Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that we are going to be voting on shortly, but I want to begin by sharing that I am a little confused--not to the substance of the amendment--but to the process.

I think we just heard a few minutes ago that the majority leader suggested that it was going to be a clean vote on a voter ID measure, when as I see it, it is a stand-alone amendment with language that is already in the underlying bill. It is also language that is in a substitute amendment as well.

I understand there is some showmanship and theatrics going on here, but before I talk about the substance of the bill, let me make one other observation as to what is and what isn't happening here. As prices are going up for families across the country--we have talked about it so many times--healthcare costs, grocery bills, prices at the pump. We are not focusing or debating ideas on how to bring down costs for working families.

Instead, we have now spent 2 weeks debating a bill that would make it harder for eligible Americans to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, and to cast their ballot.

How un-American and how undemocratic that is.

Another observation: As we are going back and forth on negotiations for how to restore funding for TSA and the Coast Guard and FEMA and CISA, we are not talking about that right here and now. We are spending even more time now on an amendment to an amendment to a bill--where the language is already there--on a bill that the American people do not support.

So let's get to the substance. Now, throughout this debate so many of my Republican colleagues have chosen to focus on the topic of voter ID. To be clear: We will always strive for free and fair elections. And, of course, we want to make them safe and secure; and, indeed, they already are.

Report after report, study after study, audit after audit shows that the rate of voter fraud is exceedingly--exceedingly--rare.

What does that tell us? It tells us that existing laws, existing safeguards are working. To suggest otherwise is fundamentally inaccurate.

A simple way of saying it is: It is a lie. It is a big lie, a big lie that has been used as a pretext for so many bad things in this country coming out of this administration.

What this bill would do--or excuse me the amendment to the amendment to the bill--same language--what this effort would do is block common forms of IDs. Veterans IDs. Veterans and servicemembers can't use that ID after their service and sacrifice to our Nation. ``Sorry. That is not enough to allow you to exercise your right to vote.''

Student IDs, also not good enough. Tribal IDs without expiration dates. Some do, many do not have expiration dates on their Tribal IDs. That is not enough to allow you to participate in our democracy, even though you are eligible.

But wait, there is more. The so-called voter ID amendment would also impose new requirements on the tens of millions of Americans who choose or rely on voting by mail.

The majority leader also suggested that: Well, through this amendment, it is simply a requirement to show a voter ID at the polls. As I read the bill, it is very clear. This would result in requiring voters to include a photocopy of their ID with their mailed ballots.

This is a new, additional, and unnecessary obstacle to a very popular form of voting.

How popular? In the 2024 election, 48 million voters chose to vote by mail. And in case you missed the breaking news a couple days ago, President Trump once again voted by mail in the special election in Florida.

So what is it, good enough for the President but not good enough for the rest of us? Secure enough for the President but not secure enough for the American people?

Think about what a voter would have to go through with this new requirement.

OK. You have your ID. Now, you have got to find a copy machine because most people don't have a copy machine at home. Include a copy of your ID along with your ballots.

Now, we have been telling people because of so many frauds and scams that are common to protect their personal information. Be careful with it. And now we are saying: Let's add copies of our ID and put it into the mail.

Give me a break. This is not a requirement in Ohio or in Florida or Texas or South Dakota or not even in Utah where voting by mail is very popular.

In States that have voter ID, this is not a requirement in those States. So why is it now so urgent and necessary to impose this on voters across the country?

The more I think about it, the more it is clear: This is an ongoing concerted effort to make it harder for people to vote.

Now, we have seen what happens when strict voter ID requirements are imposed in our elections. We don't have to speculate. We have seen what has happened in New Hampshire. I spoke to that experience a few days ago here on the floor. We have seen what has happened in the State of Kansas. I spoke to that on the floor of the Senate just a few days ago.

That is the real-world impact of policies and proposals like this: making it harder for eligible Americans to vote.

And it also threatens to throw this year's elections into chaos because if this were to pass and this President signs it into law, this all would go into effect immediately. It is not just about the November midterm elections. There is primary elections that are already underway.

So how do you implement that with no transition period, no additional resources to help State and local governments actually implement the new requirements of the law?

You are going to require a voter ID but not create a mechanism for all eligible voters to obtain a free, easily available ID so that they don't lose their right to vote. And all of this is being done without the most basic level of review.

That is right. What is before us has not had a hearing in either the House of Representatives or here in the Senate and no input from State and local elections officials who actually administer elections.

You don't overhaul election systems this fundamental without hearing from elections officials and experts in this field. And you don't do it in the middle of an election cycle.

That is just some of the reasons why Democrats have been so determined for weeks now coming here to the floor every single day fighting this bill tooth and nail because we are committed to defending our fundamental right to vote in the United States of America, and we will continue coming here to speak and do everything in our power to stop this Donald Trump election takeover bill.

Now, President Trump has been very clear as to why he wants this bill to pass. This bill is about one thing and one thing only: helping his party win this November's midterm elections and elections for the next 50 years. That is how he has described it--the need and the urgency to hold onto power.

This bill is about more than just voter ID. This bill would ban voter registration drives, voter registration drives in communities on college campuses every election cycle--gone. Banned. Eliminated.

This bill would also force States to hand over to the Department of Homeland Security the sensitive information of every voter in America, which would result in voter purges. Again, not speculating. It is happening already.

And before anyone suggests that this is a partisan issue--``Oh, Democrats are just opposed to it because it is a blue State versus red State thing.''

Not true. More than half of a dozen States led by Republicans are refusing to comply with the administration's demand that they hand over their voter rolls.

Colleagues, this is a voter suppression bill, plain and simple. The effect of it would be that fewer people would participate in our democracy. We should be working to have more people participate. We can and we do while keeping it safe and secure.

This bill takes us in the wrong direction. This bill makes more barriers for working families, for seniors, for students, and others. It makes us step backward at a time when we should be making participation easier, not harder.

Colleagues, it is our responsibility and a powerful obligation to protect the right to vote in America. And if you are willing to live up to that, join me. I urge you all, vote no on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Support Our Firefighters Act. This bill would ensure that our Federal wildland firefighters are given the rest, recuperation, and compensation they deserve after working around the clock when disaster strikes.

We have all seen the devastation, destruction, and loss that has occurred in communities across the country as wildfires grow in frequency and intensity. Last year, we saw the Eaton and Palisades fires destroy thousands of structures and take 31 lives, making them 2 of the worst fires in history.

