Floor Statements

Madam President, I thought I would give my colleague from California some fantastic news. There are so many times in politics we hear bad news, but I am going to give him good news. When he takes a moment to read the actual bill, you don't have to read much. You just go right to page 1.

It says:

Ensuring Only Citizens Are Registered to Vote in Elections.

It says right here, at the bottom, that you can provide any of the following. I am not a lawyer, but I assume ``any'' is a pretty comprehensive word that means ``any.''

It says:

A form of identification issued consistent--

Let me read this slowly--

consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005.

He just stated that the Real ID does not count. On page 2, lines 1 through 4, a Real ID absolutely does count as voter ID.

The idea that asking somebody to prove they are a U.S. citizen one time when they register to vote and to show who they are every time they vote is basic common sense. Now, it is not common in California because, in California, they don't require that.

My Democrat colleague is walking out of the Chamber as I say this, but I also would have liked him to have heard even better news--even better news--which is that you can go to Ohio and get gas for a $1.75 less than in California. Why? Because of California's ridiculous policies. That is what is driving the price of fuel up for his constituents.

Where is the price of gas right now that he was railing about? Twenty-one cents a gallon less than it was at the end of the Biden administration.

I know we get into a lot of arguments here, and I know I am going to have my amazing colleague from Utah go further into this bill, but I just wanted to very briefly debunk two very simple things: California's problems are California's causing. The reason your gas prices are high is because you have basically banned all fossil fuels in your State while begging--by the way, do you want to know how California gets gas today? It leaves the port in Jacksonville on a ship. It goes to the Bahamas. It gets unloaded from that ship onto another ship. It then traverses from the Bahamas, by the way, off the coast of Florida. It goes all the way around the Panama Canal and disembarks in California. Why? Because they refuse to have a pipeline go through their State. That is why the price of oil is high in California. It has nothing to do with what is going on in the Middle East, but yet we digress.

We are here to talk about two simple things: Should you have to prove you are a citizen when you register to vote and should you have to prove that you are who you are when you actually cast a ballot?

With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Utah, who will go into the 28 pages of common sense that is in a very well-written bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as you know, I have only had the honor--I call it an honor honestly--the honor to serve as a U.S. Senator for 14 months.

Every day when I drive down Pennsylvania, make a left on Constitution, and see the sunrise over the Capitol, I genuinely feel the weight of how important this office is.

I actually have incredible admiration not for my forefathers--my forefathers came from South America--but for the forefathers of the people who built this country. Think of the wisdom of what our Founders envisioned. Our Founders created an institution that is genuinely--it gives me chills to think about the genius of what they did. They created a House of Representatives where every 2 years there is an election, and there is a lot of friction that goes on, and a simple majority passes a bill. Yet they wanted the Senate to be more deliberative. They wanted to force us--and the Presiding Officer personally knows how hard it is--they wanted to force us to have strong conversations with the opposing party to get to a resolution. They really did. They didn't want it to just be simple majority rule; they wanted to make it really difficult.

But what I have experienced over the last 14 months, I have to tell you, is decently disappointing, because for me, what I think should unite is, what do the American people really want from us? what is it that they want their leaders to do?

We have now seen it three times in a row this year where my Democrat colleagues have shut the government

down. What does that mean? You hear a lot of speeches. What it means is if you are a government employee, tomorrow is Friday, it is payday, and you are not getting a check.

Imagine what that feels like. The Presiding Officer is a dad. Imagine what that feels like, to have to explain to your kids how you went to work, you did your job, you didn't do anything wrong, and yet you don't have the money you need to pay your basic bills.

Yet we here in the U.S. Senate--our paychecks are uninterrupted. We get paid to do our job--a lot more, magnitude more money than average Americans make. We will leave here today and travel to far-off places, and yet we will walk by TSA agents that aren't getting paid.

We expect Border Patrol to do their job. We expect Customs to do their job. We expect FEMA to do their job. I have a big Coast Guard presence in Ohio. We need them to do their job. Yet none of them are getting paid. They did nothing wrong. There isn't a single employee of the Department of Homeland Security who is affected by this who personally is the reason this Department isn't funded.

So I truly, truly, from the bottom of my heart, ask my Democrat colleagues, with an absolute desire to get a result, let's spend 2 weeks--and we can start today, by the way. There is no reason for us to go home. I am willing to start today, like we start right now, and we sit down together, we look at the appropriations bill for the entire Department of Homeland Security, and in good faith--not with political theater, not to score political points, not to be cool on social media, but actually sit in a room and say: Let's get this entire Department funded. Let's not leave here today and walk by a TSA agent knowing that we are the reason they are not getting paid. That is unacceptable.

