gets shipped to Mexico. The cartels turn it into that final product and bring it across the border. And we saw the impact in Nebraska. In 2019, law enforcement in Nebraska took 46 pills--just 46 pills--laced with fentanyl off of our streets. But after Joe Biden got elected, in just the first 6 months of 2021, that number jumped to 151,000 pills. And it wasn't just the numbers; it was the human cost. Taryn Lee Griffith is a young mom with two children. She took a pill she thought was Percocet, but it was laced with fentanyl. She died that night. Now her children are going to have to learn about their mom from stories, from pictures because they don't have their mom anymore. Sadly, that story is being told all across this country because of the fentanyl crisis that we have. President Trump was elected to stop this crisis. I mean, think about it. If we had had 70,000 Americans killed in a terrorist attack, we would be up in arms. It is more than are dying from car accidents or heart disease in that age bracket, and yet Joe Biden did nothing. And President Trump got elected to stop it, to make a difference, to end this catastrophe. One of the ways he is doing that is by putting tariffs on the countries that are allowing this to ship through their countries, across their borders. I already mentioned how communist China and Mexico are linked to this. There was a daily podcast from the New York Times that talked about how President Trumps' policies are really having an impact on Mexico. Some people have said: Wait. Using tariffs, that is creating a trade war. That is absolutely not the case. The case is this is a drug war, and the President is using the tool of tariffs to get a handle on it, to shut off the flow of fentanyl. In just 1 month under Joe Biden, law enforcement intercepted 1,400 pounds of fentanyl coming into our country--1 month. That is enough to kill 300 million Americans. President Trump is using his powers to bring that to an end. Now, some people have said: Well, that is fine. We get it, Mexico. But what about Canada? Canada is not the problem here. But our northern border is also exposed. When Canada released or eased up on some of its visa restrictions, the cartels saw their advantage and started moving operations to Canada to transport both people illegally across the border and fentanyl. In fact, 60 Minutes just did a story where they talked to one of these cartel drug smugglers about what he was doing, and he said that-- this one smuggler--he was responsible for moving 30 kilograms of fentanyl across the border from Canada into the United States every month. That is enough to kill 15 million Americans, and he was doing it every month--and that was one smuggler. Now he also said that, lately, it had been quiet. They hadn't been moving as much fentanyl. And, again, that gets back to President Trump taking a stand to get our neighboring countries to start enforcing their border, to put more resources there, and to start blocking this fentanyl before it gets into our country. These policies are having an impact. They are working. We need Canada and Mexico to continue to do more. President Trump is using his powers to be able to help stop that flow of fentanyl. We are here standing up for secure borders, standing up for American families, standing up for those families who have lost loved ones already to this terrible scourge. We cannot afford to return to an open borders policy. We have to have secure borders. The stakes are too high. Too many lives have already been lost. President Trump is leading the fight to secure our borders and stop the flow of this horrible drug into our country, and I am proud to support him in doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. This act will protect our daughters and granddaughters and keep the original meaning of title IX that was meant to help protect girls and promote females in sports. On Monday, I was proud to support and vote for this bill. Sadly, every single Democrat--every single one--voted against it. It is deeply concerning and disappointing, frankly, that not one single Democrat would step up and say: I want to protect women's sports; that I have a daughter or a granddaughter who wants to have the same opportunities that title IX has provided over the last 50 years. For 50 years, title IX has made it so women and girls would have a chance to compete in sports, but it is not just about athletic opportunities; it is about scholarships, and it is about long-term careers. Title IX leveled the playing field so our daughters and granddaughters could dream big and pursue their dreams. We saw this on full display in Nebraska when we had Volleyball Day in Nebraska. For those of you who do not recall, Nebraska set a women's sports attendance record. Over 92,000 people came to watch our women's volleyball teams. It occurred at Memorial Stadium. It was the largest crowd ever. You don't have to take me at my word that this is important for title IX. The Omaha World-Herald called it ``the biggest title IX statement of all time.'' It was an incredible moment and could not have happened without title IX. That progress is under attack today. The Biden administration tried to eliminate those protections. The Biden administration tried to rewrite title IX without the approval of Congress. They tried to change the definition of ``sex'' to include ``gender identity,'' which, let me tell you, that was not a thing 50 years ago when this bill was written. Girls would be forced to share dorm rooms, locker rooms, and bathrooms with males. Men would be able to take women's spots on sports teams and women's