As a result of climate change, Californians have become all too familiar with wildfires. Containing them has proven to be a large undertaking that has required close local, State, and Federal coordination.

Communities are able to make it through these horrific disasters thanks to the bravery and hard work of fire crews on the ground. During the LA

fires, firefighters from across the State, country, and even abroad answered our call for support, and it is thanks to their hard work and bravery that more structures, and most importantly more lives, were not lost.

We owe it to these heroes to ensure they have the support and conditions they need to do their jobs safely and to ensure that they get fully paid for their courageous work. Specially, this legislation would provide 3 days of paid rest and recuperation leave after a 14-day period of work and 4 days of rest and recuperation following a 21-day period of work. It would also extend the waiver of overtime caps for wildland firefighters permanently.

After these long periods of work, it is essential for our wildland firefighters to get the rest and recuperation they deserve. Mandating this time is an important first step to addressing the many mental and physical challenges our firefighters face as they operate under hazardous conditions.

These emergency situations also necessitate our firefighters to work long hours, and given the yearly cap they face on total compensation, it sets up a situation where our heroes are sometimes required to go without pay. This is unacceptable, and we must end this arbitrary cap.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Sheehy, for coleading this effort with me in the Senate. Finally, I want to thank our brave Federal firefighters for risking their lives to protect our communities when they need it the most. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the Support Our Firefighters Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Department of Labor's recent rule that cuts wages for farmworkers across this country.

We are very fortunate here in the United States because many of us are used to grocery stores stocked with fresh food. But far too little thought gets paid to where that food comes from or to the millions of farmworkers whose grueling labor gets it there.

Every day, millions of women and men wake up before dawn and head to the fields to feed this Nation. Through heat waves, storms, wildfire smoke--even pandemics--they show up so we can eat. These are some of the hardest jobs in America. Trust me, I know from experience.

A few years back, I became the first Senator to join farmworkers in the fields for a day--cutting parsley and radishes alongside them in Southern California. many of the workers I met were older than me and had done this work for decades. Together, we spent hours on our hands and knees filling crates with produce. And let me tell you--I couldn't keep up. I was a whole lot slower than the highly skilled farmworkers who helped me out that day.

Because while most people don't think twice about where their food comes from, farmworkers bring extraordinary skill, discipline, and pride to their work. They deserve our gratitude, they deserve our respect, and they deserve to be paid fairly, because if they miss a day, there is no safety net for them to fall back on.

Yet, knowing all that, folks at the Labor Department who created this rule decided to go ahead and attack them anyway. They decided to go ahead and slash farmworker wages by as much as $5 to $7 an hour. By the Labor Department's own estimate, this rule would transfer more than $2 billion out of workers' pockets and into employers' hands every year, and it does so in a way that undercuts both U.S. farmworkers and the very purpose of the H-2A Program, which is supposed to protect, not depress, domestic wages.

This is not a technical adjustment. It is one of the largest wealth transfers from workers to employers in the history of American agriculture, and the consequences are both very real and immediate. In California, farmworker wages could drop from nearly $20 an hour to under $17. In Michigan, it could go from over $18 to under $14, and from $16 to under $11 an hour in Georgia.

Let's be clear: Farmworkers are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fair pay for hard work. Instead, this rule rigs the system against them. It incentivizes hiring lower-paid guestworkers while making it easier to displace U.S. workers. All that does is accelerate a race to the bottom in agricultural labor standards.

But just as troubling as the rule itself is the fact that it was issued without providing a meaningful opportunity for public comment, without good cause. That is not a minor procedural error or technicality; that is a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is a fundamental breach of the law governing how Agencies make decisions in a democracy that significantly impact the public.

The Administrative Procedure Act exists for a reason--to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation. Farmworkers, advocates, employers, and communities deserved to have a voice in a rule that so directly affects their livelihoods. Instead, the Department rushed it through as an interim final rule, cutting wages first and asking questions later.

This is an example of exactly why the Congressional Review Act exists--so that Congress can step in when an agency overreaches, when it ignores the law and harms the very people it's supposed to protect.

This resolution sets out to make things right by restoring fairness and restoring the rule of law. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution by standing with the farmworkers who put food on our tables, not the powerful interests looking to cut their wages.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Support Our Firefighters Act. This bill would ensure that our Federal wildland firefighters are given the rest, recuperation, and compensation they deserve after working around the clock when disaster strikes.

We have all seen the devastation, destruction, and loss that has occurred in communities across the country as wildfires grow in frequency and intensity. Last year, we saw the Eaton and Palisades fires destroy thousands of structures and take 31 lives, making them 2 of the worst fires in history.

As a result of climate change, Californians have become all too familiar with wildfires. Containing them has proven to be a large undertaking that has required close local, State, and Federal coordination.

Communities are able to make it through these horrific disasters thanks to the bravery and hard work of fire crews on the ground. During the LA

fires, firefighters from across the State, country, and even abroad answered our call for support, and it is thanks to their hard work and bravery that more structures, and most importantly more lives, were not lost.

We owe it to these heroes to ensure they have the support and conditions they need to do their jobs safely and to ensure that they get fully paid for their courageous work. Specially, this legislation would provide 3 days of paid rest and recuperation leave after a 14-day period of work and 4 days of rest and recuperation following a 21-day period of work. It would also extend the waiver of overtime caps for wildland firefighters permanently.

After these long periods of work, it is essential for our wildland firefighters to get the rest and recuperation they deserve. Mandating this time is an important first step to addressing the many mental and physical challenges our firefighters face as they operate under hazardous conditions.

These emergency situations also necessitate our firefighters to work long hours, and given the yearly cap they face on total compensation, it sets up a situation where our heroes are sometimes required to go without pay. This is unacceptable, and we must end this arbitrary cap.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Sheehy, for coleading this effort with me in the Senate. Finally, I want to thank our brave Federal firefighters for risking their lives to protect our communities when they need it the most. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the Support Our Firefighters Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Department of Labor's recent rule that cuts wages for farmworkers across this country.

We are very fortunate here in the United States because many of us are used to grocery stores stocked with fresh food. But far too little thought gets paid to where that food comes from or to the millions of farmworkers whose grueling labor gets it there.

Every day, millions of women and men wake up before dawn and head to the fields to feed this Nation. Through heat waves, storms, wildfire smoke--even pandemics--they show up so we can eat. These are some of the hardest jobs in America. Trust me, I know from experience.

