A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to "Beginning of Construction Requirements for Purposes of the Termination of Clean Electricity Production Credits and Clean Electricity Investment Credits for Applicable Wind and Solar Facilities".

Mr. President, I want to point out these are just texts that allow us to do certain motions here, and I don't need this for the moment.

I want to speak to you--honestly, speak to my Democrat colleagues-- from the heart. We have a situation in America today in which 260,000 families are without a paycheck. This fiscal year, they have been without a paycheck for more than half of this year.

Now, in the private sector you look at it and say: Well, why would you not pay somebody? Typically, it is because they didn't do a good job, they didn't show up for work, they didn't punch in properly--and all of those things are very litigated, by the way, meaning, in a private business, if you don't pay somebody what they are entitled to make, you have something called a wage-and-hour lawsuit against you.

And yet, the third time in 6 months this body--this body--that is charged with a simple job, which is the power of the purse to appropriate money to fund the government, we have failed. And I get the political posturing: That side of the aisle would say it is our fault; this side of the aisle will say it is your fault.

I can tell you who, unequivocally, it is not their fault, and that is the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security who wake up every day and go to work; they do their job.

And by the way--you have been there, Mr. President, in your State of Missouri, St. Louis, you have seen them firsthand. Members of Border Patrol, Customs, immigration enforcement, CISA--you have seen them.

We see their work. What should we, as the body here, tell those families? In fact, there is an expression that says: Explain it to me like I am a 5-year-old. And there are lots of 5-year-olds affected-- grandkids, kids, siblings--that are wondering why they can't go to camp because their mom or dad wasn't able to write a check. I don't know what I would say if I were a dad.

You are a dad. You are a great dad, actually. I have seen you with your daughter. What do you say to her if you didn't have money to pay the bills, but you did everything right?

One thing I think would help bring us to the negotiation table is for us to get together and say: Look--I will use the same expression that I used the other day--let's eat our own dog food. If we are OK and we find it acceptable for 260,000 American families to go without pay, then isn't it reasonable for us to say that this body--and this body alone, the U.S. Senate, who makes four, five times as much as they do-- for us to go without pay, that our pay be withheld?

Now, I will be honest. I think our pay should be docked, honestly, because that is what would happen in a private sector. We are not going to do that. I am just saying: Hold our pay.

By the way, this is not a bill that I am proposing; it is not a law; it is just a proclamation that says: Every Senator here, all 100 of us, can go to the clerk's office and say: You know what? We can blame whomever we want to blame, but do you know what? I am going to be in shared pain here. Hold my paycheck until we do our job.

What does doing our job mean?

And I look at the minority whip, I have gotten to know. I didn't know you before I came to DC. I think you are a good man, actually. I have had a chance to interact with you in different ways. I think this is a guy who is a serious guy, and he cares, and I know you deeply care about this immigration issue. I remember you telling the story about how you have your dad--I think it was your dad's--naturalization paper in your office. And that resonated with me because I have my naturalization paper in my office. So I know you care. You are a man of good integrity.

And what I am asking that we do is just be able to look ourselves in the mirror every morning when we comply with Senate rules--put on a jacket, put on a tie--come to work and say: Just hold our checks.

Because you know what we should do? Why don't we just get in a room and hash this out?

The way this negotiation has happened is nothing like I have ever experienced in my life. There is a conversation here, a conversation there, a conversation there, a conversation all over the place from 17 different places. Why don't we just get together and deputize one or two people on your side, deputize one or two people on our side, and let's just get this done? I think all of us--I hope, I hope, I actually hope--that we have the moral character in our heart to say: It is just wrong not to pay 260,000 people.

And, look, let me just say this. If Renee Good or Alex Pretti were my children, I would be horrified. What happened was a terrible, terrible tragedy that two Americans lost their lives, but it is not the fault of the 260,000 people who are just following orders, the vast majority of the people who weren't even there. There are families that have never even been to Minnesota.

Again, explain it to me like I am a 5-year-old.

You go through Customs. I have been to your airport, by the way, at O'Hare--oh my gosh, that is an airport; that is a big one--and you are a TSA worker there or you are a Customs person there because there is lots of international flights. They go home and say: Dad, did you get your paycheck yet? Deposit is due for Disney World. Been planning this trip my whole life.

No, son. The U.S. Senate hasn't done that yet.

That is not right. It is just not right.

So I will make my first motion, and I don't know how persuasive I am. I am going to guess that I wasn't very persuasive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526; further, that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

And what this means is that our checks get held back. We will get the money eventually, like DHS employees do, until we come to a resolution of this national disaster.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

But I do believe it.

Would you consider modifying the resolution to take that piece out, just to make it clear, the paychecks while we are here, whatever the wording--that you and I sit down and we technically fix that wording so it basically says: During this period of time while DHS is not being funded? Can we just make that amendment and technical fix?

This is not my bill. It is Senator Kennedy's bill. But would we be willing to do that because I don't want this to fall on a technicality?

I appreciate the Senator from Illinois and his point of view. I will ask Senator Kennedy to make those modifications, and we will come back out and fix it, but I appreciate, again, your willingness to engage in this conversation.

So let me offer another proposal, just a little bit different proposal. I think we can all agree that our job is--since we are getting paid, we should do it--is to work hard here and stay through whatever it takes, by the way. I would be willing to stay this weekend. I was here all last weekend. I will stay through Easter. I will stay through Fourth of July, whatever period of time it takes until we release the paychecks of 260,000 Americans.

So what I would like my Democrat colleagues to consider is to fund all of DHS, every single part of it, for 2 weeks--just 2 weeks.

We don't leave for Easter break. We spend every single moment together since we don't have planned meetings Friday, Saturday, Sunday for the next 2 weeks. Maybe we have codels and trips and family vacations, but I have a great and understanding wife. I am sure Democrat colleagues have the same thing, an understanding family--you have to, to do this job. And we stay here until we just get together and say: Hey, look. In a 2-week period of time, we can get there.

And I think there has been some negotiations that said: Hey, maybe we can address this. The White House has come to the table unlike any time I have ever seen. They have offered to codify tactics.

And I know, Mr. President, you personally are concerned about that because you know a lot about law enforcement. You were the attorney general of your State, and you know that if you put tactics into legislation, there is a lot of unintended consequences. You could have law enforcement breaking the law when, in reality, any of us would say: Oh, actually, they are doing the right thing. There is a judgment call. You can't be that granular. Things have to be reasonable.

So I think we can work out that language; it is just 2 weeks.

But here is what this resolution does, if my Democrat colleagues, all they have to do is stay silent. Think about the power. If my Democrat colleagues do not say a word. I don't know how long the Parliamentarian will wait--maybe 7 seconds. If she hears nothing for 7 seconds, for 7 seconds--think about this, for 7 seconds, silence--260,000 people get to go home tonight and tell their kids, their spouses, their brothers and sisters, their mom or dad: I am getting paid. They are retroactively paying me. They get paid for the next 2 weeks.

