Bernie Moreno

“I am asking the Senate to let seven committees meet today. Leaders from both parties have approved these meetings.”

“Mr. President, I have seven 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: The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 9:45 a.m. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 3 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND CENSUS The Subcommittee on Disaster Management, District of Columbia, and Census of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.”

“I oppose this bill. It lets the housing watchdog decide its own budget with no cap and no vote from Congress. That money comes from housing groups, which will raise costs and mortgage rates for regular people. Any funding change should have a cap and a recorded vote.”

“Mr. President, Reserving the right to object, this bill would amend the funding statute for the Federal Housing Finance Agency so that the expenses of the inspector general are collected through the annual assessments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank in an amount independently determined by the inspector general. I support independent oversight. The Inspector General Act already requires a separate budget estimate for that office, and it already lets the inspector general tell Congress if a proposed budget would impair that work. Current law already funds this office. It has more than 100 employees and a budget of more than $50 million. This bill goes further, though. It would make the inspector general’s own determination the amount the director must collect. There is no ceiling, no reasonableness test, and no vote of Congress on this matter whatsoever. These assessments, by the way, aren’t free. They are costs on the housing finance system, and they show up in the mortgage market. We would literally be costing working Americans more money for mortgages so that a bunch of overpriced attorneys would charge whatever they want, to do whatever work they felt necessary. If the Senate wants to change how this office is funded, that change could include a cap, a reporting requirement, and, most importantly, a recorded vote. And for that reason, I object.”

“I want the Senate to pass the Connected Vehicle Security Act next week, and I want the House to pass it soon after. China is trying to take over the car market and destroy American car companies. Millions of good American manufacturing jobs depend on us protecting our car industry from China.”