Let's sit down together. For 2 weeks, we can do that--14 days. I am willing to stay in Washington, DC, for 14 days and hash out an agreement. We can do it. That is what our voters want. That is why they elected us. They don't want us to be shirts and skins on everything.

So, Mr. President, I ask a very simple--make a very simple motion I think most Americans would appreciate. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the substitute amendment, No. 4353, be considered and agreed to, 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.

What that means is that we can fund the employees of the Department of Homeland Security now while we spend 2 weeks working together to get a resolution.

Mr. President, I understand the political pressures. I really do. We will see that sometimes appealing to a certain voter bloc--maybe it makes us popular. But I want to read you a quote from the deputy Democrat whip--a senior appropriator, by the way--who said:

[We] are very serene with what is going on.

``[We] are very serene with what is going on.'' You are serene that today, tonight, a dad, a mom is going to come home and say ``Can't do that. Can't pay for your dance recital. Can't pay for your spring break ticket'' because they didn't get a paycheck. I want you to explain to a 12-year-old child why they are not getting paid.

They are going to talk about Senate procedure. They are going to talk about the appropriations process. But this is just another effort to distract us from what is going on here.

So, again, I just urge my Democrat colleague to consider, as you think about your own State--by the way, I genuinely believe you deeply care about your State. I hear you talk about it, and it is absolutely sincere. You deeply care about your State. Think about those Border Patrol agents that are welcoming visitors from all over the world to Las Vegas. Think about those ICE agents that are arresting criminal aliens, like the one that was just recently arrested. That was a pretty bad guy.

Imagine those TSA agents, the Coast Guard, FEMA, Cybersecurity--you have a lot of those resources in your State. Can I please ask you for some level of humanity to get this done?

Reconsider your objection, and let's fund the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents, for 2 weeks. Please. I ask you to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I just offered to fund the Department of Homeland Security 5 minutes ago. In fact, I said in good faith that we could sit down, have a conversation, and get this thing done. I just did that. Why are we saying the TSA agents, whom I totally respect? How about the Border Patrol guys and gals? How about Customs? How about CISA? How about FEMA? How about the Coast Guard? Are we saying we are going to penalize all of them? Why would we do that?

Let's fund the whole Department. Let's get this over with. In fact, I would even offer to fund it until Monday. Let's all--every single U.S. Senator--agree to stay here until Monday, until we get this negotiated. In the meantime, we fund the Department, and we retroactively pay every single worker.

If that is not acceptable, I will ask one more, and I will be the first one to offer it: If the answer is that we leave here today without funding the Department of Homeland Security, every single Senator should give their paycheck to a charity of their choice, retroactively from the beginning of the shutdown, until we get this Department funded. We should not get paid while government employees who did nothing are not getting paid.

For that reason, I object to that narrow funding of certain people and not others.

Madam President, I rise today to address a crisis that strikes at the heart of what makes our Nation exceptional: the American dream.

Like many who came before me, I came to America with my family to find my version of that American dream. For generations, the catalyst of that dream has been simple and powerful: the ability to graduate from high school, get a good job, get married, buy a home, raise a family in a safe community, send your kids to good schools, and retire with dignity.

I think of my father-in-law, who joined U.S. Steel straight out of high school, bought a nice home in a suburb in Indiana. He raised a family of three kids, all on a single salary.

The question facing this body is: Does the American dream still exist and are we still willing to fight for it?

Ensuring this lives in America should unify all elected officials, regardless of political party. But for too many families--whether it is teachers in Ohio classrooms, nurses in Cincinnati hospitals, factory workers in Cleveland, or truckdrivers hauling goods across our State-- that dream is increasingly out of reach. Home prices have skyrocketed. Starter homes have vanished, and entire neighborhoods are being built not for homeowners but for distant corporations to rent out indefinitely.

This is the explosive growth of a new industry called the single- family build-to-rent industry. Massive Wall Street firms, private equity giants, and institutional investors are constructing whole communities of detached homes, only to lock them up as permanent rentals. These aren't small landlords helping fill a gap. These are corporate empires turning housing into just another asset class, just a profit machine for themselves, while denying the precious supply of single-family homes from hard-working Americans.