A few years back, I became the first Senator to join farmworkers in the fields for a day--cutting parsley and radishes alongside them in Southern California. many of the workers I met were older than me and had done this work for decades. Together, we spent hours on our hands and knees filling crates with produce. And let me tell you--I couldn't keep up. I was a whole lot slower than the highly skilled farmworkers who helped me out that day.

Because while most people don't think twice about where their food comes from, farmworkers bring extraordinary skill, discipline, and pride to their work. They deserve our gratitude, they deserve our respect, and they deserve to be paid fairly, because if they miss a day, there is no safety net for them to fall back on.

Yet, knowing all that, folks at the Labor Department who created this rule decided to go ahead and attack them anyway. They decided to go ahead and slash farmworker wages by as much as $5 to $7 an hour. By the Labor Department's own estimate, this rule would transfer more than $2 billion out of workers' pockets and into employers' hands every year, and it does so in a way that undercuts both U.S. farmworkers and the very purpose of the H-2A Program, which is supposed to protect, not depress, domestic wages.

This is not a technical adjustment. It is one of the largest wealth transfers from workers to employers in the history of American agriculture, and the consequences are both very real and immediate. In California, farmworker wages could drop from nearly $20 an hour to under $17. In Michigan, it could go from over $18 to under $14, and from $16 to under $11 an hour in Georgia.

Let's be clear: Farmworkers are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fair pay for hard work. Instead, this rule rigs the system against them. It incentivizes hiring lower-paid guestworkers while making it easier to displace U.S. workers. All that does is accelerate a race to the bottom in agricultural labor standards.

But just as troubling as the rule itself is the fact that it was issued without providing a meaningful opportunity for public comment, without good cause. That is not a minor procedural error or technicality; that is a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is a fundamental breach of the law governing how Agencies make decisions in a democracy that significantly impact the public.

The Administrative Procedure Act exists for a reason--to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation. Farmworkers, advocates, employers, and communities deserved to have a voice in a rule that so directly affects their livelihoods. Instead, the Department rushed it through as an interim final rule, cutting wages first and asking questions later.

This is an example of exactly why the Congressional Review Act exists--so that Congress can step in when an agency overreaches, when it ignores the law and harms the very people it's supposed to protect.

This resolution sets out to make things right by restoring fairness and restoring the rule of law. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution by standing with the farmworkers who put food on our tables, not the powerful interests looking to cut their wages.

Mr. President, I will try to truncate my remarks. I know we have a vote coming up at 2 o'clock. I will try to keep the floor running on time.

I rise today in support of my colleague's effort to overturn the IRS's new rule which is making it harder for wind and solar projects to qualify for critical clean energy tax credits.

Families across the country are already struggling to get by with rising costs--costs that are going up at the grocery store, at the doctor's office, when you are trying to pay the monthly rent or your mortgage, at the pump, and, increasingly, our energy bills.

Since President Trump took office last January, California household electricity costs have increased by 15 percent. That is more than five times the rate of inflation. So it makes no sense that this administration is making it harder to build the very energy projects that would help--energy projects that would increase supply of electricity, energy projects that would help bring down the cost of electricity. One of the many ways they are doing it is with this new IRS rule that is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

For years now, companies could qualify for a clean energy tax credit once they had invested at least 5 percent of a project's cost into the project. It is what we refer to as the ``5 percent safe harbor.'' That is how businesses make their plans, that is how businesses make their investments, and that is how businesses were able to break ground on a number of necessary projects.

But now, even with projects that are already underway, they may not qualify for the tax credits anymore that they were counting on, that they were planning on. The net result--not project by project but overall--is that fewer of these projects will get built, and the projects that do power through somehow may get to the finish line, but they will be more expensive. That means less energy comes online, and once again the price of that electricity is going to be higher for families and for businesses and for everybody.

I am proud to represent California, where we are leaning in on clean energy production, not just to meet the growing demands on the grid of our growing economy and our growing population but also modernizing in a way that will make us more resilient to the threats of wildfires and extreme heat.

We have experience in this, and we know. I can share with you, colleagues, that building more clean, reliable, and affordable energy projects isn't just an option; it is fundamentally essential.

So we have to recognize the impact of this rule and recognize that it is part of a broader pattern. Over the past year, we have seen repeated efforts to block or delay clean energy projects,

whether it is halting offshore wind, canceling funding, or undermining projects that are already underway, as I just explained. At the same time, as my colleague and friend from Virginia just articulated, global instability is driving up fossil fuel costs even further.

This, colleagues, is a perfect example of why the Congressional Review Act exists. When an Agency takes an action that harms the American people, we in Congress don't just have the authority, we have the responsibility to step in. That is what this resolution does. It overturns the misguided IRS rule, it can restore certainty for business, and it can help get clean energy projects back on track.

So I urge my colleagues to support the energy investment credit CRA.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to use a framed photograph as an exhibit during my remarks.

Mr. President, I have been saying all week, colleagues, that Democrats will be here on the floor fighting this Republican voter-suppression bill, this so-called SAVE America Act, tooth and nail for as long as it takes, and we are keeping that promise because Republicans are trying to pull off this bait and switch for the American people.

Let me be clear: This bill is anything but a voter ID bill. If you are a married woman who chose to change her name when she got married, you could be kept from registering to vote under this bill.

If this were to pass, vote-by-mail, that option would be gone. No- excuse absentee voting, that too would be gone. Your driver's license, which most people think would be sufficient under a voter ID law to access the ballot box, not good enough anymore.

Why? It is because the American people are tired and angry about the Donald Trump disastrous agenda, the failures of the Republican majority to improve their lives. And instead of facing the consequences of their actions and owning their record, they want to change the rules of our elections to avoid consequences from the voters.

And I can't help but note the timing of this debate. Sixty-one years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress, delivering a powerfully important message to his fellow Americans, a message that is still resonating to this very day. He said:

Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or

abundance, our welfare or our security, but rather to the

values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved

Nation.

A challenge to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our Nation, that is a pretty good summary of what is happening this week.

President Johnson went on to say:

Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right.

There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the

duty we have to ensure that right.

President Johnson was speaking not just to Congress, but to America in the days after Bloody Sunday, when civil rights activists, including former Congressmember John Lewis, when they were violently attacked and beaten crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched for the right to vote.

Now, many of us have treasured memories with John Lewis. Mr. President, I keep this photo in my office where it inspires me every single day.

In the weeks that followed Bloody Sunday, our country and Congress rose to meet the moment and, coming together, Congress passed one of the most significant pieces in our Nation's history, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Yet, here we are today, debating a bill that would turn back the clock, that would do so much to deny so many their most fundamental right as Americans, our right to vote.

