Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Homeland Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this week, we kick off the 2026 Major League Baseball season. While fans across the country once again enjoy cheering on the Texas Rangers and the Houston Astros, I am reminded of the wise words of one of the great legends of America's pastime. Baseball Hall of Fame legend Babe Ruth once said:

It's hard to beat a person who never gives up.

For several days now, the Senate has been debating and considering the SAVE America Act. This bill would simply require individuals to present proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote as well as photo identification before voting in a Federal election.

To show how far the Democrats have gone in opposing commonsense measures, one of the amendments to this bill was one that would counter Democrats' dangerous and radical gender ideology by prohibiting men from competing in women's sports.

Our Democratic colleagues should be embarrassed by their opposition, but of course, they are not, and they did not agree. Poll after poll shows that Americans are strongly opposed to men competing in women's sports. Republicans will not give up on this issue, and the American people are with us.

We also will not waver on our support for the SAVE America Act because it will secure the Nation's elections. Voter ID is just common sense. We all know that. In this country, you need an ID for almost everything you do--from boarding a plane, to entering a Federal building, to buying a beer, to renting a car, to opening a bank account, to renting a hotel room.

Presenting an ID is a facet of almost every aspect of our daily lives. So why should it be prohibited in terms of exercising one of the most important prerogatives that American citizens can perform, which is casting their ballots? There is simply no rational explanation as to why Democrats are against this.

Of course, in trying to think of what possible reason they could have, one is, of course, the most obvious, which is Trump derangement syndrome. Democrats have made it their mission to deny, refute, and obstruct every single policy put forward by President Trump simply because he supports it. If President Trump supports it, they oppose it. Of course, they won't put it in those terms. Instead, they falsely claim that the SAVE America Act will disenfranchise voters. Well, it is a fascinating thing to me that anywhere from 70 to 80 percent of the people who are polled say they support the requirement for a photo ID. So I suppose, by logic, based on the Democrats' position, that 70 to 80 percent of the people polled are for disenfranchising themselves. Well, obviously, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Earlier this week, the minority leader, Senator Schumer, said the SAVE Act is not about election integrity; it is voter suppression, plain and simple. Well, it is really interesting. You know, we have videos of then-Representative Schumer who said 30 years ago:

[O]ne way to prove you are a bona fide person who can have

a job is to ask for a driver's license and a Social Security

card.

So my question to Senator Schumer is this: Which is true and which is false? Both statements cannot be true.

It seems that Senator Schumer is of two minds on this topic depending on political expediency, but we all know what is going on. We all know what is going on. The fact is that Democrats are masquerading their opposition to President Trump as voter suppression, but we all know that that is not true. The only votes that will be suppressed as a result of the passage of this bill will be those of noncitizens, who cannot legally vote in the first place.

Our Democratic colleagues may say: Well, it is already illegal.

There are a lot of things that are illegal that, if not enforced, deterrence will not occur; that accountability will not occur. So let me set the record straight. The only votes that will be suppressed by the SAVE America Act are those of noncitizens or illegal aliens.

One other theory I have heard suggested is: For 4 years, President Biden had open border policies. He let in literally millions of people into the country. As for many of them, we don't know who they are or what they are doing. Occasionally, we find out when they commit criminal acts against innocent American citizens. Now that President Biden has opened the borders, what we are attempting to do is make sure that only American citizens get to vote, but Democrats are opposed. The only reason Democrats, beyond Trump derangement syndrome, would oppose this is that they want the people who came in during the 4 years of Biden's open border policies to be able to cast a ballot.

If anything, voter ID empowers Americans to vote, and it protects the integrity of the voting process because every illegitimate vote that is cast undermines and dilutes a legitimate voter's ballot. By requiring voter ID, it will give people greater trust in our elections and faith in the outcomes. We need to restore the public's trust in our institutions, including elections. The more people believe that our elections are free and fair, the more they will participate in those elections, which is something we should all want.

President Abraham Lincoln famously laid out his vision for our Nation in the Gettysburg Address when he talked about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Well, what he was talking about was government by American citizens--the people who are legitimately casting their ballots and no one else. Nowhere do these words read truer than at the ballot box where the American people cast their votes and make their voices heard. This, of course, is how our democracy works. It hinges on the belief that elections are free and fair and secure and ensure a peaceful transition of power.

Requiring proof of citizenship is the surest and safest way we can help build trust and confidence with the American people and instill confidence in our elections. Self-government itself means nothing without free and fair elections.

As I have said multiple times this last week, this is an 80-20 issue; but of course, our Democratic colleagues believe that 80 percent who support these commonsense measures literally want to disenfranchise themselves, which is ridiculous. Public opinion is clear: The American people overwhelmingly support voter ID and proof of citizenship for voting. In 2025, the Pew Research Center showed 83 percent of voters, including 71 percent of Democrats, supported requiring photo ID at the voting booth. The facts speak for themselves: Americans want and deserve photo ID.

We will continue to fight to pass the SAVE America Act and deliver on the mandate given to us by the American people.

Mr. President, on another matter, later today, we will be voting on the confirmation of Senator Mullin as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

In the Senate, Markwayne has been a conservative warrior with a proven track record of supporting the ``America First'' agenda and President Trump. He has been dogged in advocating for the good of his home State of Oklahoma, and I have every confidence he will carry out the same spirit of zeal and unwavering determination in his new role in overseeing the Department of Homeland Security. As Democrats continue to hold funding for this Agency hostage, we need a strong hand at the helm more than ever.

Mr. President, I don't think our friend from New Mexico will be shocked to hear me say that I am not going to be taking his advice. I know he is very concerned about Republicans in the next elections and our

ability to maintain our majority in both houses. So he will have to forgive me for not taking his advice.