“But, look, I think, for the people watching, Americans ultimately--whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent, you just want a government that works for you. You want a government that functions, that isn’t chaotic, that is actually laser- targeted on not only fixing problems but avoiding problems. This is a huge problem that is coming up. If you were to go back in a time machine about 26 years, in this Chamber, they passed a bill called the China Normalization Act. The idea was that if we could normalize relations with China, China would enter the World Trade Organization, and it would be absolutely phenomenal for the United States because we would get a place to make things really inexpensively. But what has happened over 25 years, 26 years is that China has built a massive military machine. We go into meeting after meeting, and whether it is election integrity and the assault on that, whether it is the assault on our critical infrastructure, whether it is the fact that they have blatantly stolen our intellectual property--you were the Ambassador to Japan. You dealt with this every day, with the Japanese saying: Look, the threats from China are real; they are ever present. If we only could have avoided that vote 26 years ago. I can tell you that what we are talking about here today is even more existential. As my colleague from Michigan mentioned, it was the auto industry uniquely that built the middle class in this country. I believe that in a future time, a future Congress, we are going to unite, Republicans and Democrats, around one simple concept: that our job here collectively is to make certain that an American citizen can graduate from high school and get a good enough paying job that they can afford a home, afford to get married, afford to start a family, be able to live in a safe community, and most importantly, retire with dignity. It seems to me that is actually the essence of the American dream. But these jobs are few and far between. They are hard to get. The auto industry can do that. Let me show just a little chart here for my colleagues. It shows just how important the auto industry is to America--963,000 factory jobs, direct factory jobs. In your State, I don’t have to tell you--I can only imagine how many auto plants you have visited, whether it is Nissan in Smyrna, GM in Spring Hill, or Volkswagen in Chattanooga. You have autos all over your State. These are really, really good jobs. The people who work in those factories meet the definition I just said. We have to make certain, as policymakers, that we do everything possible to make certain those jobs are protected. If you look at the entire auto industry, when you look at the supply chain--because there are a lot of pieces and parts that go into a car. It is the second largest purchase somebody will make after their home. Mr. President, 2.4 million good, high-paying jobs--these are not minimum-wage jobs; these are family-sustaining wages--and 11 million jobs when you think about the effects. In Chattanooga, TN, the fact that Volkswagen is there, you have all kinds of businesses that exist because of the employment there, because of those wages that allow people to buy homes, spend money. Now, what is the counter? What is the threat here? What are we really doing? China understands this, I think, better than we do, honestly-- the importance of building their middle class--so what they have done over the last two decades is targeted the auto industry, not to compete in the auto industry but to conquer the auto industry, to create what I have dubbed ``automotive fentanyl’’ where they create these predators that go out and don’t just compete--because General Motors, Ford, Toyota--you name it--can compete with any car company on Earth. They can’t compete with a country that is hell-bent on total conquest. They now make almost four times as many cars as we do here in America. They export almost as many cars as we make here in America. While their domestic market is dropping, they are producing ever more cars. They need to feed that beast. They need to feed that machine. So what do they do? They go into countries like Germany where, when you are born, the first words from your parents are ``You have to buy a German car.’’ Thirty-four percent of hybrids sold in Germany last month were Chinese--in a country that is culturally inclined to buy German vehicles. You look at countries like Ecuador. Fifty-seven percent of the new cars sold in Ecuador are Chinese vehicles. Mexico and Canada are starting to go there. All over the world, you are starting to see this total domination. In the case of Germany again, Volkswagen Group, which is partially owned by a government entity in Germany, for the first time in their history had to lay off 150,000 workers. Why? Because they can’t compete with the nation of China that is hell-bent on destroying their industries. This is the reality of what we are talking about--$1.2 trillion in GDP. This is what is at stake. So I will conclude with this. It is really hard to pass legislation. We know that. Our Founders wanted it that way. They wanted to make certain that two Senators from every State, big or small, would have to come together to figure out how to get to a compromise. That requires enormous effort. Introducing bills that will never pass--that is easy. We keep the clerks very busy with papers for bills that will never pass. This is a bill that has almost 100 out of 100 Senators on board. People have totally different ideological points of view, but on this, we have united, which is we cannot allow this threat to happen. I am confident and hopeful that I can come back to you, Mr. President, next week with my colleague from Michigan and that we can pass the Connected Vehicle Security Act and that when the House comes back on November 8, that the House take up an identical version of this bill that Congressman Moolenaar and Congresswoman Dingell have been working on and that we can get this bill in the hands of the President. I know that he feels the same way I do, which is that we are not going to let these cars into our market; we are going to make certain that we defend the U.S. auto industry. So thank you again to my colleague for the hard work. Thank you to all of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that have provided input and have gotten us to the point where we have a phenomenal piece of legislation. I am very, very hopeful that we will absolutely get this done next week. I yield the floor.”

“I object to this request. We should have passed the bill from my Ohio colleague instead. His bill would make data centers pay a deposit before building, which would quickly lower electricity costs for taxpayers. This other bill just adds more federal rules and red tape. Democrats blocked a good bill that would have helped people, and power bills will keep going up because of it.”

“Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I just want to make it crystal clear for everybody as to what just happened. If we had passed my colleague from Ohio’s bill--the one he spent an enormous amount of time writing, the bill that he spent enormous time in lobbying support for from the House of Representatives--all we had to do was not have an objection from a Democrat Senator. That bill would have become law today, and taxpayers all over America and electricity users all over this country would have seen immediate relief. We would have advanced the ball. The term ``do-nothing Congress’’ exists for a reason. We absolutely accomplished that right now. We did nothing here in the Senate because of, again, Democrat obstruction. This bill would have done something. That is not nothing. So I applaud my colleague from Ohio for putting the work in and for having a massive, bipartisan win. By the way, just on policy alone in comparing the two solutions, the last thing we need is a new Federal interconnection queue to make Google pay for a transformer. My colleague from Ohio’s bill would have actually required a deposit before steel is put in the ground for a new data center. The other would have required a FERC NOPR. Look that up. It is a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. What you saw now is just, over and over again, Democrat obstruction after Democrat obstruction so they can just put up another TV ad saying that electricity prices are high so that they can win an election. Instead, the victim of all of this is the taxpayer of the United States of America, who is going to see electricity prices continue to go up, when we could have passed a law to have solved it. Instead, it is more games after more games. Like the American people, I am sick of it, and I know they are. For that reason, I object.”