That is shameful. In this country, the right to vote is a sacred thing. After casting our ballots, so many people are so proud to share with their friends, share with the public, that they have participated in our democracy; they have done their civic duty--they wear buttons; they wear stickers--which is why we cannot allow these efforts to restrict voter access that are at the heart of this bill.

Now, doing so would be an enormous and dangerous step backwards. Under, again, the so-called SAVE America Act, all 50 States would be required to send their voter rolls--including a lot of private information of voters--to the Department of Homeland Security. I spoke a couple of days ago as to why the Department of Homeland Security is the last entity you would want handling this vital information.

Now, once there, known election deniers who have been appointed by the administration would certainly run these lists through the Department of Homeland Security's SAVE Program--different kind of ``save'' than the name of this bill, the SAVE Program. And they would then give back to the States lists of names of voters that should be removed from their lists.

Now, colleagues, as you know, a substitute amendment has been filed for the SAVE America Act that is before us that now forces further reliance on unreliable data from the Social Security Administration.

It wasn't that long ago that we discovered that data was being misused by DOGE with a secret agreement to share the data that they got their hands on with outside political groups seeking to overturn election results.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let me be abundantly clear with this point: This is not an accusation. Trump's Department of Justice has admitted to this in court.

And here is another admission that the administration has made ``Due to misspellings of names, transposed numbers, or incomplete information, the SAVE Program may produce inaccurate results.'' Again, this is not theoretical. This is not an accusation. It is happening right now.

Twelve States have chosen, or have been politically pressured, to cooperate by providing the Trump administration with their voter rolls, and there has been analysis that reveals how this demonstration is going.

NPR reports that as of December, the information of more than 47 million voters had been run through the SAVE Program at DHS, and that means the administration is already flagging American citizens-- eligible American voters--to be purged from the rolls. Of course, you know what happens when a voter has been purged from the rolls: The burden falls on the voter to undo it, to navigate bureaucracy in order to prove their citizenship, once again, and to register to vote, once again.

But many won't even know there is a problem until they show up on election day, and they are turned away because even though they have been voting there for years and years and years, all of a sudden they are not on the list.

Texas is 1 of those 12 States. And again, the review of the activity that is already happening by DHS and this so-called SAVE Program in Travis County, 25 percent of the flagged names had already proven their citizenship--one in four voters.

And in Boone County, MO--another State that is participating--more than half of the voters that DHS told those States to remove were citizens. So let that sink in for a moment: 25 to 50 percent of the names were flagged in error; one in four voters--half of voters.

Can you see how this would be a huge problem? Eligible voters being removed from the rolls and even referred to DHS for possible criminal investigation, that is the broken system that Donald Trump wants to use to maintain voter rolls nationwide, and that is the question being posed to the Senate and to Congress. I know how Democrats are responding. So the question is really, Is this what Republicans want too?

As you look through the rest of the bill, you know that this SAVE Program utilization is not the only problem. And we don't have to guess as to what the strict documentation requirements would cause if imposed on the voters.

Look no further than the State of Kansas when they tried something very similar to this just a few years ago: 31,000 eligible citizens blocked from registering to vote--31,000 eligible citizens blocked in Kansas. If I were the Senator from Kansas, I would be up in arms.

Or look to New Hampshire. Hundreds of voters were turned away last year under a recently enacted State law because they didn't have a passport or a birth certificate on hand when they went to the polls-- the very types of requirements in the language of the bill before us.

Joshua Bogden was one of those voters. In the late afternoon on election day, he turned up at his polling site to vote, only to be turned away because all he had on him was his driver's license that day. He had to race home and frantically search for his passport; then race back to the polls before they closed. Thankfully, he was able to vote that day, but he admitted later that if

there was anything that might have delayed him--having to take longer to find the passport, maybe getting caught up in traffic--he would not have been able to cast his vote. He would have been denied his fundamental right to vote.

Now, I have also heard some of the sponsors of this bill say: Oh, don't worry. If you don't have the proper paperwork in hand, there is going to be a separate process. And they replied to me: Well, just read the bill. Well, guess what. I have read the bill, and I will tell you about this last-minute provision, this last-minute affidavit process that has been inserted into the bill to try to provide cover for those hiding behind the true intent.

The fact of the matter is that there are no clear standards for this alternate process that they are pointing to. There is no clear explanation as to how it would work. All we do know is that if this bill were to pass and be signed by the President, it would go into effect immediately.

So let's be clear about what is fundamentally happening here. Maintaining accurate voter rolls is vital for our elections. It requires precision, it requires transparency. Trust me, I served as California's secretary of state prior to coming to the Senate. Nobody understands this in this body better than I do. But I also understand that that transparency, that precision is not in this bill.

Instead, this bill creates a system where mistakes are inevitable. And if mistakes are inevitable, then it is inevitable that people will be denied their fundamental right to vote.

There is a reason, colleagues, that President Johnson and civil rights leaders came to push so hard for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It was to move our country forward, not backward.

But this bill--this so-called SAVE America Act--would be a huge step backward for our country.

Democrats are prepared to meet this challenge. We will continue opposing this bill--I will say it again--today, tonight, tomorrow, for as long as it takes. Nothing is more fundamental in our democracy than the right to vote, and we will do everything in our power to protect it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to S. 1383, the so-called SAVE America Act. I think a better name--more, actually, representative of the contents of the bill--would be the ``Save Republicans From the Consequences of Their Actions Act.'' I have some other choice names for it, too, but not exactly appropriate for the Senate floor, so we will stick to the SAVE Act just to be short.

Last year, President Trump and Republicans in Congress promised the American people that they would lower costs--costs across the board but specifically healthcare costs. If you recall, just a few months ago, they promised to do something about the 15 million people that were being kicked off their health insurance when they failed to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. They failed on that promise.

The administration's war on clean energy has driven electricity prices up 13 percent since Trump took office. So much for ``all of the above'' energy strategies. So much for energy dominance. The price of oil is up 40 percent and gasoline is up 25 percent and rising in these few short weeks since Donald Trump initiated an unauthorized war on Iran. That is the largest single-month increase in gas prices since Hurricane Katrina, just for context.

I don't need to tell you all that many people are struggling with the rising cost of rents or their mortgages while the Speaker of the House reportedly told House Republicans that the President thinks ``No one gives a [bleep] about housing.''