scholarships. That is what happens if you allow this to go forward, if you allow men to compete in women's sports, just by claiming they are a woman. The damage is already being done. Last night, President Trump told the story of Payton McNabb. Payton was a high school volleyball player on the girls' team who was severely injured by a male opponent who smashed a ball into her head. She suffered a concussion, a brain bleed, and permanent whiplash. She also dealt with vision problems. It never should have been allowed to happen. Riley Gaines is another example. Riley swam for the University of Kentucky and competed against a man for 3 years in her college career. Lia Thomas, formerly William Thomas, was a mediocre male swimmer who then decided that he would be a women's swimmer, with all that goes along with that, not only competing in events but accessing women's restrooms and their locker rooms. He became one of the top women swimmers--because it is true, what we all know from common sense: Males and females are built differently. It is wrong and it is unfair to allow men to compete against women in women's sports. It ignores science and common sense. Last August, the United Nations released a report that showed that over 600 female athletes--600 female athletes--in more than 400 competitions have already lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports because those women were competing against males who claimed to be women. That is hundreds of young women who have trained for years, only to have their medals, records, and opportunities taken from them. The American people see the unfairness of it, and they strongly support protecting women's sports. A 2025 poll from the New York Times found that 79 percent of Americans want to keep women's sports for women--for biological females. That includes a majority of registered Democrats. This isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue. This is an American issue. And unlike my Democratic colleagues and President Biden, President Trump took steps to protect women's sports. He took action to protect the original meaning of title IX, in his first few days as President. He knew that title IX was written to protect women, not erase them. His leadership stood for fairness, science, and common sense. But there is no guarantee the next President is going to uphold President Trump's action. This bill would make those protections permanent. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act is simple. It says that, under title IX, ``sex'' means the person's reproductive biology at birth. That is how title IX was written. That is how title IX was understood for decades, and that is how title IX should work today. Men and boys shouldn't compete against women and girls in female sports. It is just common sense. It is absolutely just plain common sense. Yet, 2 days ago, every single one of my Democratic colleagues voted against protecting women's collegiate athletics. They chose the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. They chose not to fight for science, for equal opportunity, and for women and girls. I urge them to reconsider. Let's stand with women over radical policies. Let's stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Let's keep a level playing field for our daughters and granddaughters. Again, I urge my Democratic colleagues to reconsider. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues who yesterday voted to proceed on my Congressional Review Act to undo the eleventh-hour regulation that the Biden administration put through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would have greatly expanded the powers of the CFPB to start regulating payment systems as opposed to just the banking system that it was really designed to do. I appreciate some of my colleagues' votes and encourage them to vote again as we vote on it here again later today. Earlier today, some of my Democratic colleagues expressed some objections--and, again, in the interest of time, my colleague from Illinois pointed out, people are waiting to vote. I do have to hit upon one, though. The Senator from Massachusetts seemed to indicate--and she has done so many times in the past--that somehow the CFPB is the only cop on the beat there. That is simply not true. These payment systems are regulated at the State and Federal level. There are other organizations out there that do regulation, like the FDIC, the FTC, the Office of Comptroller, and, of course, State banking regulators, which I used to manage as a former Governor. These organizations all look out for protection of the consumer. She phrased this as somehow we are going to be opening the doors to bad actors, and that is simply not the case. It is a complete misapprehension of our regulatory structure that is stunning from somebody who is the ranking member on the Banking Committee. So I encourage my colleagues to vote for the CRA. It will help roll back this unnecessary regulation. This is a regulation the CFPB put forward without even defining what market they were going to regulate. They gave misleading information that somehow, it would only cost $25,000. In fact, consumers are generally very broadly pleased with these payment systems. The CFPB's own data shows that only 1 percent of the 1.3 million complaints they received last year were on these payment systems. So this is a regulation in search of a reason. We need to stop this expansion of the Federal bureaucracy. We will have the opportunity to do that today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the CRA. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