“I want the Senate to vote yes to take up this cryptocurrency bill. Both parties agree that digital currency needs clear rules. Voting yes does not mean you support the bill yet. It just lets us bring it to the floor for a full debate.”

“Madam President, like for you, although you are newer, there are probably a lot of things you thought about that the U.S. Senate does or doesn’t do, and there is probably a process of exploration: How does all of this actually work? And in my 18 months of sitting where the Presiding Officer is, I have really taken the time to learn, not just what the procedures of the Senate are but trying to actually understand: What were our Founders thinking when they created these processes? So for the people in the Gallery and the people watching at home, what we are actually supposed to be doing right now is debating as to whether we should confirm Matthew Byrne to be a judge in Ohio. Yet, I guarantee you, there hasn’t been a single word about whether Matthew Byrne is fit to be a Federal judge or not. And, I will tell you, he absolutely is--because one of the things that we have done as a collective body is abandoned the principles of how this place is supposed to work. We have a vote at 2:15 p.m. today that is a cloture on the motion to proceed. I am sure everybody in the Gallery knows exactly what that means. I am sure they don’t. What our Founders intended was that, when legislation was to be considered in the U.S. Senate, that there would be a robust debate as to whether a bill should be considered or not. And those of you watching on C-SPAN are just seeing me. What you are not seeing is what the people in the Gallery are seeing, which is that I am the only one in the Chamber. I have never heard of a debate that existed when nobody was present to have said debate. So it is not really a motion to end debate because debate has actually never started. So in the most ironic twist, what we are going to vote on at 2:15 today is whether we should consider this bill or not. And if the answer is that we are not, it says we should continue to debate this bill. But we have never started debating it publicly so the American people get to hear both sides of this argument, not a 30- second sound bite on X or a 45-second interview on CNN or FOX News, but an actual thoughtful debate and exchange of ideas. We cannot have a republic if we don’t follow the principles of that republic, and those principles mean that we strengthen our institutions; we follow the process as outlined. What I am asking my colleagues to vote for at 2:15 p.m. is to say: Yes, we should consider this bill. It doesn’t mean you should pass it. It doesn’t mean you support it. But we should end the debate as to whether we should even consider it. That is the entirety of the vote. From there, our process--that is right there in that book, Madam President, the one behind the Bible--says there are 30 hours of robust debate. And I have been waiting for 18 months to hear robust debate in this Chamber. Instead, what we get is sound bite after sound bite after sound bite--speeches that were written by staff that are read in this Chamber for the idea that you can clip it for social media. That is not what the American people deserve, nor is it what they want. But when you have been here too long, I am here to tell you, all of that becomes normal. You get to the point where it is just normal to do things a certain way. People come in and out of committee hearings, don’t listen to the witnesses. They go to some meetings, not others. They are semibriefed; they are not briefed. Why don’t we just go back to the original intent of this place? Let’s vote yes on the motion to proceed to end debate--by the way, which never started--and then have 30 hours. Senators here can come to the floor. People in the Gallery, people at home can hear an actual debate. If, for example, you think that the Clarity Act doesn’t go far enough for law enforcement, let’s hear one point of view, and let’s hear the other side give an alternative point of view--not because you have written down talking points, but actual arguments that come from a position of knowledge. If you think the ethics provision is too weak, let’s hear the arguments from both sides. Let’s give the American people the opportunity to hear this debate. And if at the end of that, there isn’t 60 votes to end the debate, then the bill dies. But if there is enough debate that has been heard, we say: OK, now it is time to actually get on the bill and actually pass it or start the process of passing it. There is an amendment process that can exist where people can offer ideas. But here is what I will tell the Presiding Officer because I am certain, in your background, your No. 1 issue in life wasn’t digital assets. You did a lot of other amazing things in your career and life and really helped people. So the idea behind that is to really understand it to know what the issues are. But here is what we do agree on, Republicans and Democrats: This industry does need regulation. There is no regulation today for the digital assets industry. The industry is begging for regulation. Think about how crazy that is. Typically industries are like: Yeah, you know what? Leave us alone. We don’t want the government in our business. They want clear rules of the road. They want to be able to develop innovative products that help average Americans take advantage of their being able to earn money, earn rewards on their money, be able to be more efficient when they transact. That is what working Americans want. They want to see their government work. So we know--think about that--total unanimous support for hey, we need regulation. That is not the debate. The debate is how we do that. Well, that is what we created. We spent 18 months--18 months, including with the Presiding Officer’s brother, in many meetings where we crafted a bill that started as 300 pages. It is now over 600 pages. Part of the problem is that I don’t know that everybody has read all 600 pages. They may not even know what is in the bill. We all know the famous line: We will find out what is in the bill after we vote for it. Terrible. We are ready to consider a bill to do what all of us agree on, which is to regulate the digital assets industry. At 2:15 p.m., we are going to say: Let’s end the debate. Let’s consider this bill. Let’s move this forward. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed, ending the debate, and then, since we didn’t have a debate, let’s actually have one before we consider final passage, and respect the institution that all of us are--at least I know I am--honored to be a part of. With that, Madam President, I urge all my colleagues to vote yes at 2:15 p.m.”