Nothing is--the world will still be here in 2 weeks. Politics will still exist in 2 weeks. We can beat the you-know-what out of each other for the next 2 weeks, but we have got 260,000 families that get to go home and just--have you ever been in a situation, Mr. President, where you just (inhale/exhale) and you feel like the world is better again-- 260,000 people, for 7 seconds or less--maybe, say, 3 seconds--just silence.

I hope that we can get there. And by the way, just to be crystal clear, because what I heard from the minority whip was that my colleague from Oregon was going to offer to fund TSA--this does that. This does that. This will fund every single TSA worker in America. Three seconds of silence gets every TSA worker paid, gets every Coast Guard person paid, gets every CISA person paid, gets every FEMA person paid, gets every Customs person, gets every Border Patrol person paid-- 3 seconds of silence.

Two weeks. Put the burden on us. You won't take away our paychecks. The Senator didn't agree to that. Will the Senator agree to not object, to just say: Let's pay TSA workers right now?

By the way, I think, if there is a chance that C-SPAN2 is on live at the airports and they saw you, Mr. President, say: Hearing no objection, done, Americans would cheer at airports all over America right now. St. Louis, Portland, Cleveland, Miami, Atlanta, for sure, would cheer. My God, TSA workers are going to get paid. Come back to work. We are so sorry. And we are going to spend 2 weeks--that is it, 2 weeks--not 2 years, not 2 months, 2 weeks--to sit down like grown men and women and do our jobs that pay us $175,000 a year-plus, plus, plus.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the 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.

The timing will start now.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. President, point of order of the Parliamentarian: I would ask my colleague to remember rule XIX, in which you are analogizing me to a hostage taker. I find that offensive. I think that is in violation of rule XIX.

Madam President, again--again, Madam President--

--you have warned the Senator from Oregon. He has repeated the exact same statement. I believe rule XIX does now allow him to continue speaking if he is violating that standard.

Madam President, the questions I was hoping the Senator would answer, so they would be more fresh in his mind, were: Is the Senator only suggesting right now, just to be crystal clear--crystal clear--a lot of people's lives are at stake here, by the way.

Let me just clarify that a 2-week continuing resolution would pay people retroactively. See, they are owed almost 40 days of pay. So this would pay them back the money we have taken from them for the last 40 days and give us 2 weeks, not 2 weeks of pay.

I just wanted to make sure he understood because maybe I misspoke. I wanted to make sure the Senator from Oregon didn't misunderstand what I said.

I was suggesting that we fund DHS, which retroactively pays 260,000 people; give us 2 weeks to get a solution; and never ever do this to a single American family again.

It is a disgrace that we are doing this, and I am not impugning any-- I am impugning all of us that we never do this--that we never allow a hard-working American to go without a paycheck because of our politics. I just want to make certain that the Senator understood that.

I also want to make certain that I heard the Senator properly because I don't think his speech matched the resolution.

Is the Senator--so this is a simple yes-or-no question. If the Senator doesn't mind, just give me a yes or no, if he wants to. He doesn't have to. I have the floor. But it is up to the Senator if he wants to answer yes or no, but I am going to frame it as a very simple yes-or-no question.

Is the Senator suggesting that we not also fund FEMA?

Madam President, I was yielding for a yes-or-no answer.

Is the Senator suggesting that we not also fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency? Is he suggesting that we not do that; yes or no? What is his response?

Thank you. The Senator answered my question.

No, I have the floor.

Madam President, I have the floor. Thank you for the point of--

Just--I have the floor.

Madam President, would you please instruct the Senator from Oregon who has the floor.

Please, let's maintain decorum here. I think the American people deserve public officials, who are receiving paychecks while they are not, to have a semblance of decorum and class with each other. I hope that I have displayed that thus far.

Here is what is being proposed, just to be crystal--crystal--clear because this gets very fuzzy: I have proposed a 2-week continuing resolution that would retroactively pay every DHS employee and give us 2 weeks to negotiate.

And with my colleague from Oregon, whether intentional or not, what he is proposing in this modification request--in this modification request--I don't have a crystal ball or a time machine. I have no idea what you are going to propose later. God knows what that is. I have no idea.

But in this proposal, it is saying only fund the Transportation Safety Agency. I don't understand why we wouldn't take the opportunity.

So I am going to ask my colleague back: Would the Senator consider, in addition to funding TSA permanently for the rest of the fiscal year--I love that, by the way. Let's do that, absolutely. Can I have an amen? But in addition, fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It seems like a pretty good Agency to fund. These are the men and women that respond to disasters.

You have been there, Madam President, when they have responded to your disasters in your State of Iowa, right? I mean, you probably know these people are unbelievable. Let's fund them. Let's pay them. By the way, let's pay them and say thank you.

Then we look at Cybersecurity, an Agency called CISA. We love acronyms here. The Cybersecurity Agency. What do they do? They make sure that we don't have threats. We are in a major conflict with Iran; 60, 70 percent of them aren't working. Would the Senator also consider funding that? Seems like a good Agency.

Secret Service. Really important Agency. They keep the President of the United States safe. His threat level right now--if you have been to the White House, Madam President, my God, the threat level against the President of the United States right now is at a peak.

We are about to do FIFA, the soccer championship--although, that is also football, which is what we call it in Colombia, but we call it soccer here. We are going to need Secret Service here.

How about Customs? Should we not fund Customs? What is their job? Their job is to inspect packages coming in from other countries, process visitors to your State and my State. Why don't we fund them?

Let's go through here this chart. The Department of Homeland Security USCIS--ugh, another acronym. What do they do? They take people like me who apply to be a U.S. citizen and process my legal immigration status. I love this Agency. I thank them every day because they do a good job-- 3,300 people. Can we also agree to fund them?

How about this group, look at the name of this Agency: The biological and nuclear threat prevention Agency.

Can I have an amen to fund that Agency for the rest of the year and never ever, ever gamble with that threat?

Now, let's talk about this Agency here: Homeland--you can't read that, but Homeland Security Investigations special agents. If you think of the enforcement officers as the police officers, these guys are like the detectives. These are the guys that chase down the worst of the worst criminals--the guys that machete people's heads off, child traffickers, transnational gangs. These guys have gone without a paycheck the last 40 days, and they are still at the job chasing the worst of the worst. Would anybody here do that job? Would any of you like to put this little badge on and go chase Pablo Escobar on steroids? Because that is what they are doing.

And then let's look at this Agency down here. We talked about them: Customs and Border Patrol. I don't know. I am sure--my Senate colleague has been here a lot longer than I have, and that is true about most of the people here. I am sure he is familiar with Customs.