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

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, following their election loss, the Biden-Harris administration rushed an eleventh-hour rule through the Federal Government to allow the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to start regulating nonbank entities, specifically, around digital consumer payment systems. These payment systems are applications--think about it--like PayPal or Zelle. Consumers have widely had positive experiences with these payment systems. According to the CFPB's own database, only about 1 percent of the 1.3 million complaints last year involved these payment systems. These payment system companies, actually, are already being regulated at the State or Federal level. In other words, this eleventh- hour regulation the Biden administration rushed through is pointless. The Biden-Harris rule is a regulation in search of a problem. It is a rule without a reason. Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis that the CFPB did--an audit by the CFPB--said that it would only cost $25,000. Now, having come from the business sector myself, that probably is the first day of outside attorneys' fees at $25,000. It is widely off the mark. This one-size-fits-all solution in search of a problem expands the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority unnecessarily. In fact, I would argue that this is in a way that was unintended by Congress. The CFPB is supposed to be looking over the financial services sector with regard to banking, not over these nonbank payment systems. The CFPB even failed to define the market they are seeking to supervise, much like how the Biden EPA and Obama before that tried to expand the EPA's authority under the waters of the United States rule. This is an expansion of the CFPB's authority that is beyond what we want to allow. I am proud to be able to lead the pushback with the Congressional Review Act to stop this unnecessary rule. I am also honored to work with my fellow Nebraskan, Congressman Mike Flood, who is leading the same effort over in the House. This is an opportunity for us to ease the regulatory burden the previous administration put upon the American people. Thank you to Leader Thune for bringing this resolution to the floor for a vote. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote yes to overturn and stop this unnecessary rule that is expanding the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unnecessarily and despite the intent of Congress. The CFPB's overregulation of nonbank digital consumer payment applications should stop. We can do it here. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 46, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act that we voted on earlier in this Chamber. The International Criminal Court was created to hold accountable war criminals, for example, in countries that did not have a system of justice, did not have the rule of law, and were incapable of holding those people accountable. In 2020, the International Criminal Court started investigating American soldiers' actions. This, despite the fact that we have a system of justice. We are governed by the rule of law. As my senior Senator from Nebraska just pointed out, we are not a signatory to the ICC. We are not a part of that international organization. Last year, the International Criminal Court indicted Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Israel has a rule of law. Israel has a system of justice. And Israel is not a signatory to the ICC; and yet they indicted him. The International Criminal Court is out of control. It is a rogue international organization. And when they indicted Prime Minister Netanyahu, what they did is they put a moral equivalency between Israel's actions to defend itself and the barbaric attacks Hamas perpetrated on October 7. Let's be clear here: When Hamas launched their terror attack on Israel, they were targeted civilians. That is a war crime. When Israel responds back to defend itself, civilians are going to get hurt in war, but that is not who Israel was targeting. They were targeting the terrorists who attacked them. That is legitimate. The International Criminal Court destroyed whatever shred of credibility they had when they made that indictment. And if they are coming after the Israeli Prime Minister, it won't be long before they start coming after American troops. In fact, the Wall Street Journal had an article that said ``if the International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Israelis, Americans are likely to follow.'' This organization is a failure despite its $187 million budget. It has not been able to bring to justice dictators around the world. They have done very little. My senior Senator mentioned China. They haven't done anything to stop Vladimir Putin. They haven't done anything against Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They haven't done anything against North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Yet they are targeting countries that have a system of justice and rule of law. That is not why this organization was supposed to have been created. The ICC is a lawless, politicalized international organization that is threatening our sovereignty. This requires a strong response on our part. The Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act was that response. It would have directed the President within 60 days to launch sanctions against foreign nationals who are involved with the malign activities of the ICC to target our American troops or our allies, for example. We need to have a strong response back to protect our sovereignty. When we are talking about, for example, sanctions, we are talking about assets, freezing assets of those foreign nationals or travel bans. It would have sent a strong message to all of those foreigners who were trying to target us or our allies. Sadly, the Democrats voted down this important bill that would have sent a strong message. Their arguments were speeches, frivolous, meaningless. The Democrats said: Well, this bill targets our allies. No, what this bill did was target people who were outside the United States trying to target our soldiers or those of our allies. It was targeting individuals. Democrats said: Well, this bill imposes draconian sanctions. Actually, if you look at the sanctions that this bill was proposing, the same sort of sanctions were done under both Obama and Biden 49 times. They said: Oh. Well, some companies could be held responsible. Again, no. This was about individuals. It was not about companies. They said: Well, the bill was poorly written, poorly drafted. Yet this same bill had passed the House of Representatives twice--the first time with 42 Democrats voting for it and the second time with 45 Democrats voting for it, including 2 of our colleagues who are in the Chamber now who voted for it when they were in the House, except that when they came to the Senate, they voted against it. This was important legislation. Now, when the minority leader got up, he talked about the ICC being anti-Semitic, and he is right. The U.N. in general is another one of those international organizations that are anti-Semitic. He says that he stands with Israel, against the ICC, but his actions speak louder than words. When he had the opportunity, he stood on this floor earlier and said that Israel should have new elections to replace the Prime Minister. Well, folks, that action was with the same logic that the ICC was using when they indicted Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. It seems hypocritical that he can stand up here and say ``I stand with Israel, yet they should have new elections'' and somehow have the moral authority to defend Israel against the ICC. In blocking this bill, Democrats were voting to not protect our soldiers; they were voting to not stand up for our allies, not stand up for our sovereignty. They were not supporting specifically Israel. The appeasement-first policy of the Biden administration is alive and well in the Democrats in the U.S. Senate today. Americans, take note. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

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

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 45, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Thursday, January 30; 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 morning business be closed; further, that the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 9; that all time during morning business, recess, adjournment, and leader remarks count postcloture; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. RICKETTS

Mr. RICKETTS. 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 colleagues.