In Ohio, this impact is real and painful. In Columbus, developments are rising as build-to-rent subdivisions. Families who could once afford modest three-bedroom homes now face monthly rents of $2,700 or more, payments that build corporate equity, not the equity for that homeowner.

In Cincinnati, prime land that should host for-sale starter homes for young families is instead covered up in bulk for rental portfolios controlled by out-of-State investors.

And in the working-class, east side neighborhoods in my hometown of Cleveland, OH, institutional and out-of-State investors have snapped up nearly half of all home purchases, turning once affordable homes into profit machines while jacking up rents and neglecting repairs and slamming the door on working families.

Every home built for rent in Ohio is one less home available for purchase, fueling fiercer competition and driving up prices even higher for everyone else.

The facts are just undeniable. The share of new family homes built specifically for rent has surged to levels far above historic norms, 10 percent in some periods of all new housing starts. Those aren't scattered units; they are planned, large-scale communities designed for institutional ownership and endless renting.

By crowding out for-sale development, they reduce inventory for first-time buyers. They push prices skyward and condemn millions to a lifetime of renting--facing higher rent, endless fees, perpetual instability, and no path to building generational wealth.

The median age of a first-time home buyer in America is now 40 years old. That was 33 just 6 years ago--up 7 years in 6. Because of that, quite frankly, the ladder to ownership has been pulled up by corporate interests.

Home ownership is the cornerstone of the American dream for a reason. Equity grows over time. Forced renting means your hard-earned dollars line someone else's pockets. I know this firsthand. Without the equity that I built in my first home, I would never have been able to buy my first business. That equity gave me the foundation to take a risk, create jobs, give back to my community, and provide for my family--the exact opportunity we are now denying to millions of Americans.

And here is the bitter irony: The executives, the developers, the owners running these build-to-rent companies always own their own homes. They don't rent. They enjoy the stability, the pride, the wealth building that home ownership provides, while denying that same opportunity to working families that power our economy and built this country.

This crisis isn't inevitable. President Donald J. Trump recognized it early and acted decisively. As he said at last month's State of the Union Address:

Homes are for people, not [for] corporations.

He made it clear: We must focus on building Main Street, not Wall Street. That is why he signed the Executive order stopping Wall Street from competing with Main Street home buyers, directing Federal Agencies to restrict support from large, institutional investors buying single- family homes that families could otherwise purchase. He called on Congress to codify and strengthen these protections.

Here in Washington, DC, highly paid political consultants--so-called experts--at think tanks have spilled much ink opining why the GOP now and Democrats before have lost support from young voters. Here is a thought: Maybe it is because young Americans know they can no longer afford to buy a home and start their own families like their parents before them did.

Let's review some data. To start with, President Trump's plan is overwhelmingly popular. A recent poll found that 58 percent of the country support this plan, including 74 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of Independents. But that is not all. Poll after poll have found that President Trump is addressing a top priority for younger Americans. Sixty-seven percent of Gen Z voters struggle to cover their monthly housing costs, 74 percent of younger Americans say the cost of housing has reached a crisis level, and 73 percent of Americans blame large investors for the lack of affordable housing. The Republican Party would be fools to bury our heads in the sand.

So what does the other side say? Critics of this bill make two claims which, by the way, stand in direct contradiction. On the one hand, they claim that institutional investors don't buy enough homes to matter. This is a solution in need of a problem. On the

other hand, they claim that institutional investors are so crucial to the housing market that this bill would singlehandedly dry up all kinds of home ownership supply.

So you can't have it both ways: Either you don't matter, or you do matter.

Of course, the answer is, you do matter. And that is why you saw that 7-year drop in home ownership rates among young people over the period that this industry has boomed.

So I say to my Republican colleagues and to my Democrat colleagues: This moment is a test. President Trump proved that by breaking with decades of stale, establishment-driven orthodoxy, he could build an unbeatable coalition--a coalition made up of voters who have, for decades, abandoned the GOP and who the Democrats have now completely left behind, from Black men to younger voters, to Hispanics.

So the question now is this, Will congressional Republicans hear the American people and do what it takes to sustain that coalition? Will we deliver on the promises we made--President Trump's--on the campaign trail or will we continue to let the DC establishment swamp set our agenda?

With the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bipartisan effort led by my good, dear friend Senator Tim Scott that includes critical provisions to limit large institutional investors from dominating the single-family market, we have a chance to deliver on what we promised these voters.

By building on President Trump's Executive actions--curbing their access to Federal financing and preventing them from crowding out individual buyers--we are putting families first; we are increasing paths to ownership; and ensuring more new homes are built for sale, not endless corporate rental portfolios.