You know, I am a simple guy so, you know, those are the blue uniform guys. You come in from traveling and ``Can I see your passport? Do you have anything to declare,'' right? Do we not want them on the job? We don't want Customs on the job?

And then Border Patrol. I don't just think we should pay Border Patrol for the rest of the fiscal year; I think we should give those guys a massive bonus. They have cut border encounters in this country by 98 percent.

So to my colleague, to summarize it all--we can skip a step; we are going to skip a step--would the Senator be willing to modify his proposal to adopt instead Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, the DHS Collins amendment? It sounds very fancy, doesn't it? It funds all that stuff.

I have listened to speeches for the last 40 days, and my colleagues have come out saying: Fund this Agency; fund this Agency; fund this Agency. I am agreeing with them. I want them to accept yes for an answer. I want them to say: Yes, let's do it; let's fund all of DHS except for the one Agency that is not on there, which is the Enforcement and Removal Operations.

So to my colleague from Oregon who said you want to fund all these things--your words, not mine--for the rest of the fiscal year plus retro pay--would the Senator be willing to change his amendment to my proposal and instead substitute all of this with Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, the DHS Collins amendment?

The Parliamentarian--is he able to respond to that, or do you need me to read the formal text here?

Madam President, I think I have the floor. English is my second language, so I sometimes speak too fast and maybe don't use the right language. So let me just be crystal clear again.

I am suggesting that we fund TSA for the rest of the fiscal year, retroactively pay every worker, and do that for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for CISA, do that for Secret Service, do that for Customs, do that for Border Patrol, do that for Homeland Investigations, do it for USCIS--we love these guys--and do it for-- definitely love these guys--the biological nuclear threat prevention Agency. That is--to be crystal clear--what I am saying.

So to answer your question: Does that include TSA? Yes, it does include TSA. This would fund TSA for the rest of the fiscal year.

Madam President, there is an old movie line that says: I think we have a failure to communicate. So let me try one last swing here to make sure that I make it crystal clear. By the way, I absolutely mean this sincerely, absolutely, with total respect. I know that my Senate colleague from Oregon knows that DHS is more than four Agencies. I know he knows that.

So what I just want to clarify is: In this modification to my modification--yes or no--is the Senator from Oregon including USCIS?

So the Senator does not want to fund USCIS?

Madam President, he answered my question. I was 5 when I learned what a fee was. So the answer to that question is not including USCIS, which is odd because they do have an appropriations line in the appropriations bill, by the way. So the answer to that question is no. So no.

Here is what is ironic. My colleague from Oregon--you can't make this up--wants to not fund the people who are in charge of defending our borders and deporting criminal aliens but does not want to provide funding for the Agency that brings people here legally. Wow. That is a moment.

Let's go to this next one. Will the Senator from Oregon agree to fund the Homeland Investigations unit? In the Senator's proposal, does it include funding for HSI? Yes or no?

Madam President, so just to be crystal clear--because, again, this is getting a little deeply

ambiguous--is the Senator from Oregon suggesting that we fund the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security--everything, everything, everything, the entirety of Homeland Security--with the exception of Customs--the people who inspect packages, the people who greet people at Portland International Airport--and Border Patrol and Homeland Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations? Is that correct?

Madam President, I would agree to--we are almost there, but this is actually very important. We are making a lot of progress. And I think the plaque will be there for a long, long time.

So here is where we are at, just for a recap. We used to have 10 commandments in my company, and commandment 11 was: Thou shalt recap. So let's just recap where we are.

The Senator from Oregon, on behalf of the Democrat Party, is saying that he is willing to right now fund the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security--everything, every single Agency of the Department of Homeland Security, but--but--but is carving out the Customs and Border Patrol division and the entirety of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which includes these guys, the guys who chase down bad guys.

So I would ask that the Senator take a look at the Collins amendment, H.R. 7147, Calendar No. 311. Let's include the guys that chase the really bad guys. I will agree to the Senator's proposal if he will include the guys who chase the really bad guys--Homeland Security Investigations--and include the guys who greet people at your airport. What the Senator is suggesting is: Don't pay the guy who screens people who are leaving--you want to pay them--but don't pay the people who are taking care of the people coming back in. This is backwards land. Let's fund everybody at the airport. So why wouldn't we fund Customs? In fact, why wouldn't we fund Customs, the guys in the blue--if you have an issue with Border Patrol, the guys in the green jackets--is that what the Senator is saying? You would agree to fund everybody but Border Patrol and Enforcement and Removal Operations? Because I think we are super close. We can finish this dialogue and bring peace and tranquility to 260,000 families.

Is the Senator willing to do that? Is the Senator willing to modify one little tweak just in between--we are there--saying: Hey, let's include HSI, and let's include the guys patrolling our border; let's include the Customs guys? Or are you saying: No; if we pay people at the airport who receive visitors from foreign countries and the people who guard our border, who are doing an amazing job, and people chasing bad guys--because you won't fund those three things--I am saying: Well, good. We will put Enforcement and Removal Operations on the side. By the way, a $5 billion haircut to this budget, why don't we just do that?

Will the Senator from Oregon accept that? Let's get this done, make the American people very happy, and have glorious news for a lot of American families that are looking--think of the power the Senator has right now, the power you have right now to feed 254,000 American families by the words that are going to come out of your mouth.

I would ask all of us to have the humility to understand how powerful it is, the Senator's next words, because your next words will provide the paycheck for 254,000 American families. Please. I beg you. Please. Please do the compassionate thing, and then we will work on ERO later.

Yes.

Of course.

Madam President, let's just spend 60 more seconds here to recap what we have. So my colleague from Oregon representing the Democrats--who has been given a lot of time to kind to figure out how to come here--has said that what the position of the Democratic Party today is--today's position--different Saturday, by the way; different Sunday. By the way, different than Monday morning in which the minority leader went on Joe Scarborough and said that it was President Trump who objected to the idea to fund all of DHS except for Enforcement and Removal Operations. And then, of course, I think President Trump was maybe a genius there--because maybe by him saying no on Sunday, it made the Democrats say yes. And then he said yes on Monday evening. Then the Democrats had to go back to no. Kind of crazy.

What we are doing is not going to fund for the rest of the fiscal year people who keep our country safe because they want to defund the people whose job it is to keep our borders secure and to deport people who broke into our country illegally, including murderers, rapists, transnational organizations. They do not want to fund those Agencies. I just want that to settle in here and point out to the Presiding Officer that what I proposed today--and the Presiding Officer voted yes--54 Republicans--sorry--53 Republicans and 1 courageous Democrat--54 voted for that.

