Mike Lee
Senator for Utah · Republican · United States
“997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform to the intent of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-599, that the National Taxpayer Advocate be able to hire and consult counsel as app…”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 29; that following the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, 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 da…”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“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. 914, S. Res. 915, and S. Res. 916. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc. Mr. LEE.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 913. There being no objection, as a further mark of respect to the late Nancy Kassebaum, former Senator from Kansas, the Senate, at 10:57 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 10 a.m.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. LEE. Mr. President, 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.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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 with no intervening action or debate.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
The complete record
165 held · 145 searchable for Mike Lee. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
This is not an official version of US Congress proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one US Congress publishes.
“Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 913. There being no objection, as a further mark of respect to the late Nancy Kassebaum, former Senator from Kansas, the Senate, at 10:57 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 10 a.m. ____________________”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 29; that following the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“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. 914, S. Res. 915, and S. Res. 916. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc. Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7730, which was received from the House.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to conform to the intent of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report 105-599, that the National Taxpayer Advocate be able to hire and consult counsel as appropriate. There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. 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.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 997 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 672, S. 4395.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 530, S. 4974.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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 with no intervening action or debate.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 506, S. 4009.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 466, H.R. 8205.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be 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.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 460, S. 2339.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. LEE. Mr. President, 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.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 10167 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.”
Senate28 September 2026Source ↗
“It is a distraction away from something that the American people expect and demand us to do something about. So for these reasons, I cannot, I will not, I must not agree to those terms that we are just going to set this aside and move on to and pass this tariff bill that has nothing to do with election security. On that basis, I object and hope that my friend and colleague will tell us whether he is willing to agree to this legislation with delayed implementation mechanisms.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“And it seems it is almost right out of ``Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure,'' where they are confronting an enemy, and not knowing what else to do, they say: Look, it is the Goodyear Blimp. And while the guy they are arguing with turns to look for the Goodyear Blimp, which is not, in fact, there, they run in the other direction. He then tries to make it about tariffs and asks that instead of this, we consider and we pass this bill S. 5390, which I saw for the first time only minutes ago, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything addressed by this legislation I am trying to pass here today, nothing to do with election security. Fine, let's talk about tariffs on another occasion, but that is not what we are talking about here. This is a distraction.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“And even if we didn't, what is the worst case scenario if we passed this right now and the House of Representatives passed it tomorrow with an immediate effective date? The worst thing that can happen is that people show up on election day and they are asked to pull out a document that they produce several times a month; in many cases, several times a week; or, in some cases, several times each day every day. It is not that big of a deal; in fact, our election security depends on it and, frankly, should require it. Finally, then my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from California tries yet again to distract attention away from this knowing, understanding perhaps, that this is supported by 83-84 percent of all Americans--Democrat, Independent, and everything in between.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“I would love to know that, and I am hoping, at the conclusion of my brief remarks now, that he will tell us that. Then he moves on and asks the question: What is really going on, having never made any argument against the merits of this legislation. He makes it about time, and then he moves on and tries to attribute ill motives to me, to Senator Husted, to Senate Republicans, and to the Trump administration for supporting this; ill motives founded on sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt, creating chaos in the elections, dogs and cats living out in the streets, a scene right out of the Book of Revelation. This doesn't make any sense, especially given that we could remedy that if only he would agree to just a simple delayed implementation measure.