“I ask the Senate to consider these four resolutions together right now.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 843, S. Res. 844, S. Res. 845, and S. Res. 846. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.”

“I am asking the Senate to pass this resolution honoring the Chicago Cubs on their 150th anniversary.”

“I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the substitute amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”

“I am asking the Senate to approve this amendment and pass the bill right now.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley 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.”

“I am asking the Senate to approve this amendment and pass this bill right now.”

“I ask unanimous consent that the Lummis substitute amendment, which is 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.”

“I am asking the Senate to approve the changes to this bill and pass it.”

“I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn; that the Gillibrand 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.”

“I ask the Senate to approve these military nominations right now without debate, except for one Coast Guard nomination.”

“Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Secretary’s desk: PN1104-2, John A. Goodwin in the Army, and all nominations in the Coast Guard with the exception of PN846; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s actions and the Senate then resume legislative session.”

“I am asking the Senate to take a break until 8:15 p.m.”

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 8:15 p.m. and that all time in the recess count postcloture. There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:30 p.m., recessed until 8:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Moreno).”

“I object to this request. We should vote on the other bill that already passed the House with support from both parties. That bill bans insider trading and requires voter ID, and it can become law right away. This proposal has not gone through committee, has not passed the House, and is just for show.”

“Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the bill that my colleague from Nebraska, my colleague from Ohio, and my colleague from Utah is proposing is a bill that has already passed the House of Representatives. It has massive bipartisan support. Lots of Democrats voted for that in the House. If we pass it, it can become law. Putting that bill on the floor at 60 is a very low-threshold ask. I think the American people deserve to know what each Member of this Chamber decides to do on banning insider trading and voter ID. The proposal that my colleague from California is putting on the floor is a bill that has neither gotten through any committee where it has been actually read by committee members. It is a bill that has not been presented to the House of Representatives, so they would have to take it up over there. It would, of course, be modified and come back. In other words, it is what I say--it is the DC two-step--or if you want to have a headline that says ``I am for banning insider trading’’ knowing nothing will actually happen. Now, maybe you don’t think that the bill that my colleague from Nebraska worked diligently on is perfect, but it is a massive step in the right direction. This would get us to 99.9 percent of the way there on banning insider trading. It could happen tomorrow. It could happen tomorrow. And the voter ID law, which virtually all Americans support, could happen tomorrow. So what we are dealing with is one bill that can be signed into law that has been vetted, that has massive bipartisan support, versus a bill that, quite frankly, the person talking about it wasn’t even on that committee, is not 100 percent sure what was in that bill, doesn’t know the history of the bill. It wasn’t a year ago; it was a few months ago. It is a smokescreen, and for that reason I object.”