All it would take is 6 Democrats, and 254,000 people would get their paychecks. It is a sad day. I will mark the time, 5:45 p.m. It is a sad day for the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today nearly a month into President Trump's ill-advised war of choice in Iran, which has obviously destabilized the region, disrupted global supply chains, degraded our munitions stockpiles, cost the lives of 13 American servicemembers, with more than 200 additional suffering injuries.

Fortunately, it is clear that even though this was a war of choice and can be decided by the President's own timing, he started this with no clear endgame and without adequately preparing for Iran's very predictable response, which obviously would have included the Strait of Hormuz, which obviously would have included Iran attacking other gulf nation-states.

The intelligence on this is consistent and overwhelming for years and, frankly, closes the Strait of Hormuz, which is one of the world's most strategically vital maritime checkpoints.

Now, look at the Strait of Hormuz for a moment.

Way back in the seventies, when we had an oil shock, 7 percent of the world's oil went through the strait. Today, 20 percent goes through. Back in the seventies, no natural gas went through the Strait of Hormuz. Now it is close to 20 percent. So the closure of the strait has wreaked havoc on both the global oil and gas supply chains. As I said, normally, about 20 percent of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait.

Today, traffic through the strait has nearly grounded to a halt. It is literally down 95 percent since the start of the war. The International Energy Agency has already called the effective closure of the strait and all of the other ancillary items coming out of it the worst global energy disruption in history, eclipsing even the Arab oil embargo of 1973--I am old enough to remember that, and the Senator from Maryland is old enough to remember that--which caused huge gas lines and damage all around the world.

So, if we just measure what has happened so far in these 3 weeks- plus--the date of the closure of the strait--it has removed approximately 400 million barrels of oil--around 4 days of the world's supply--from the market. Again, much of the oil that is still getting through had started on tankers before the war started. Those 400 million barrels of oil that have been removed--and that number will rise exponentially now--have led to price increases of around 50 percent for Brent crude. That is the global benchmark for oil.

As well--and this has gotten some coverage in our country but not enough--Iran has also carried out significant strikes on oil and gas facilities throughout the gulf. In total, more than 40 energy sites in 9 countries across the Middle East have been severely damaged due to the conflict, including the world's largest liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar, which is to be closed down. That produces about a fifth of the world's LNG.

Many of the facilities that were not even attacked still took out all of the natural gas from the facilities because, if a missile were to hit them with the

gas in the facility, it would cause a massive explosion. While I am no expert here, I have been told to restart those facilities will take weeks to months. The truth is, even if the President feels in his bones today or tomorrow that we have won the war and he stops the bombing-- with no guarantee that Israel will stop or that Iran will stop--and the strait starts to get reopened, we are still going to see economic pain across the globe for weeks, months, or, potentially, a year.

For consumers in the United States, the conflict, obviously, has led to a severe shock at the gas pump. Since the war began, average gas prices in the United States have increased by about $1 a gallon--30 percent. I will take a bet with anybody in this Chamber that we are going to see an average gas price of $4 that will be maintained for some time. That $4 price will be the highest since 2022.

And, here, let's take the optimistic view. Even if the strait is reopened today, the average household in our country will still be expected to pay about $740 more in gas prices for the remainder of the year. That is just gas.

What about diesel?

While Americans are struggling at the pump, skyrocketing diesel costs are threatening to increase the pain for households across a series of domains. Last week, diesel prices eclipsed $5 per gallon on average. That was only the second time in history that diesel got above 5 bucks, and that is about 40 percent higher than before the war began. Diesel is the trucking industry's second largest expense, and for most trucking firms, that diesel cost accounts for about 20 percent of the total operating costs. For most freight companies, a 40-percent rise in the diesel cost results in about an overall increase of 10 percent on all the items that are shipped. We depend on the trucking industry to ship goods. If their costs go up 10 percent, they are not going to pay it. That is going to get passed on to consumers. That will mean everything in the supply chain from lumber that is used to construct homes to groceries and everything in between.

And while we Americans are already feeling the impact at the pump, many nations across the globe, particularly in Asia, are facing even more extreme costs. Of the, roughly, 20 percent of the world's oil and gas that goes through the Strait of Hormuz, about 80 percent goes to Asia, and the impacts there have been even wilder. Oil prices have hit 150 bucks a barrel.

As the supply tightens and prices skyrocket, one country, the Philippines--literally because they get 100 percent of their oil from the gulf--has said we can't operate a full economy, so there is a mandatory 1-day-a-week holiday.

Vietnam has urged its residents to work from home. Cambodia and Laos have closed about a third to 40 percent of their gas stations because they just don't have fuel.

Now, we buy a lot of stuff from Asia--from Vietnam, from Bangladesh, from the Philippines, from China, from everywhere. If those costs have gone up 40 percent, all the stuff we buy from those countries are going to go up for American consumers as well. So whether it is electronics, clothes, appliances, if you haven't seen a price increase yet, don't worry. It is coming very shortly, and it will be significant.

Let's talk about jet fuel.

Americans can also expect to pay more on air travel due to the war in Iran as the price of jet fuel has more than doubled since the conflict has begun. In many cases, airlines have already responded by raising fares and canceling flights. Some estimates indicate the airlines have raised fares about 20 bucks each way--going and coming--on average. As a matter of fact, United recently raised its fares 15 to 20 percent just last week. Also, United, which, I think, is a precursor of things to come, has literally eliminated a number of long-haul flights. So, for anyone who is planning on going to Europe, who is planning on going to Asia or who is planning on going to South America--maybe not cross- country flights yet--your choices are going to drop dramatically.

This is all related to oil, natural gas, and jet fuel, but the fact is that the President's war in Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz is really wreaking havoc on a lot of industries from semiconductors to new cars. Let me tell you why.

For example, the current situation is threatening to upend the global semiconductor industry and other advanced technology industries by impacting the availability of a crucial input--helium.

Now, most of us here at home think about helium as what we use for party balloons. Senator Van Hollen, I know, has used it many times to make his voice sound higher as well, but--and I didn't realize this-- helium is also a critical input in many advanced technology industries: chipmaking, medical imagery, aerospace. The truth is, there is no viable replacement for this helium.

Qatar is the world's second largest supplier of helium behind the United States, and they literally produce, approximately, a third of the world's supply--about 63 million cubic meters out of a total of 190 million cubic meters produced globally.

So, if the strait stays closed, you get rid of 27 to 30 percent of the world's supply of helium. Again, it is a global market. Spot prices on helium have already doubled, and the costs could rise another 50 percent if the strait remains closed.

The nations, again, that are going to get hit first on this are Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan, which, again, are home to some of the world's most advanced chip facilities. None of the chips we put in our rockets in the most advanced jet fighters are made in America. They are all made in Taiwan.

So what is going to happen?