Well, President Trump, listen to this: 76 percent of renters and nonhomeowners, asked in a recent poll by the National Association of REALTORS, say that they don't think they will ever be able to afford to buy a house.

This Senate, at least, passed the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act last week. If our colleagues in the House got their act together, that bill has the potential to do a whole lot of good.

In addition to healthcare and housing, Congress urgently needs to act and deliver long overdue disaster assistance for California and a number of other States and regions affected by disaster this last year.

So there are a lot of truly pressing issues for us to be focusing on and taking action on right now, but are we addressing any of those on this to-do list this week? No. Not even close.

Instead of focusing on the affordability crisis or trying to save us from endless wars, Senate Republicans are once again doing Donald Trump's bidding. This time, they are making his conspiracy-fueled election takeover bill their top priority.

Since we have launched into this debate over the bill, we have already heard all sorts of debunked lies and misinformation and misrepresentations repeated over and over again by our Republican colleagues.

Let me make a few things very clear. First of all, no, this is not a simple

voter ID bill. The latest version of the SAVE Act is a Trojan horse, actually. It is a voter suppression bill filled with poison pills and designed to change the rules of the election as we are in the middle of primary election season already and the November election is on the horizon. And for what? For partisan political gain?

The President himself has said that if this bill passes, Republicans will ``never lose a race. For 50 years, we won't lose a race.''

The lead sponsor of this bill in the Senate has stated:

Republicans will lose power--likely for a long time--if we

don't get the SAVE America Act passed.

Colleagues, it doesn't get any more obvious than that.

Here is how it works. The voter ID rhetoric is actually a bait-and- switch. The SAVE Act does not allow Americans to use their driver's licenses or other common forms of ID to register to vote. That is right. The SAVE Act does not allow Americans to use their driver's licenses or common IDs to register to vote. The SAVE Act would require a passport in order to vote--something that half of Americans don't have, not to mention the $165 it costs and a 4- to 6-week wait time to get one.

If you are one of the 148 million Americans who do not have a passport but you are otherwise eligible to vote, you will need to, what, maybe dig through the attic or call your parents to try to find your original birth certificate--that is if you still even have it.

According to 1 survey, there are an estimated 21 million people who lack access to these documents. That is a big chunk of the electorate.

If you are one of the 69 million married women who chose to change your name when you got married, tough luck. Your name doesn't match your birth certificate anymore, even if you can find the birth certificate, so now you have to jump through additional hoops and bring your birth certificate and your marriage license to the election office. That is your recourse.

Just to make this even more of a burden, the SAVE Act mandates that you bring these documents--and let me quote from the bill--``in person to the office of the appropriate election official'' and sign an affidavit. That is what the text of the bill says. As a result, millions of women are going to face additional barriers to the ballot than their spouses have to face. When does anybody have time for that? Some evening after work? Maybe on a weekend? That is assuming elections offices are open in the evenings and on the weekends. So more than likely, someone is going to have to take time off from work to register to vote or renew their registration.

What does the SAVE Act mean in practice if, Heaven forbid, this passed and was signed into law? Bottom line: It is the complete elimination of voter registration as we have known it for decades. The voter registration drives we see in communities and on college campuses--gone. Online voter registration or mailing in a voter registration card--which you sign under penalty of perjury, by the way--gone. Motor voter--remember that element of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support of Congress creating an opportunity to register to vote when you are doing your business at the department of motor vehicles? That, too, gone or thrown into chaos.

It seems like the goal is actually very, very clear: Let's eliminate opportunities for people to register to vote and have their voices heard in the elections.

All of that was in the original SAVE Act, which, thankfully, this Senate had the good sense to not even take up, but this new version of the bill that is now before the Senate--we know it was rushed through the House of Representatives and now seems to be rushed through the Senate without a single hearing, and this version is even worse. How can it get worse? Folks, you are going to love hearing this. This bill mandates that all 50 States share their confidential voter roll information with Trump's Department of Homeland Security. That is right. Let me say that again. Every State would be required to hand over confidential voter data to Trump's Department of Homeland Security, which, by the way, does not run elections. If they have any role in elections, it is to assist State and local governments with cyber security, but they are backtracking on that responsibility.

By the way, this is the same Department of Homeland Security which has been found in violation of 200 court orders since December alone just in Minnesota alone. This is who the SAVE Act would entrust to take over voter list maintenance for every State in the Nation? For what purpose? So that political appointees of this administration can go through the lists--again, every voter in every State--and order people that were on the voter rolls to be purged from those lists.

This isn't a hypothetical, folks. The fact is they are already test- driving this power with States that are choosing to cooperate. At least 12 States have provided the full statewide voter registration lists, including driver's license information and Social Security information. They either did it voluntarily or they succumbed to the political pressure by Donald Trump. The results of this demonstration should alarm all of us.

ProPublica, the Texas Tribune, and other sources have found that, rather than identifying noncitizens on the rolls, DHS is sending back to the States false positives, directing people to be removed from the voter lists who are actually U.S. citizens and eligible to vote. That is right. This lawless and incompetent DHS is already trying to purge thousands of eligible Americans from the voter lists. If this bill were to pass, it would supercharge those efforts with actual congressional authorization.

Is that what your goal is? Is that what you intend to do? Not on my watch. Not on my watch.

But there are even more troubling provisions in this voter suppression bill. If you listen to Donald Trump or, better yet, just check the White House website, it says, and once again I quote, ``No Mail-in ballots,'' with only a few, very narrow exceptions.

So this bill would also ban no-excuse absentee voting, which is widely used in 28 States across the country. And according to reports, President Trump himself has voted by mail. Over 48 million people voted by mail in 2024. That is about one in three voters across the country-- or ballots cast across the country.

And let me be clear about something: This is not a blue State versus red State dynamic. The list of States that have used vote-by-mail include Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North and South Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

But, sadly, too many Republicans simply cannot admit that ``Emperor'' Trump has no clothes when it comes to elections.

Why are we doing this? I have to suspect that there are two primary reasons for this voter suppression effort. First, because President Trump and the agenda that this Republican majority has supported has been so bad--not just so unpopular but so harmful to American families--that they are trying to limit who can have a voice in the midterm elections.

The second, clearly, is Donald Trump's obsession with the Big Lie and his refusal to accept the fact that he lost the 2020 Presidential election. Now, we all know that, after losing the 2020 election, Donald Trump encouraged a mob of his supporters to storm this building--the U.S. Capitol--including this very Chamber, on January 6. Why? Because every single court case, every investigation and recount, confirmed the same exact thing: Donald Trump lost that election. But he felt like he needed to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

Thank God for all the officers, for the more than 15 Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the National Guard, who protected the Capitol that day. And I am grateful--I hope we are grateful on a bipartisan basis--that we have a plaque commemorating their heroism finally hanging in the Capitol.