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“You can't change the rules midstream because early voting has already happened. Well, this is convenient after they have argued over and over and over again: We don't need this and it is wrong and it is racist and it is sexist. Now, the argument has shifted to: Well, it is too late. Sorry. You lose. So they have secured the delay and gotten us now to the point where we are just weeks before the election. Early voting is already commencing in certain parts of the country. And now the argument is: Sorry. Too late. So I would love to find out from my colleague from California, does this mean he would be willing to accept this legislation, to pass it, to pass it today, right now, if only we included a delayed implementation clause such that the effective date would occur at some point after this November's midterm election?”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“And then one day it is: It will harm older Americans. Another day, it is younger Americans. At times, they called them racist or sexist, which is odd because arguing that women are less likely to have and be able to produce a photo ID or that members of this or that race are able to do that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't comport with our common experience, with our common understanding. People of all races, people of both sexes, people in rural America and urban America and suburban America and everything in between, they have photo IDs because in this day and age, you have to have photo IDs. That is what they have been arguing so far this year. Now, today, what we did hear, most of what we just heard from my friend and colleague, one of the U.S. Senate's most gifted minds, was: Well, it is too late--too late.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the insight offered by my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator of the State of California. He is someone I enjoy working with on multiple committees. He is a brilliant scholar and statesman, and I appreciate his arguments today. Now, I want to point out what we didn't hear in his argument. At no point do we have any effort to address the merits of this legislation, the merits of voter ID laws. Instead, what we have heard from Senate Democrats so far this year on this issue has been: This isn't necessary. We don't need it. It is needless as voter fraud doesn't happen. That has, of course, been proven very much false in recent months. Then they moved on to arguments like: Well, requiring voter ID laws would harm rural Americans or urban Americans.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“It is especially bad for America when, in some States--including and especially the State of California--not only do they not require voter ID, but, as I understand it, they have a law in place that imposes a penalty--I believe it is a criminal penalty--if you even ask someone about an ID on election day at a voting place. This is crazy. It is upside down. It is backward. So we need a Federal voter ID law, and we can pass one right now. We can pass one right now, and we must. To that end, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 547, S. 5271; 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.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“He understands the importance of voter ID and wants to move that forward, and I applaud and congratulate him for his many efforts in support of the SAVE America Act and this narrower subset of this, which he has introduced. It is unthinkable, really, that any lawmaker--Democrat, Republican, or otherwise--would oppose something like this. And you have to wonder why--why oppose it? Why oppose it any more than you would claim that it would be unfair that you can't withdraw money from a bank account without ID or you can't board an aircraft without a photo ID? This approach, the self-attestation approach--the ``trust me, bro'' approach--does not, should not, must not be allowed to work in the context of our sacred elections. It is not good for America to not have these laws in place.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Over the strong dissent of Justice Alito, the Supreme Court essentially told the States that absent new Federal legislation--legislation in the form of the SAVE America Act--self-attestation is essentially sufficient in that circumstance. So Americans overwhelmingly accept this. This is a rare issue. Now, bipartisanship is not itself all that rare, but bipartisanship to this degree--we are talking 83, 84 percent of all Americans agreeing with something like this--is significant. That doesn't happen every day. What is even more unusual, though, is when you have an issue where 83, 84 percent of all Americans strongly support a position, as they do in the case of voter ID laws, but then that overwhelming support doesn't match what elected Federal lawmakers believe. So it is not 83 or 84 percent that Members of this body support that.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Well, because it is good common sense. Everybody understands it. There are myriad circumstances in which it matters whether you are who you claim to be, and nowhere is that more important to the proper functioning of our constitutional Republic than it is in the context of voting and having secure elections. We have also seen that the need for these things has been enhanced dramatically in recent years, not only with the flood of noncitizens entering this country--we have now got, I think, between 30 and 35 million noncitizens residing in this country. It is now easier than ever for them, especially in light of the Supreme Court's botched interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Let's introduce something that would just contain the voter ID component of the SAVE America Act--this, after all, would help us figure out where the weaknesses are, what can pass and what can't pass--given that they almost never have argued against voter ID while opposing the SAVE America Act. And, in fact, many, if not most, of my Democrat colleagues in the U.S. Senate, at one point or another, in the very recent past-- many of them this year, in fact--have said that they support voter ID laws. So let's introduce something that just focuses on the voter ID component of the SAVE America Act. Now, this bill--and, again, this overall approach--is one that Americans overwhelmingly support. We are talking 83, 84 percent of all Americans--Democrat, Republican, Independent, everybody mixed in. They support this. Why?”