“I am blocking this request. The House already passed a bill to ban members of Congress from trading stocks and to require photo ID to vote across the country. Democrats blocked that bill tonight instead of letting it become law.”

“Mr. President, reserving the right to object. There is an expression that says don’t let facts get in the way of a good story. What we just heard is a good story. Let’s, unfortunately, dissect the facts that are completely inaccurate. I am on the Homeland Security Committee; my colleague from California is not. That was not the bill that we sponsored. The bill that we sponsored was something called the PELOSI Act, your longtime Member of Congress from California, who perfected the grift of insider trading, who came to Congress, I think when I was born, when the Presiding Officer was born, and well before our colleague from Florida was born, and has somehow managed to be worth $300-plus million. That is why I thought it would be in honor of her that we would introduce the PELOSI Act, the ability to just stop insider trading. Let me just also be clear about where we stand on this bill. This is a massively bipartisan bill that came out of the House. Every Republican voted for it and 13 Democrats, which never vote unless every Democrat is voting together, voted for this bill. And if not for the objection that you just heard, if not for the objection from my colleague from California, tomorrow the President of the United States would have signed this bill into law. And what would it have meant? What would the President tomorrow have signed had this objection not been heard? No longer can Members of Congress or their spouses or their adult children buy stocks with inside information. They would not be able to sell stocks without a 7-day public announcement period, which would, in effect, end forever the practice of insider trading that has plagued this Congress. We could have gotten that done. So I want you to process that for a second. There are commercials 99 days before the midterm elections in which Democrats, including the Presiding Officer’s disastrous opponent, that are talking about banning insider trading. That guy was here for 30-plus years. My colleague from California has been here for 5 years. The three of us have been here for 18 months, and we could have passed a bill tonight to ban insider trading. Democrats have blocked the ability to ban insider trading. Those words don’t even make sense to me as I say it. Why? It is the classic DC two-step: introduce an alternative measure that they know will never pass so they can keep the grift operation going. Be able to say: Oh, look, we oppose that, too, but this doesn’t go far enough. My colleague from California worked with me diligently--I might add, which I appreciated--to ban prediction markets for the entire U.S. Senate. We got that done. It didn’t touch the President. It didn’t even touch the House of Representatives. We got it done here in the U.S. Senate. I am proud of that. I am proud that now people--the American people-- know that no Member of the U.S. Senate or their staffs, by the way, can participate in the prediction markets. We got that done because we advanced the ball. We can advance the ball tonight and ban insider trading for all of Congress. The House handed us a bill. We say yes; the President signs it tomorrow. You sent the letter. My colleague from California sent a letter to the CFTC, talking about the downside of insider trading among Congress back in January. We could avoid it. We don’t need to send letters. We could ban insider trading tonight. Democrats have refused to do that. Now let’s talk about voter ID. By the way, it is called the SAVE America Act, not the SAVE Act. It is called the SAVE America Act. We have talked about it in this Chamber for hundreds of hours. Let’s get the name right. This is not the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act, for some reason, is unanimous in its opposition by the Democrat Members of this Chamber. They are totally, completely united on not passing the SAVE America Act, which does two things, by the way. You have to prove you are a citizen when you register. You have to show voter ID when you vote. That is it--two things. This particular measure in this bill is just photo ID. If you get the all-you-can-eat, Never-Ending Pasta Bowl at Olive Garden, you have to have a photo ID to get another bowl of spaghetti in California. So if I go to my favorite Olive Garden in Los Angeles and I have my Never- Ending Pasta Bowl, I have to bring my ID. But if I go vote, I don’t have to. I think most Americans would think that is insane. I think most