But here we are, 6 years later, and Trump is as obsessed as ever with vengeance: pursuing vindictive prosecutions of his perceived enemies, seizing ballots in Georgia because I guess he is still trying to find those 11,870 votes, sending subpoenas for the 2020 Cyber Ninjas audit-- yes, the one that

found that Joe Biden won Arizona by even more votes than originally thought.

So, make no mistake, the SAVE Act isn't about protecting our elections; it is about attacking them.

As the Presiding Officer can tell, I am strongly opposed to this anti-voter bill, and I will do everything in my power to defeat it. And, no, I am not alone. Senate Democrats will fight this voter suppression bill--tooth and nail, day after day, night after night--for as long as it takes to protect our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the bipartisan and bicameral Save Our Sequoias Act, This bill would enhance interagency coordination, accelerate forest restoration efforts, and provide important resources to land managers to guard, sequoia trees from further destruction.

Specifically this legislation, would, one, codify the Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition; two, require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to work with the coalition and other relevant stakeholders to develop and implement a strategy to enhance the reforestation and rehabilitation of giant sequoia groves; three, provide congressional support for the use of existing emergency authorities to expedite sequoia wildfire resiliency projects; four, allow the Forest Service and National Park Service to partner with States, Tribes, local governments, or private entities to conduct resiliency projects in and around giant sequoia groves; and five, establish a philanthropic fund through the National Park Foundation to promote the resiliency of giant sequoias.

Giant sequoias, the world's largest trees, are found in roughly 70 groves across 37,000 acres in California. Over the last century, giant sequoia groves have experienced a dangerous buildup of fuels, which, in combination with increasingly intense wildfires, has caused unparalleled destruction. In the last 2 years alone, there has been a nearly 20 percent loss of these iconic trees.

For millennia, giant sequoia trees have been a hallmark of California's rich natural heritage. We must work collaboratively to protect these California icons from the threat of climate change and make sure they are preserved for generations to come.

I want to thank the late Senator Feinstein for leading this effort during her time in the Senate. As a public lands champion and lover of California's natural landscape, she understood the need to protect our environment, and I am honored to continue this vital work.

I also went to thank my colleague and friend Senator Curtis for coleading this effort with me in the Senate. Finally, I want to thank my California colleagues Representatives Fong and Peters, for leading this legislation in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the Save Our Sequoias Act as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the bipartisan and bicameral Save Our Sequoias Act, This bill would enhance interagency coordination, accelerate forest restoration efforts, and provide important resources to land managers to guard, sequoia trees from further destruction.

Specifically this legislation, would, one, codify the Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition; two, require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to work with the coalition and other relevant stakeholders to develop and implement a strategy to enhance the reforestation and rehabilitation of giant sequoia groves; three, provide congressional support for the use of existing emergency authorities to expedite sequoia wildfire resiliency projects; four, allow the Forest Service and National Park Service to partner with States, Tribes, local governments, or private entities to conduct resiliency projects in and around giant sequoia groves; and five, establish a philanthropic fund through the National Park Foundation to promote the resiliency of giant sequoias.

Giant sequoias, the world's largest trees, are found in roughly 70 groves across 37,000 acres in California. Over the last century, giant sequoia groves have experienced a dangerous buildup of fuels, which, in combination with increasingly intense wildfires, has caused unparalleled destruction. In the last 2 years alone, there has been a nearly 20 percent loss of these iconic trees.

For millennia, giant sequoia trees have been a hallmark of California's rich natural heritage. We must work collaboratively to protect these California icons from the threat of climate change and make sure they are preserved for generations to come.

I want to thank the late Senator Feinstein for leading this effort during her time in the Senate. As a public lands champion and lover of California's natural landscape, she understood the need to protect our environment, and I am honored to continue this vital work.

I also went to thank my colleague and friend Senator Curtis for coleading this effort with me in the Senate. Finally, I want to thank my California colleagues Representatives Fong and Peters, for leading this legislation in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the Save Our Sequoias Act as quickly as possible.

Reserving the right to object.

We have been having this debate over a series of motions here over the last hour-plus.

First of all, a status quo position for CBP and ICE is not acceptable. We have seen the violations of people's civil rights across the country for the better part of this last year. Last year alone, it was the deadliest year for detainees in ICE custody. And calendar year to date, we are on track to surpass that by a lot. So, no, the status quo is not acceptable.

For the other Departments and Agencies--TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, CISA, et cetera--why settle for 2 weeks? We should fund them for the balance of the Federal fiscal year. I think we will have an additional motion to that effect in a minute.

But on the motion currently before us, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, in the few minutes that we have left before the scheduled vote, I do want to make things abundantly clear to the American people who are watching at home. Democrats are here trying to reopen and pay the employees of TSA, members of the Coast Guard, folks who work at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and, of course, FEMA. That is right.

Democrats are trying to address the issues of security lines at airports and protect Americans from cyber attacks. We want to pay the brave women and men of the Coast Guard and to help Americans rebuild after disasters. And Republicans are blocking these efforts one after another.

The question that is holding us all up, folks, is whether or not we, in this process, should hold ICE and CBP accountable with the same basic standards that apply to just about every other law enforcement agency in the country at the State level and at the local level-- reforms that my colleague from Oklahoma said were commonsense.

I am glad to hear that from the Republican side of the aisle. So let's incorporate that into Federal statute. But they refuse to do so thus far.

Let's remember, ICE and CBP already have billions and billions of additional dollars from the Republican's so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. So ICE and CBP are in zero danger of running out of money.

Who is at danger of running out of money? It is TSA. It is the Coast Guard. It is CISA. And it is FEMA. And so that is why Democrats have put these series of motions forward.

Now, in a minute here, my colleague from California Senator Schiff will ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill that we introduced together to pay the critical FEMA employees and sustain their essential operations for the rest of the year because we know how natural disasters act. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when the next one will strike. And whether it is a hurricane, a tornado, an earthquake, or a flood, we know it is coming. We just don't know where it is coming. And the Federal Government has an obligation to the American people to be ready to act on a moment's notice.

So let's give FEMA the funding they need.

I will defer now to my colleague from California.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pechanga Band of Indians Land Transfer Act. This bill would transfer 860 acres of Federal land in Riverside County, CA, currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management and adjacent to Tribal land, to be held in trust for the Pechanga Band of Indians.