Mr. RICKETTS. I yield the floor.

Mr. RICKETTS

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

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, the pro-life movement is about love, compassion, dignity, and respect. Nebraska is a pro-life State, and Nebraska has been a leader in the pro-life movement. In 2010, Nebraska was the first State to pass a law with regard to pain-capable fetuses and, effectively, made it so that you had a 20- week prohibition on abortion protecting those babies after 20 weeks because they can feel pain. Last year, Nebraska, again, showed the Nation what we can do with the pro-life movement. We were the first State to pass a pro-life ballot initiative. And while doing that, we were able to prevent the pro- abortion lobby from passing a really heinous pro-abortion ballot issue. The pro-abortion forces ballot initiative would have essentially enshrined in our Constitution not only the right to abortion but would have allowed abortion up until, essentially, the moment of birth. It was incredibly radical. I am very proud of our State. The people of Nebraska took our current law and kept that on the ballot and defeated the pro-abortion's very radical ballot issue. We have the opportunity here in the Senate to be able to continue to uphold the dignity of unborn children. There are a couple of bills I want to talk about. They both have the word ``abortion'' in them, but they are really not about abortion. They are about that love and compassion, that dignity and respect. The first is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. In 2002, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that said that children who survive an abortion are to be treated as people under the law. Now, to me, that seems a little crazy that we had to do that, but we actually passed that. It seemed common sense that if you are born, you are a person and protected under our laws here in the United States. Sadly, that is not the case. In that 2002 law, it didn't say that the child had to receive care. So what we have seen in the abortion industry is that when there is a botched abortion, that baby oftentimes will just be born alive but then left to die of exposure. It is absolutely barbaric, absolutely heinous. And that is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does. It requires medical treatment to be given to those babies, so if a baby girl is born in a botched abortion attempt, that baby girl gets the medical attention it needs so that she can survive and grow up. You may say this sounds ridiculous. Why wouldn't that happen? Well, as I said, it does happen in the abortion industry. Melissa Ohden's mother was pressured into trying to have an abortion at a hospital in Sioux City, IA. Melissa was born alive. And thank goodness there was a nurse there who then took her to the NICU so she could get the medical attention so that she could survive and grow up to be the woman she is today. Melissa was later adopted and has contributed to our country. That is part of what we in the pro-life movement need to do is make sure we are defending the rights of these babies. We have another opportunity as well. And, again, the name of the bill has ``abortion'' in it, but it is not about abortion; it is about protecting the dignity of unborn children. In this case, it is unborn children who are killed in that abortion. Just a few years ago, the remains of over 2,000 aborted babies were discovered in a home in Indiana. Many Americans were shocked to find out that children who are aborted are often just disposed of. Their remains are treated like medical waste. That is just absolutely fundamentally wrong. These babies deserve the dignity that every other person has. And so, in a few days, I am going to introduce the Dignity for Aborted Children Act. What my bill will do is require the abortion industry to treat with dignity and respect the remains of these aborted children; that they will get the same dignity and respect as any human being who dies. Finally, I want to recognize that we have the March for Life coming up on Friday. I want to say thank you to all of the marchers who are going to be here to be able to demonstrate our movement's commitment to love, compassion, dignity, and respect. Your advocacy plays a critical role in making sure that we help save the lives of all of these unborn babies. When we talk about the most vulnerable, who could be more vulnerable than a baby who hasn't been born yet, and we can't hear that little girl's or little boy's voice yet? These marchers will be here to be that voice for those little babies. So thank you for the work you are doing to be able to continue to get our message out about love and compassion, dignity and respect. We need to remind all of our fellow citizens that these little babies deserve the same protections that we all have as citizens of the United States. It is about extending basic human rights to some of the most vulnerable among us. I appreciate the work that all of these pro-life advocates will be doing to be able to help carry our message out this weekend. Working together, we can defend life and empower women. I yield the floor.