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“In every single circumstance, they were founded in something that resulted from a mischaracterization of law, a mischaracterization of fact, or, in many circumstances, both. They were not well founded, but they were often and strongly expressed. It is one of the reasons why my friend and colleague, the Senator from Ohio, Senator Jon Husted and I were talking one day, a few months ago, and decided: Let's try an experiment. Let's see what would happen. Given that nearly every one of their arguments coming from the other side of the aisle against the SAVE America Act is focused not on the voter ID component but, rather, on the voter-registration proof-of- citizenship component, let's run with something.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“But Americans, by a margin of more than 4 to 1, favor voter ID laws, and we need one here. Now, with the SAVE America Act, we have heard some objections; we have heard some arguments. Nearly all of those arguments focus on the first component of the SAVE America Act. And at times when the SAVE America Act has been the pending business before the Senate floor, as it was just a few months ago, the arguments that we heard--probably somewhere between 95 and 99 percent of the arguments--coming from Democrats against the SAVE America Act were focused on the voter registration component: having to establish proof of citizenship beyond self-attestation at the time of a new voter registration. Now, those arguments were ill-founded.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“The SAVE America Act does that through two different mechanisms: One, it requires, at the time of a new voter registration, for you to establish that you are, in fact, a U.S. citizen. And, second, it requires that on election day, at the time of voting, you show up with a photo ID--with a photo identification--so that you can prove that you are who you claim to be. Both of these things would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. You have to have both of them. If you just make it easy to vote and don't make it hard to cheat, you are going to have that much more incentive and opportunity for someone to cheat, and we don't want that in this country. Americans overwhelmingly support voter ID laws for that reason. We are talking 83 percent of Americans, give or take a percentage point or two, depending on the poll.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Even though we have laws that prohibit things like noncitizen voting, those laws have been rendered difficult--essentially impossible--to enforce, as against those who would abuse self-attestation in countless circumstances. Those are being revealed; those are becoming known. That thing that they claim never happens--voter fraud or noncitizen voting-- just keeps happening over and over and over again--especially for something that many like to claim never happens. Well, it does, and we need to take steps to prevent it from happening. That is why I introduced the SAVE America Act. The SAVE America Act has two fundamental objectives--two very basic unassailable objectives: Let's make it easy to vote and let's make it hard to cheat. We have got to have both of those.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Those are just a few of the circumstances where they don't allow you to operate on the honor system because they know that it matters whether you are who you claim to be. Now, even for something as simple and relatively low stakes as obtaining the coveted never-ending pasta pass from the Olive Garden-- even there, they don't allow the honor system. Even there, you have got to produce ID to show that you are who you claim to be. It should not be any easier for someone to get away with voter fraud at a polling location on voting day than it is to cheat the Olive Garden through its never-ending pasta pass--and yet that is exactly where we are today. We allow the honor system.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“If you leave the country, whether by land or by sea or by air or some other means, you are likely going to need a passport when you leave the country and when you come back into the country. These are all just a few--many circumstances in which it matters whether you are who you claim to be, so much so that it is important that you do more than just say: Trust me. I am who I claim to be. In the context of voting, sometimes we will refer to this as self- attestation, which is just a fancy way of saying it is the honor system: Trust me. I am who I claim to be. But, look, with good reason, it is not sufficient, self-attestation. ``Trust me. I am who I claim to be'' isn't enough when you board a commercial flight, when you purchase alcohol, or even when you attend the Democratic National Convention.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“And the honor system works well also if you don't have a real risk of somebody claiming to be someone they are not and if they don't have the ability to inflict harm on those who play by the rules. It is one of many reasons why there are a whole host of activities that, in our common experience, necessarily require someone to prove that they are who they claim to be. You experience this anytime you go to the bank, when you go to the doctor, to the pharmacy, when you are picking up theater tickets at will call--all kinds of circumstances. And, you know, one of the more familiar ones for Americans who routinely travel by plane is that when going through TSA, you have to prove who you are as well.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“15, 2026, we explained that the Grand Staircase RMP substantially affected non-agency parties by establishing land-use designations, foreclosing certain activities, allocating resources, and imposing conditions upon land-use. Consistent with our prior decisions concerning other RMPs, the Bears Ears RMP has a substantial effect on non-agency parties. The Bears Ears RMP substantially affects the rights and obligations of non-agency parties by, for example, establishing land-use zones across the Monument, designating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, allocating resources such as grazing and recreation access, and foreclosing certain activities through restrictions on off-highway vehicle use, mineral development, and cultural sites.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“Accordingly, we must also consider whether the Bears Ears RMP substantially affects the rights or obligations of non- agency parties. When analyzing this aspect of CRA's third exception, ``the critical question is whether the agency action alters the rights or interests of the regulated entities.'' Along similar lines, courts have determined that ``[a]n agency rule that modifies substantive rights and interests can only be nominally procedural, and the exemption for such rules of agency procedure cannot apply.'' In prior decisions, we have concluded that where an RMP designates use by non-agency parties in the areas it governs, it has a substantial effect. For example, in B-337705, Jan.