The chip facilities in Taiwan and South Korea believe that about 70 percent of their helium comes from the gulf. If it goes away, they can't replace that. There are no such things as helium strategic reserves.

Again, if the President says, OK. He feels it in his bones, ``I won the war. I am going to stop,'' it will take weeks, not days, to restart the Qatar helium production, meaning that, even in these next couple of weeks, with already the spot pricing doubling, there is going to be a supply chain risk that will take place over the coming weeks and months.

Aluminum. This closure is also disrupting the aluminum supply chain-- a material essential for construction, transportation, energy generation, and more. The region, again--and I didn't realize this before the war--accounts for, approximately, 9 percent of all global aluminum production. Major smelters--I think there are four in the world, and two are in the region--have been forced to curtail supply due to the continued closure of the strait. Since the war began 3 or 4 weeks ago, global aluminum prices have spiked to their highest rate in the last 4 years.

Again, that is what we have seen so far, and a prolonged closure could see significant impacts here in America. Today, we rely on the Middle East for about 20 percent of our imported aluminum. Even before the war with Iran had started, aluminum prices in our country were at record highs due to the President's tariff policy of putting 50-percent tariffs on aluminum products. So, if you add the tariff policy with already high aluminum prices and shut down some of the smelters, this is going to drive up the cost of aluminum not just around the world but in the United States as well. A lot of aluminum goes into autos. If you are thinking about buying a new car, it may not be a good time. It may be better to buy today than a month from now, but the cost is going to go up.

The President's war of choice in Iran is also threatening global food production and the livelihood of farmers in the United States and across the world. Typically, about one-third of all fertilizer shipped globally passes through the Strait of Hormuz; but not dissimilar to the oil and gas production and transit, that fertilizer exiting the gulf has literally ground to a virtual 100-percent halt just as the spring growing season is starting in America.

I talked to a farmer in Amelia County in central Virginia. His costs have already gone up 40 percent, and that means that the back end when he collects--when his products grow, who is going to eat those costs? American consumers.

The United States relies on the Middle East for about 15 percent of our fertilizer inputs. This has already caused--as I said, in Amelia, it was 40 percent--nationwide, a 30-percent increase in fertilizer prices in America.

That fertilizer shortage has also been already shortened because we are short on nitrogen, and we are short on potash, which we get from Canada, again, because of the tariff policy. So what we grow and what the costs are for this growing season are going to be dramatically affected. Where is that going to show up? Prices at the grocery store.

Now, how has the President responded to this energy crisis caused by his war of choice?

On Truth Social, he stated: When oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.

Who exactly is making that money?

It is not ordinary Americans who were paying more than $380 million a day just on the increased price of gasoline before the war started.

As a matter of fact, if you are going to pick winners and losers at this point, American consumers are losers across five or six different domains. The winners? Russia and Iran.

And this is the one that kind of just blows my mind. In response to rising oil prices, President Trump and his Secretary of the Treasury announced he was lifting sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian crude. What does that translate into? That translates into more than $14 billion to the bad Government of Iran, who is shooting at American soldiers, who is bombing our allies. That $14 billion could be a lifeline to that government.

I still remember like back under Obama, where I think there was some payment around the JCPOA with $300-plus million released to Iran. Every one of my Republican colleagues said: Oh my God. This is the worst thing ever--the worst thing ever. How could this happen?

Well, now, in the middle of a war--we weren't in a war at that point--in the middle of a war where Iran is attacking us, this President has given a green light to fund $14 billion to the Iranian regime--funding our enemies. How is that in America's best interest?

In another master stroke by the ``king of deals,'' President Trump lifted the sanctions on approximately 130 million barrels of Russian oil, directly helping Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

You know, recent reports indicate that Russia has already earned about $230 million per day on crude oil exports during the first 2 weeks of Iran's war. Since February, that is about $10 billion. What is that $10 billion going to buy? It is going to buy Russian drones, Russian tanks, Russian missiles--maybe call me old-fashioned--that are attacking and killing our allies in Ukraine--the allies that, thank goodness, we have supplied military equipment to, and we are funding their enemy.

Now, again, you start a war of choice, you think about these things. You think about the ramifications and the cost increases. You think about how this would affect our allies. You think about, do we really want to benefit our enemies? You think about the fact that maybe we ought to have a plan to get American nationals out of the Middle East before the war starts. You might even say, maybe I will quietly tell Saudis and Emiratis and others: Hey, store up some oil and natural gas because this war is going to start.

The President says he didn't think they would close the Strait of Hormuz; he didn't think Iran would attack the gulf countries.

I sit as vice chair on the Intelligence Committee. The intelligence community has been absolute not for weeks, months, but for years that if you start a war with Iran--and the Iranians are bad guys. Prior Presidents, including President Trump--I remember one time he was going to bomb Iran in his first term, and he pulled back because of all of the implications of starting that war without enough planning.

So he started into this war of choice with no planning on how we protect Americans, on what this is going to do to American consumers. Hey, does it really make sense in this war to fund our enemies Iran and Russia?

This is what happens when strategy, actual strategy, is replaced with impulse; planning is replaced by wishful thinking; and warning from our intelligence professionals whose job it is to make these predictions, who made the prediction that there was no imminent threat--when those intelligence professionals are ignored instead of heeded.

Now, we can't fully predict the full, long-term impacts of President Trump's war of choice in Iran, but we can make a pretty damn good conclusion at this point on who is going to get hit the worst: working- class Americans.

We all talk about affordability--both sides. You know, it is hard for a single political figure--even the President--to dramatically bring down prices, but it sure is not hard for a single political figure--in this case, the President of the United States--to raise prices: fertilizer, aluminum, helium, jet fuel, diesel fuel.

I just hope everybody will remember every time you go to the gas pump and you look at that price--Lord knows this happened when prices rose under Biden. There were these cute little stickers saying: Joe Biden did this.

Well, there is no doubt in my mind and, frankly, on any factual basis, when you gas up your car every week and you see that extra dollar or dollar-and-a-half increase in price, that price was brought to you by one political figure in America: the President of the United States.

We are going to feel the consequences of this war for a long time to come, and everything I talked about here gets exponentially worse--not on a linear timeline but an exponentially long, worse timeline--if the strait remains closed.

Americans deserve better. Our servicemembers who are in harm's way deserve better. Frankly, the world deserves better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as you and we can all see, the cherry blossoms are popping out along the Potomac River and around the Capitol and are approaching peak bloom.

We all know what comes next; we get a lot of visitors who come to the Nation's Capital at this wonderful time of year to see the cherry blossoms. They come during spring break, and it is good to see friends from back home come to the Nation's Capital to visit and learn more about how our government functions or sometimes how it doesn't function as well as we would like.