The Pechanga Band of Indians have worked to acquire isolated parcels of land nearby and adjacent to Tribal land in Temecula to better protect, preserve, and restore sites sacred to the Tribe, including by fighting against the development of an open-pit mine quarry that would have caused air pollution across the valley and destroyed the sacred Pu'eska Mountain.

The transfer of these 860 acres would unify the Tribe with the land near this mountain to be managed consistent with the Tribe's cultural traditions and land management practices.

This legislation will support the Tribe's restoration efforts, allow for greater protection of culturally significant sites, and improve environmental monitoring and natural resource management on land that has been significant to the Tribe for over 10,000 years.

I want to thank Senator Schiff for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I thank Congressman Darrell Issa for introducing companion legislation in the House.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pechanga Band of Indians Land Transfer Act. This bill would transfer 860 acres of Federal land in Riverside County, CA, currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management and adjacent to Tribal land, to be held in trust for the Pechanga Band of Indians.

The Pechanga Band of Indians have worked to acquire isolated parcels of land nearby and adjacent to Tribal land in Temecula to better protect, preserve, and restore sites sacred to the Tribe, including by fighting against the development of an open-pit mine quarry that would have caused air pollution across the valley and destroyed the sacred Pu'eska Mountain.

The transfer of these 860 acres would unify the Tribe with the land near this mountain to be managed consistent with the Tribe's cultural traditions and land management practices.

This legislation will support the Tribe's restoration efforts, allow for greater protection of culturally significant sites, and improve environmental monitoring and natural resource management on land that has been significant to the Tribe for over 10,000 years.

I want to thank Senator Schiff for joining me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I thank Congressman Darrell Issa for introducing companion legislation in the House.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, colleagues, I have been down here many, many times and have spoken up in committee many, many times as we try to create a better way of ensuring that we, indeed, have a fair and bipartisan and bicameral approach to consideration and passage of public lands bills.

I certainly understand my colleagues' frustration with how the public lands process is currently playing out. I am glad that they are acknowledging I, too, share that frustration. But I also can't believe we can't create a scenario where the Senate completely cedes to the House the ability to pick and choose which public lands bills are allowed to be sent to the White House.

Regardless of who is in the majority, the process has historically been both bicameral and bipartisan, and we need to get back to that.

So as I said publicly, and as I have reminded in private, my objection to

these bills is not on the substance, and my objection is not an objection forever. So I appreciate when my colleagues have offered to join me in this effort to push leadership of both parties of the committees in both Houses to convene and create that process that isn't just going to be a fair consideration of my proposals or their proposals but all the proposals that come from the Senate through the Natural Resources Committee; give them a shot for consideration on the House side and proper consideration for signature by the President of the United States.

My colleague from Alaska, not just as a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but her leadership on the Committee of Indian Affairs--not all public lands bills involve Indian Country, but many, indeed, do, including some of mine that have been in the pipeline--I appreciate her willingness to bring her authority and role in her caucus to bear in this effort and conversation.

My colleague from the State of Nevada, not just a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but a member of the leadership team on the Democratic side here in the Senate, I appreciate her willingness to bring her authority and power to bear in advancing this conversation.

So, for today, I shall not object on these two bills but reiterate my frustration and am glad to be joined by two additional colleagues in trying to push, again, leadership on both sides of the aisle, not just the Senate committees but the House committees, to establish a fair way forward for all Members and all of our proposals.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the outstanding contributions of Dr. Peter B. Moyle, a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Moyle has devoted his life to understanding and conserving the unique freshwater fishes of California and the Western United States. The basis for just about everything we do to manage freshwater fishes in California can be traced back to the research and writings of Dr. Moyle and his many students.

For over five decades, Dr. Peter Moyle has been wading through the rivers, streams, floodplains, and estuaries of California. His work documenting the habitats and lives of the more than 130 species of fish that inhabit our waters--chronicled in over 250 publications and at least a dozen books--is the foundation of our understanding of California's freshwater fishes. No one has done more to teach us about this unique natural resource.

Dr. Moyle has also played a central role in not only understanding but conserving and managing California's fishes, particularly iconic species like salmon and steelhead. His work has shown us which fish are in trouble and which are prospering. And his keen understanding continues guiding efforts to restore habitat and adapt to the changing climate.

Beyond the fish themselves, Dr. Moyle's research has also played a prominent role in the ways we manage our rivers and estuaries, particularly for Federal Agencies working in California. The Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service all rely upon Dr. Moyle's research to guide their actions in protecting native fishes and investing in habitat restorations.

But the measure of Dr. Moyle's contribution goes far beyond his outstanding research. In fact, it can be found in our most precious resource: his students, the critical human capital that California and much of the West relies on to manage freshwater fish. In his time at UC Davis, Dr. Moyle supervised more than 60 graduate students, most of whom are now pursuing successful careers of their own in academia, State and Federal agencies, and private firms. Indeed, at any gathering of experts on fishes, you will inevitably note Dr. Peter Moyle's ``offspring'' everywhere.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Peter Moyle for being

California's most consequential fish biologist, revealing to us all the wonder of the fishes that call California home, the value of conserving them, and helping us find a way forward in ensuring that they flourish for generations to come.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I understand that this is a very important subject for my passionate colleague from South Carolina, but I also think there is a very fundamental misunderstanding, at a minimum, about what sanctuary policies are and what sanctuary policies are not.

Now, as I was listening to my colleague, he has tried to paint a picture of sanctuary States or sanctuary cities as nothing but lawless, and I get that it is maybe a favorite sound bite for rightwing media, but the fact of the matter is it is not true.

Sanctuary policies do not mean that there are no laws or that the Federal Government can no longer enforce Federal law in those jurisdictions. What sanctuary policies are is simply an affirmation that immigration enforcement is the job of the Federal Government and that State and local authorities cannot be co-opted or forced into performing inherently Federal responsibilities. It means that while Federal Agencies carry out immigration enforcement, State and local law enforcement will choose to focus their time, their energy, their resources on public safety in the local communities.

So let me say that again as clearly as I can: Sanctuary policies do not prevent ICE from going into any State or any city to arrest the violent criminals that the administration says they are after when they are being released from prison.

And, by the way, it is not like ICE does not know when someone is arrested. In fact, the Federal Government is notified every single time an individual is booked into a jail or prison. This means nothing is preventing ICE from picking up individuals when they are released from custody.