It is time to get this done. New communities should be places where Ohio families and American families everywhere can own, not just rent from faceless funds.

The American dream isn't dead. It is just under siege. Thanks to President Trump's leadership--his clear vision that homes are for people, his fight to put Main Street first--we have a real chance to reclaim it.

So I urge all of my Republican colleagues, let's make home ownership attainable again for the hard-working men and women who built this country.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to substitute amendment No. 4308 to Calendar No. 343,

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the previous action with respect to the substitute amendment No. 4308 and, instead, ask for unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Rudd nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked, the filing deadline with respect to the second-degree amendments to substitute amendment No. 4308 of Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644, be at 12 noon on Tuesday, March 10.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Rudd nomination at 12 noon tomorrow, and if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate execute today's order in relation to the Rudd nomination; that following the confirmation vote, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; and that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume legislative session and the cloture motion with respect to substitute amendment No. 4308 to Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644, ripen and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the cloture vote on the Rudd nomination and the resuming of legislative session.

Mr. President, I rise today to propose a very simple bill that I think most Americans can understand. It has a very simple basic principle: If you are on any type of government aid, you are restricted from sending money overseas. It is pretty straightforward. We want to help American citizens who are in need, but if they are in need, why would they need to send money overseas?

I would say this: A nation's strength lies in its people's ability to sustain themselves and their countrymen first. To divert public benevolence overseas weakens the bonds of union at home, inviting dependence where independence should prevail. We cannot allow the fruits of American labor meant to nourish our own be scattered to foreign soils. True charity begins with securing the liberties and livelihoods of our fellow citizens.

Government aid is a ladder for the American worker to climb from poverty to prosperity. To send it beyond our borders is to weaken that ladder, denying our people the fruits of their own toil and the promise of a more perfect Union.

We have framed laws to protect our citizens from poverty's grasp, ensuring homes, livelihoods, and security for Americans. Diverting those resources overseas betrays that compact, for our progress is measured by providing for those who have little within our own shores.

And, finally, I would say this, Mr. President: Welfare should lift Americans up, not fund foreign dependencies. When those in public aid send money overseas, it is a sign the system is broken, trapping people in poverty while draining our Nation's hard-earned resources from those who need it at home the most.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3746 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

To my colleague from Oregon, who I don't really know well, let me say this. As somebody that actually came to this country from a foreign land legally, I find it decently insulting that you would paint a picture of immigrants coming here to be dependent on the government. Let me just tell you, the exact opposite is true.

But that is actually the playbook of the Democratic Party--smearing with racist undertones immigrants, thinking that the only reason we would ever come to America is to be dependent on government.

Let me just be clear to the Americans out there who want to understand what is actually happening in DC, because I have only been here 13 months. My colleague has been here for 30 years. When you have been here for 30 years in Washington, DC, you think it is perfectly normal for government to provide aid to those in need and then have those people send that money overseas. To them, that is normal.

And in terms of your comment, to my colleague from Oregon, that we are shipping jobs overseas or incentivizing companies to send jobs overseas, welcome to the Republican Party's position on tariffs. I am happy to see, finally, that we have a Democrat who is willing to embrace tariffs, because we are sick and tired of seeing our jobs shipped overseas.

So I am disappointed that we couldn't agree on a basic premise, that U.S. taxpayer dollars intended to help our citizens should stay within our shores. That should highlight why, yesterday, the Democrat Members of both Houses could not stand up when President Trump asked a simple question: Is it the first duty of an elected official to defend and protect American citizens?

And you were there, Mr. President. Not a single Democrat could stand up.

I yield the floor.

I will remind the Senator: I in no way disparaged your family. I didn't even mention your family. What I did mention is that you made the point that we are harming immigrants who come here who might be dependent on social safety net programs and sending that money back overseas.

And I came here from another country--not my parents. I came here. I wasn't born in this country. I came here to seek the American dream, and I am honored every day to be here--although, on a day like today, not so much, because it is grossly disappointing that the Democrat Party that I once knew, a party of the working class, is not willing to make a very

simple statement: When we help American citizens, we expect that money to stay in this country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 613, S. Res. 614, and S. Res. 615.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

The resolutions were agreed to.

The preambles were agreed to.

(The resolutions, with their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 602.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 651, Ryan McCormack, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion ripen at 11:45 a.m., and if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on confirmation at 1:45 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.