Families taking a vacation, as well as elementary, middle, and high school groups, are learning about civics, which is a good thing. More of our kids need to know how our government works because they are going to be the leaders of tomorrow.

So I am glad the Senate is still debating a very important piece of legislation called the SAVE America Act because it really goes to the very foundation of self-government.

All it says is that in order to be an American citizen--excuse me, in order to vote, you need to be an American citizen, and in order to cast a ballot, you have to produce a voter ID.

So it makes you wonder, with the polling showing that 70 to 80 percent of people polled--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--support both of those provisions, why is it that our Democratic colleagues oppose it?

Surely, it can't be because they want people other than American citizens to vote or they want to make it easier to cheat. But sometimes I struggle to figure out what the reason is that they reflexively oppose even commonsense provisions like this.

By now, we have heard the argument on both sides. Our Democratic colleagues argue that the SAVE America Act is just too hard for ordinary Americans to comply with. They are claiming that the same people who can present a valid government ID to board a plane, buy a beer, drive a car, rent a hotel room, or open a bank account simply won't be able to do the same to cast a ballot.

We know that is not true, and it just doesn't make any sense. It is clear that this is just a pretext to say that they apparently don't care whether illegal aliens vote in our elections. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that every illegal vote cast dilutes your vote and undermines the integrity of the election system.

We want more people to participate in the election system. We need to build confidence that it is going to work and operate with integrity. So by resisting commonsense measures like demonstrating American citizenship and producing a voter ID--which would contribute to building confidence and thus, hopefully, get more people to participate in our elections--that is something they apparently are not interested in.

President Trump, I think, is right to make this a priority, but I am sure like me, he scratches his head and wonders, What is the contrary argument?

If we don't stop illegal aliens or noncitizens from voting in our elections, it is not long before we will have a country that is not representative of the American people.

You know, the very basis for our form of government is as stated in the Declaration of Independence: The authority that we exercise on behalf of the people who vote for us in elections is based on consent of the governed. The power doesn't come top down, it comes bottom up. And if people who are not qualified because they are not citizens to vote in our elections--it undermines that very basic foundation and compact between the people and those who exercise power on their behalf here in Washington, DC.

I am committed to doing whatever it takes to muscle this through the Senate, including using the reconciliation process, if necessary, to get around Senate Democrats' obstruction, but at the same time, we are not giving up on moving it through regular order here on the Senate floor.

Our colleague Senator Lee from Utah has been a proponent of using the talking filibuster; in other words, not letting people sit on their hands and just object and stop progress on important bills like this but to force people to talk and debate because I think the American people need to hear the arguments--pro and con--and they can make up their mind whom they agree with and what they believe.

That is what the world's greatest deliberative body was supposed to be all about, which is otherwise known as the U.S. Senate.

So if Democrats really don't believe that illegal aliens should be able to vote, they need to come to the floor and prove it.

If they think we should not make it easier to cheat in elections by not requiring people to show a photo ID, they need to come to the floor of the Senate and debate it. I would love to hear the arguments to the contrary.

As I said, a recent Harvard-Harris poll showed that 71 percent of voters, including 50 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Independent voters, support the SAVE America Act. It is hard to find that kind of consensus anywhere in America today, as polarized as we are. But this means that Senate Democrats are defying the wishes of their own voters, their supporters.

Now, we have heard this nutty idea that somehow the SAVE America Act will disenfranchise voters. Well, the only people it will disenfranchise are people who are not qualified to vote.

But if you extend that logic a little further, in other words, 70 to 80 percent of people polled support the SAVE America Act; and if you believe it will disenfranchise voters, that means that 70 to 80 percent of people polled are willing to disenfranchise themselves--again, what a silly, absurd, and false argument.

Department of Homeland Security

Mr. President, it is beyond shameful that Senate Democrats have continued to keep the Department of Homeland Security unfunded and shut down.

I would have thought, by now, with some of the lines at the TSA security checkpoints in places like the Houston International Airport-- the Bush International Airport--that finally people would wake up and say: You know, we

are causing too much needless pain and collateral damage to people who have nothing to do with this fight.

We know that essential operations of ICE, or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, like the Homeland Security Investigations, which is an important office that conducts operations to prevent human trafficking, are hamstrung; and we know TSA workers are continuing to work without pay. These are not wealthy people. These are public servants who are performing an important function keeping us all safe, and they have to show up. They are showing up and working without pay.

But then there are some who simply can't outlast the political stunts here in Washington, and more than 300 of them have left their jobs. And you can't blame them. If you are not getting paid because of the politics here in Washington, DC, you may not be able to wait that out. You may just have to look for a job--another job.

But each new hire to replace a TSA agent requires 4 to 6 months of training and certification, and I can't imagine that there is a long waiting list of people who want to become TSA agents if they have this sort of environment to look forward to. So it certainly doesn't help with recruiting new people to fill the gaps.

But we know that President Trump, left with no other alternative, has asked ICE to assist and help out at the airports. And some Democrats are getting downright hysterical about the fact that now ICE is necessary to help process people through the airports.

Some are even saying that the traveling American public is in danger when these professional law enforcement officers are working to help assist people to move through these security checkpoints at our airports.

Meanwhile, the truth is, as we have seen in videos and social media, ICE agents are handing out water bottles to travelers and helping keep the flow of traffic organized and hopefully expedited.

I think it is encouraging that these men and women are willing to jump in and become team players, even in this difficult and charged environment where Democrats continue--this is the party of ``defund the police'' or ``abolish ICE.''

Now they have found a new way to try to prevent the enforcement of our immigration laws by saying: We are not going to fund ICE.

That is not what the American people voted for last November--in November 2024. The reason why President Trump was elected, among other reasons, was because of open borders and 40-year-high inflation. And, of course, we know President Trump has effectively secured the border, but now Democrats have found a new way to prevent people from--who got here in the first place, who don't deserve to be here--from being removed from the country by saying: We are simply going to refuse to fund immigration enforcement.

And then, of course, we know that, despite the fact that the President was elected by the American people, having won the electoral vote and the popular vote in every single swing State, Democrats continue to try to oppose the duly elected President of the United States out of a demonstration of what has become known as Trump derangement syndrome.

In other words, whatever he proposes, they oppose. It is just reflexive. More than 70 percent of Americans support his efforts to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country. And almost daily we hear of tragedies, of innocent individuals being killed or harmed, as a result of some of the people that were let into the country during the Biden administration that need to be removed.

Well, I am hopeful that we are moving closer to a deal which will help these good men and women that work at the Department of Homeland Security get a paycheck. President Trump knows how to make a deal, and I am confident that, under his leadership, we will find a way. Unless the Democrats continue to move the goalposts, which the minority leader continues to try to do, I am optimistic that we will find a way to get them paid by the end of the week.