But instead of prioritizing picking up the dangerous, violent criminals they talk so much about, what is ICE doing instead? They are out roving streets in communities across the country and arresting people based on the color of their skin or the language that they speak or their perceived occupation.

There is a term for this, by the way. These are now known as the Kavanaugh stops because of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh--and, by extension, the majority of the Supreme Court--sanctioning this practice. It is wrong.

Now, I know my colleagues disagree with sanctuary policies as they are--official, technical. He describes sanctuary policies as ``killing this country.'' I have heard that a few times. And that by enacting sanctuary policies, leaders in these States are somehow ``openly defying federal law.''

Again, wrong. You can have your own opinion, but you can't own the facts. Far from defying Federal law, courts have actually upheld sanctuary laws and policies. I will reference just one. In a 1997 ruling in Printz v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote:

The Federal Government may neither issue directives

requiring the States to address particular problems, nor

command the States' officers, or those of their political

subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory

program . . . such commands are fundamentally incompatible

with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

That sure doesn't sound like anyone is defying any Federal law to me. And nobody is accusing Justice Scalia as having been a leftwing radical.

And, yes, we do have more recent examples of courts rejecting the Trump administration's attempts to strong-arm cities and States into acting as Federal immigration agents.

Let me just say this: These policies that my Republican colleagues are determined to attack are not the reason for the chaos that the American people have been watching in horror unfold in the cities of Los Angeles, in Chicago, in Minneapolis, and so many others. Sanctuary policies aren't the reason why American cities and citizens are being pepper-sprayed or tear-gassed, beaten, unlawfully detained, or even shot in broad daylight like Renee Good and Alex Pretti. What is endangering the American people's safety and security is an out-of- control administration that has empowered a mass paramilitary force of ICE and CBP agents to act with impunity, without accountability, without oversight, and without consequences.

If we truly want to talk about public safety, then we need to be talking about reining in an out-of-control Department of Homeland Security, not scapegoating States and cities that choose to prioritize their local resources for their local public safety.

So, for the sake of the American people's safety and well-being, I object.

Mr. President, elections are the bedrock of our American

democracy, and despite what the President and his big circle of election-denying, conspiracy theorists would have Americans believe, the truth is that our elections are, indeed, free; that our elections are, indeed, fair; and that our elections are, indeed, secure.

That is why the revamped, new-and-made-worse SAVE Act, which was passed by the House last night and is designed to compel States to give over to Donald Trump their voter rolls, is not just a solution in search of a problem; it is also a very bad solution at that.

This bill is built on a myth that is rooted in the Big Lie of election denial that has poisoned our democracy for years, which is that supposed noncitizen voter fraud occurs with any meaningful frequency. It is the same Big Lie that is still being perpetrated by Kurt Olsen, who is the President's ``Stop the Steal'' lawyer now working in the White House and on President Trump's decision to send the Director of National Intelligence to Fulton County, GA, last month, to seize paper ballots from the 2020 election--ballots that have already been counted at least three times in three different ways and that have all reached the same election outcome.

The fact of the matter is that audit after audit and investigation after investigation in red States and in blue States have all reached the same conclusion, which is that voting by noncitizens--which, by the way, is already a felony--is so exceedingly rare that it is statistically almost nonexistent, which tells us something very important, though. It means our current laws are working; so we don't need new documentation requirements like passports and birth certificates.

By the way, 21 million Americans cannot readily access these documents. We shouldn't be risking the disenfranchisement of 69 million American women who have changed their names from what is printed on their birth certificates, most of whom made that change when they got married, and we don't need to force approximately 60 million Americans who live in rural communities to drive up to hundreds of miles to prove their eligibility in person. That is not election security. That is actually voter suppression.

It is important for the American people to understand that this Republican effort to jam the SAVE Act through--as they call it--isn't happening in isolation. There is a bigger picture here. This bill is part of a broader effort by Trump and his Republican enablers to lay the groundwork for the rigging of upcoming elections, including the midterms this November. Now, November might seem like a long way off, but the midterms have already begun. Primary ballots have been mailed out in many jurisdictions, and the first round of early voting begins today in some jurisdictions.

It is pretty clear which way the political winds are blowing. The American people are rightly frustrated by Donald Trump's failed economic policies that are raising costs for working families, and the American people are increasingly outraged by the cruel, violent mass deportation campaign unfolding in communities across the country, which has already cost two innocent American citizens their lives.

It seems to me that the SAVE Act is really only intended to save Republicans and Trump from facing the consequences of their failed policies, but rather than change their policies, Republicans would rather change the election rules.

How many times have we heard the President openly question our election system and why the Federal Government shouldn't run elections?

At one point, he said:

[I]f you think about it, the state is an agent for the

federal government in elections. I don't know why the federal

government doesn't do `em anyway.

Well, let me answer that question for the President. It is really simple.

It is because the Constitution says otherwise. The Constitution clearly entrusts elections to the States and to Congress, not to the President.

But those efforts to interfere are underway and ongoing. We have seen the Department of Justice sue 24 States that happen to be led by Democrats. They are targeting their voter rolls in addition to the intimidation and strong-arm tactics.

We also know that Donald Trump says he regrets not issuing an Executive order in his first term that directs the military to illegally seize voting machines. He is not shy about this, folks. He thinks he has the Department of Homeland Security now more willing to carry out such illegal actions this time around. So, yes, the threat is real.

Or consider his former White House adviser who has called on the President to deploy ICE to intimidate U.S. citizens who will be trying to vote this November. So let's be absolutely clear: That is already illegal. Armed Federal agents at polling locations is voter intimidation and has no place in our democracy. Think about that. Think about that. Using Federal force to intimidate voters at the polls? It is hard to imagine anything more un-American.

So that is why, today, colleagues, I am announcing a new amendment to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that is still being negotiated and deliberated. It is an amendment to explicitly bar any Federal funds from being used to deploy Federal law enforcement or military personnel to polling places or election offices for the purpose of voter intimidation or election interference.

It is amazing we would have to say that. It is amazing that we would have to think about addressing that, but that is what the President wants. Now don't put it past him to try. It is time to send the administration a clear message that the United States of America's elections will be decided by the voters, not by force.

Colleagues, we as a Congress have a responsibility to act to protect the elections entrusted by the Constitution to us and to the States before it is too late.

We have a responsibility to reject this SAVE Act, to keep Federal law enforcement away from polling locations, and to make clear once and for all that elections and our sacred right to the ballot box belongs to the people.

I yield the floor.