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“There, the manual outlined procedures for SSA employees to follow in processing and adjudicating benefits claims. Because the manual was directed to and binding only on SSA officials without imposing new burdens on claimants, we concluded that the manual met CRA's third exception. In contrast, rules that are directed at and primarily concerned with the actions of non-agency parties do not fall within this exception. Thus, in B-337705, Jan. 15, 2026, we concluded that the Grand Staircase RMP did not fall within CRA's third exception because it established land-use designations, imposed conditions, and allocated resources that applied to any person or entity within the Grand Staircase National Monument, rather than solely addressing the organization of the agency's internal operations.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“We have previously explained that this exception was modeled on the APA exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements for ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.'' The purpose of the APA exception is to ensure ``that agencies retain latitude in organizing their internal operations,'' so long as such rules do not have a substantial impact on non-agency parties. Following this principle in the CRA context, we have only applied CRA's third exception to rules that primarily focus on the internal operations of an agency. For instance, in B- 329926, Sept, 10, 2018, we found that updates to a Social Security Administration (SSA) hearing manual governing SSA adjudicators' use of information from the internet qualified as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“In our Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument (Grand-Staircase) Decision, B- 37705, Jan, 15, 2026, we concluded that the Grand Staircase RMP was a rule of general applicability because it, among other things, allocated resources and imposed conditions on land usage that applied to any person or entity within the Grand Staircase National Monument. Similarly, here, the Bears Ears RMP is a rule of general applicability because it establishes land-use designations, allocates resources, and imposes conditions on the use of Monument lands that apply broadly to any person or entity within the Bears Ears Monument. (2) Rule of Agency Management or Personnel The Bears Ears RMP is not a rule of agency management or personnel, We have previously found that rules that fall into this category relate to purely internal agency matters.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“CRA Exceptions We must next determine whether any of CRA's three exceptions apply. CRA provides for three types of rules that are not subject to its requirements: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. (1) Rule of Particular Applicability The Bears Ears RME is a rule of general applicability, rather than particular applicability.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“We have recognized that `` `a statement by an agency that simply restates an established interpretation `tread[s] no new ground' and `le[aves] the world just as it found it, and thus cannot be fairly described as implementing, interpreting, or prescribing law or policy.' '' Even so, as explained above, the Bears Ears RMP also establishes a framework for allocating resources and expresses new allowable uses and management decisions necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Our conclusion here is consistent with our previous decisions finding similar land-use plans and RMPs implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. Accordingly, the Bears Ears RMP satisfies the third element of the APA definition of a ``rule.'' Having met all required elements, the Bears Ears RMP constitutes a rule under APA.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“We received Interior's response on June 10, 2026. BACKGROUND BLM Public Land Management Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), BLM is responsible for developing, maintaining, and, when appropriate, revising ``land-use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands.'' BLM land-use plans, referred to as ``resource management plans'' (RMPs), establish goals and objectives to guide future land and resource management actions implemented by BLM. Pursuant to FLPMA, BLM established procedures for the development, revision, and amendment of RMPs. The objective of resource management planning is to maximize resource values for the public through a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and procedures which promote the concept of multiple use management.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“We conclude that the Bears Ears RMP meets APA's definition of a rule and that no CRA exception applies. Therefore, the Bears Ears RMP is a rule subject to CRA's submission requirements. DEciSION On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved the Bears Ears National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (Bears Ears RMP). We received a request for a decision about whether the Bears Ears RMP is a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As discussed below, we conclude that the Bears Ears RMP is a rule for purposes of CRA. Our practice when issuing decisions is to obtain the legal views of the relevant agency on the subject of the request. Accordingly, we reached out to Interior to obtain the agency's views.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following decision from the Government Accountability Office be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Decision Matter of: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management--Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to the Bears Ears National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. File: B-338306. Date: August 17, 2026. DIgEST The U.S.”
Senate14 September 2026Source ↗
“Madam President, if the motion for the Senate to adjourn with pro forma sessions scheduled until September 14 would have been a recorded rollcall vote, I would have voted no.”
Senate7 August 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. There being no objection, the Senate, at 9:05 p.m., adjourned until Thursday, July 30, 2026, at 10 a.m.”
Senate29 July 2026Source ↗