These antics are not a way to govern. We need paychecks for our TSA agents and secure elections, both. This is what the American people chose during the last Presidential election, and I am confident, under the President's leadership, we will accomplish these priorities and, finally, after more than a month, reopen the Department of Homeland Security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, not once, not twice, 10 times we Democrats have brought to the floor of the Senate an opportunity to restore all of the appropriations in the Department of Homeland Security but for one Agency, ICE and a related Agency, Border Patrol. Ten times the Republicans have voted no--ten times. Let's get it done this week and done as quickly as possible.

We proposed this to the point where the Republican leader met with the President and said: We ought to be for this. He said: No, not until you pass this voting bill.

This voting bill is controversial. It seems to change. My friend from Wyoming--he is my friend--the Senator from Wyoming said: We are offering an amendment to change this bill.

This bill has been changed over and over again because it is a mess. Why is it a mess? Because the premise is wrong. The premise that there are illegal aliens voting in the United States in any measurable number is wrong.

We did a survey. We looked at 24 years, 1999 to 2023. How many illegal aliens were caught voting in the United States? There were 50 million every election cycle who were registered to vote. How many of those were illegal aliens?

Over a period of 24 years, what is your guess? Seven million? You would think so, wouldn't you, from Senator Barrasso's statements? How about 700,000? How about 70,000? How about 700? How about 77?

That is the exact number that was found. Mr. President, 77 people over a span of 24 years were not eligible to vote as illegal aliens and voted anyway, 77 over 24 years.

So now the Republicans want to change the system. They want people to reregister. This is the first I have heard that they are going to accept a driver's license. Up until now, you needed a passport. How many Americans have passports? Forty-nine percent.

If you wanted to get a passport in time to register to vote for November, what do you have to do? Well, you have to fill out a form and you have to write a check and you have to wait weeks to receive it.

How big is that check that you have to write so you can be sure you vote? Mr. President, $165 for you to get a passport--$165. You wait weeks and maybe months before it is delivered to you to prove you are an American citizen so you can vote in November.

What is wrong with this picture? For 77 voters or attempted voters, in 24 years, we are going to require every American to come up with this proof? Oh, there is an alternative. Your birth certificate, you can prove you are an American that way in this reregistration effort by the Republicans.

Have you found your birth certificate recently? I think mine is upstairs in the bedroom closet in a cardboard box. I am not sure. I would have to go look. Some people don't have access at all to them.

Why are we going through all this? The bottom line is: There is a good reason and a real reason. The good reason is to make sure that noncitizens don't vote. I agree with that premise. The real reason is: Donald Trump is scared of this election in November.

Remember when he said: The States give me some more Republican Members of the House? Redistrict your State. Draw up your map, save it for unusual times. He did that because he is concerned about the outcome of the election.

So when you hear this explanation about voter fraud, remember 77 in 24 years, 77 examples. And for that they want to change it.

In terms of showing their driver's license as an ID, I do it every day, and you do it too. It is pretty normal. That is not a problem, but that is not what this bill says. They think they want to change it. Let's see them change it.

In the meantime, let's pay everybody: TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and the basic Agencies at Homeland Security except for ICE. We are working

with the White House and negotiating new terms for the ICE agents. Let's get it done this week.

For 10 different occasions, we have come to the floor and said: Fund the rest of the Agencies including TSA. I still think we should be there.

Political Prisoners

Mr. President, I come to the floor at this time to discuss a separate issue, totally unrelated. Over the course of the time I have served in the Senate, I have pointed out political prisoners jailed around the world. Others have joined me over the years. Our current Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined me on the floor one time to help further history of bipartisan support for those pursuing freedom and democracy around the world.

Sometimes those released as a result in pressure from this Chamber actually come to see me in Washington, and they say how important it is to know that they were remembered.

I want to salute my staffer Chris Homan, who joins me on the floor here. This has been his personal project for many years with great success.

Thanks, Chris.

Today, let me raise a few issues and cases for your consideration. Let me start with the United Arab Emirates. We are one of that nation's top human rights defenders. Ahmed Mansoor tragically has marked 9 years in jail. He was arrested under the guise that his social media posts advocating for human rights threatened social harmony.

Despite the dismal conditions of his incarceration, Mr. Mansoor has remained steadfast in his commitment to human rights, even conducting multiple hunger strikes to protest jail conditions.

We have strong ties and many shared interests with the UAE, but its continued involvement in this horrific Sudanese civil war and jailing Mr. Mansoor complicates the relationship.

Adding to the strain is Emirati Ambassador Otaiba's bewildering refusal to engage on these issues. I appeal to him to finally release Mr. Mansoor.

Next, Azerbaijan. Vice President Vance recently visited this country. In 2023, anti-corruption researcher and advocate Dr. Gubad Ibadoghlu and his wife were forcibly dragged from their vehicle and severely beaten. His dubious arrest was a tragic result of writings about the rampant corruption stemming from Azerbaijan's oil and gas industry.

While eventually placed under house arrest in 2024, he has still been denied a trial and medical care; and his family continues to suffer harassment.

In fact, his son Emin, who desperately hopes to reunite with his father, is here today in the Senate Gallery. He is one of the many wrongfully detained individuals in Azerbaijan who should be fully released immediately.

In a number of cases in China, starting with Gulshan Abbas, a doctor serving a 20-year sentence--20 years--likely a result of her sister's advocacy for the Uyghurs.

Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai, jailed since 2020, a tragic example of that island's loss of freedom under Chinese rule.

Pastors Jin Mingri and Gao Quanfu and his wife Pang Yu, arrested amid a crackdown on religious freedom.

I apologize for mispronouncing the names.

The Chinese have worked with my office on such cases in the past and made some important gestures, but it is time to do something. Release these individuals.

I urge President Trump to raise with Chinese President Xi when he visits China the fate of these prisoners.

In Tunisia, last July, I came to the floor to call for the release of prominent Tunisian lawyer and political commentator Sonia Dahmani. She was arrested in May 2024 for peaceful radio and television political commentary and subjected to appalling prison conditions.

Her sister Ramla was also sentenced in absentia to 2 years in prison, simply for publicly advocating for her sister's release.

While I am glad Sonia was conditionally released last year, the government is still harassing her with nonsense charges.

I urge President Saied to end this vendetta against Sonia and Ramla and take steps to restore press freedom in Tunisia, once a symbol of great democratic hope after the Arab Spring.

Lastly, Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich African nation with a history of repression and growing ties with the Russian military, human rights advocate Joaquin Elo Ayeto had been arrested in 2019 and eventually released a year later, not long after which he came to meet me in my office here in Washington.

Unfortunately, he was rearrested under new specious charges in 2024. It is time to end this official harassment against Mr. Ayeto.