Americans would think that is nutty. Why would you not have to show your ID? It has nothing to do with registration. You mentioned registering to vote. It has nothing to do with registering to vote. It is strictly voter ID when you vote, and there is not IDs that are banned. That is just not true. Read the bill. It is simple voter ID: a government-issued ID--your picture, your name, your signature--pretty straightforward--80-20 issue. I think 99-1 issue, honestly, but they say it is an 80-20 issue. They got 13 Democrats in the House that voted for this. They knew that if the Senate took this up tonight, what they did last week would become law. We could have gotten voter ID in the entire country. Mr. President, 30-plus States already have it. And we would have banned insider trading. Those two things could have happened tonight. And the fact that they didn’t is a decently sad day--July 27, 2026, the day Democrats said we shouldn’t have voter ID in America and we shouldn’t ban insider trading. Let me just close with a little anecdote. I was asked by the Government of Colombia to go down and monitor their elections. That was a great honor, being born in Colombia--a full circle of my life. Now I am here in the Senate. Imagine somebody in Colombia has asked me to go down and monitor the election. By the way, I knew as much as you, Mr. President, about how the elections in Colombia works. Actually, that is not true, you probably knew more. I had no idea. I go down there. And what do they require in Colombia, South America: A country with abject poverty, dramatically less well-off than the United States, dramatically more ethnically diverse, by the way--they require every citizen of Colombia to carry with them a national ID card that proves they are a citizen. They are not even allowed into the hall where the voting happens without that national ID card that proves they are a citizen of the country of Colombia. And when they go to vote, they have to get their fingerprints done and their signature, show that ID with their photo on it, before they are handed a paper ballot that is counted by hand. And the election results--after 25 million votes--takes 1 hour. The GDP of Colombia is less than the GDP of L.A., and yet the mayor’s race in L.A.--3 weeks after the election--they are still counting votes. Now, I was in the registrar’s office, afterward, debriefing on the election. We are obviously speaking in Spanish because we are in Colombia. And I asked them what happens if somebody walks into the hallway--they wander into the hall--they want to vote, and they don’t have their ID card? Now I came to the United States when I was 5. My siblings make fun of me and say my Spanish is not perfect. It probably isn’t. So when I said that, the registrar turned to his assistant and said ``I think the Senator has lost his Spanish.’’ And his assistant says ``What do you mean?’’ He says ``I don’t understand his question.’’ So he repeated it in perfect Spanish. He turned to me, and he goes, ``What a dumb question. Of course, we wouldn’t let somebody come in and vote without their ID. That would be abject idiocy’’--his words. And yet a dozen-plus States in the United States of America--the most rich and powerful country on Earth--does not have voter ID. We could have gotten that done tonight. For that reason, I object.”

“I want to pass this resolution to call out Canada's leaders, not its people. Their poor leadership caused wildfire smoke to pollute our states. They also charge us to help fight our fires, and they will not let American firefighters into Canada to help.”

“Mr. President, very briefly, let me make a couple of things clear. This resolution isn’t about insulting Canadians; this resolution is about calling out inept leaders in Canada. I have total and complete respect for the people of Canada. Unfortunately, they are victimized by terrible leaders. To just turn a blind eye to the fact that they just dumped in your State and my State the equivalent of a year’s worth of auto pollution in America, on the Midwest, and pretend it isn’t manmade--they don’t have centralized response. This idea that they helped us is totally false. They charge us to come to the United States to help put out our forest fires that, by the way, are also created by ineptitude in Washington, Oregon, and California. And then when our firefighters ask to go to Canada to help them, they prevent them from coming in. So this is completely a manmade disaster, but it is not made by the people of Canada; it is made by the leaders of Canada. And shame on them, and shame on anybody apologizing for what they are doing to the people of our States.”