I urge President Mbasogo to show the same compassion displayed in 2022 and release him without delay on humanitarian grounds.

What we have here really matters, not just to these individuals and their families. My friend and jailed Russian dissident Vladimir Kara- Murza often reminded me that for political prisoners the worst nightmare is the thought that people have forgotten them.

Let me remind Ahmed, Gubad, Gulshan, Jimmy, Pastors Jin and Gao, Pang, Sonia, Ramla, and Joaquin you are not forgotten, and we will continue to speak out for your freedom.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today having heard the minority leader talk about the ongoing problem that the country is seeing before their very eyes, which is the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security caused by the Democrats.

Republicans have continually come to the floor to vote to open the Department of Homeland Security, and working with the Democrats, there have been a number of proposals, one of which the Democrats actually agreed to the other day. And yet today, on the floor the Senate, the minority leader said: Oh, no, that is just ``poppycock.'' That was his word.

The Democrats have continued to move the goalposts over all of this time when we were talking about the importance of funding the Department of Homeland Security--a Department that was set up after 9/ 11 to deal comprehensively with our Nation's security.

There are issues of border security, cyber security, flight security. The TSA is part of that. This has gotten so bad. I saw on the news this morning that there are members of the Department of Homeland Security, who are not getting paid, who are working every day, and who are now donating their plasma--not donating it but giving it to get paid.

That is what the Democrats--they talk about getting blood out of it. That is what the Democrats are doing. Blood is on their hands. We are seeing this today with the unfunding of the Department of Homeland Security.

Americans are rising up to say to the Democrats: We care about these people that are working and not getting paid.

My own Rotary Club in Casper, WY, came out today with an email to all the Rotarians. One of the members of the club has offered a matching donation of up to $2,000 for supplies and gift cards to be donated to TSA employees at the airport. Now, these people have been working without pay because of the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

It says: Please consider supporting the local TSA personnel and help secure the matching donation by donating supplies or gift cards.

It goes on to say: Currently, there are approximately 40 TSA employees in Casper who are not being paid. The airport is collecting food and other supplies--dog food, cat food, toilet paper, et cetera-- because of what we are facing here and with an offer that we have made, and the Democrats are now saying, well, it is all ``poppycock.'' They don't seem to care.

The employees cannot accept cash, cannot accept cash-equivalent cards like Visa gift cards. However, they can accept gas cards and gift cards to places like Walmart or Target, which give them the flexibility to purchase what they truly need.

This is what we are seeing here in this Chamber with what the Democrats are doing because they do not want to fund the Department of Homeland Security that keeps our Nation safe.

Well, there is now circulating, and that it is evident, that the Republicans have all seen, which is a Member of the Senate--a Democrat Member of the Senate--on television telling the Nation--this is a clip where a Member of the Senate says--this is a Democrat--the people we care most about, he says, are ``the undocumented.''

Not these people who are working every day--the people the Democrats care most about are the undocumented, the illegal immigrants, the people who are not citizens of this country but are here and have been unleashed into this country--10 million or more--during the Biden administration.

And that is what we are talking about here today on the floor, and why we will be voting later today on the proposal that the Republicans have made that the Democrats agreed to 2 days ago. But now they have withdrawn their support because, as we hear from a Democrat spokesman and a Democrat Senator, the people that they care most about are not the citizens of the United States; they are the

undocumented, the illegal immigrants who are here among us today.

SAVE America Act

Mr. President, I have also heard Senate Democrats on this floor say, when it comes to voting, they are open to the requirement of a photo ID. Senator Schumer said, just last week, that his Democrat caucus is not opposed to a photo ID when you show up to vote.

We now have a pending amendment to the SAVE America Act to do just that. It is a straightforward amendment from Senator Jon Husted of Ohio. It simply requires a photo ID when Americans show up to vote.

Democrats blocked this very bill on this floor last week. Then they offered a counterproposal, a nationwide ban--a ban--on photo ID requirements. I mean, it is the exact opposite of what the American people want. I mean, it is hard to believe, but that is what they said. They wanted to ban photo ID. Democrats did this even though 32 States currently require photo ID. So I guess they want to rip it out of all the States that already have it.

Mr. President, 21 Democrat Senators on that side of the aisle in this very Chamber represent States where voter ID is the law of the land.

They live by it. They vote under it. They were even elected under it. Why do Democrats believe that voter ID is fine for their home States but not for our Nation?

We are going to give every single Democrat in this Chamber the chance to go on the record on that very topic. They are going to have the opportunity to show the American people where they stand on commonsense requirements for photo ID.

The vote is a clear yes or no for Democrat Senators. It doesn't touch voter rolls. It doesn't touch mail-in voting. It is a clean up-or-down vote on whether voters should be required to show a photo ID in order to vote.

The bill offers a clear, broad definition of photo IDs. Voters can use a driver's license. They can use State ID. They can use a U.S. passport. They can use a military ID. They can use a Tribal ID. Those are identifications Americans carry with them every single day. They use it to cash a check, to board a plane, to buy a beer. People use it every day. It is just common sense.

Asking for a photo ID at the ballot box is common sense and a common practice in States all across the country.

As I said earlier, 36 States require or request an ID to vote. Of these 36 States, 32 require a photo ID. That is most of the country. And yes, that includes Democrat States. Of course, we know that there are many large and liberal States that lack voter ID laws--sanctuary States like California, New York, Oregon, Illinois--and they don't protect the voter rolls.

So, once again, we are seeing Democrats angling for illegal immigrants to have an impact on our elections. Why is that? As I said earlier, the people we care most about, the undocumented. He said, the illegal immigrants who are here among our Nation.

That is who the Democrats will tell you they care most about, not law-abiding citizens but illegal immigrants.

Democrats allowed 10 million illegal immigrants. They flooded in the country. The lesson is clear. We cannot allow illegal immigrants to undermine and erode the integrity of our elections. That is why we are in this shutdown right now because of the Democrats' preference of illegal immigrants over American citizens and the safety and security of our Nation.

But adding photo ID requirements would be a significant step toward restoring confidence in elections in all 50 States.

So I want to thank Senator Jon Husted of Ohio. Senator Husted knows exactly about administering elections, and he knows it better than any Member of this body. He spent 8 years as Ohio's secretary of state. His job was to run fair, safe, and secure elections; and he succeeded at it.

He knows how to do it. He knows what works. And he succeeded in one of the most closely watched battleground States in our Nation. His amendment makes it easy to vote, harder to cheat, and it does so nationwide.

A clean, simple photo ID amendment leaves Democrats with no excuses. They can't claim photo ID is too hard. They can't claim it is too confusing. They can't claim it is too burdensome.

The question before the Senate is, Will Democrats take a reasonable and responsible step toward what most Americans consider common sense?

I yield the floor.