What I have a hard time understanding--and the argument that our colleague is making--is they are willing to fund everything at the Department of Homeland Security except the people who enforce our immigration laws.

But this is very consistent with the policies of the Democrats because they are the party of ``defund the police.'' They are the party of ``abolish ICE.'' They are the party of ``now don't pay ICE'' and ``don't enforce our immigration laws.''

So the reason why the TSA agents are not being paid is because we have voted multiple times to pay everybody who is working on behalf of the American people--all the patriots who are currently working-- whether they are TSA agents or they work for Homeland Security Investigations, which does counterterrorism investigations.

You know, these are very dangerous times. We have had multiple terrorist attacks in places like Austin, where I live, and in New York, Michigan, Virginia. And we heard from the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI Director, and others that we could expect more of these sleeper cells or people who are already here, who came in during the Biden administration, to become radicalized and lash out and kill more Americans.

And those people aren't being paid either.

And they also objected to paying the Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Heaven forbid that we have a hurricane or tornadoes or floods or some other natuarl disaster because the men and women of the Federal Emergency Management Agency will not be available because they have either been furloughed--in any event, they will not be paid--while Democrats persist in insisting that our immigration laws not be enforced because they don't want ICE--the law enforcement agents who enforce our immigration laws--to be paid. It is that simple.

Here is another thing I don't really understand. I have seen a number of polls ranging from 70 to 80 percent of Americans who support the SAVE America Act. I am surprised it is that low. When you think about what it is, it says that you have to be an American citizen to vote, and when you show up at the polls, you have to produce a photo ID. We have given many speeches talking about how common sense that is.

But if you are opposed to those requirements, it makes me wonder: Do you think noncitizens should be able to vote? Do you think fraudsters who claim to be someone they are not ought to be able to cast a ballot? I don't know what the rationale is.

They say we are disenfranchising American citizens. Is that why 70 to 80 percent of Americans support it? They support being disenfranchised? It makes no sense whatsoever. Yet Democrats persist in their folly.

I think really what this boils down to, as I have said before, is that anything that President Trump is for, they are against.

Do you remember at the State of the Union, the President asked people in the audience to stand up if they supported our law enforcement officers--the people who put their lives on the line to enforce our laws and maintain public safety? Every single Democrat sat on their hands. I mean, isn't there anything that comes out of President Trump's mouth that they could find their way to agree with no matter how self- evidently true?

You know, when President Trump took the courageous move to take out Iran's nuclear program, the Commander in Chief ordered our incredible military to fly 30 hours from Missouri and drop a bunker buster bomb down a ventilation shaft in a nuclear program facility in Iran. It makes me proud of our men and women in uniform.

Then when Nicolas Maduro in Caracas--a fugitive from justice, somebody who was indicted in Federal court in New York--when law enforcement needed to arrest him, they were supported by our men and women in uniform again, who, almost miraculously, to my mind, gave cover to the law enforcement officers who went in and extracted him to bring him to justice in New York.

So on almost every occasion, no matter how common sense, no matter how proud it makes me of our President and our military to keep the Nation free of the No. 1 state sponsor of terror, who is seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon, they take the other side. It is really amazing.

President Trump has this amazing power to force normally reasonable, rational individuals to take crazy positions for no other reason than they oppose President Trump, and that includes commonsense provisions like only American citizens can vote.

I thought our colleague from Louisiana did a nice job of sort of laying the predicate--I think the Senator from Ohio did the same--and pointed out the millions of people who came into the country during the pendency of the Biden administration, during his open border policies, unvetted--many good people who want nothing but a better life, but we don't know who came in for sure. We do know that it wasn't all good people who wanted to work and seek a better life here. It included criminals, sex offenders, drug traffickers, murderers, terrorists. And now we are paying the price for that.

When we say that we want to be doubly sure that only American citizens can vote, they say: No, that is disenfranchising people from voting.

I even heard our colleagues across the aisle say: Well, it is already illegal. There are a lot of things that are illegal, but if you don't enforce it, people get away with it.

Well, the argument of our colleagues is, again, that the vast majority of Americans who support this legislation are trying to disenfranchise themselves. How ridiculous can you be?

Then we hear the argument that it is just too hard. It is too hard to come up with the papers that you need in order to prove you are an American citizen--a marriage license, a birth certificate, a passport, some other form of identification.

Two days ago, the Senator from Maryland came to the floor and said he opposed the SAVE America Act because only about one-half of Americans have a passport. He then went on to say that means that only half of the American citizens that are preparing to go out to vote will be able to vote.

Well, as I mentioned yesterday--and I know it has been repeated ad nauseam by my colleague from Utah and others--there are other forms of acceptable ID. Unfortunately, some of our Democratic colleagues have come out here and misrepresented what is in the bill.

Americans can present enhanced driver's licenses, a REAL ID-compliant driver's license like I have in my pocket, a State ID card, a certificate of naturalization, or military identification card. If they have none of those, they can pair a normal photo ID with their birth certificate, a consular report of a birth abroad, or other similar documents.

In fact, if they still have legitimate concerns rather than excuses for this commonsense law, they can work with us, and we could tighten it in such a way that nobody would be disenfranchised, but they refuse to do that.

Everybody knows voter ID is common sense. Everybody knows you need a photo ID to get into a Federal building. You even need to get one to go into the Democratic convention, to buy a six-pack of beer, to buy cigarettes, to get on a plane--the list goes on and on and on and on.

So the excuses that our colleagues are throwing up saying, ``Oh, it is just too hard for us to produce a photo ID; it is going to prevent people from being able to vote''--no. What it is going to mean is that when somebody votes by mail--because some States send ballots to individuals without those individuals requesting them, and then they claim to be someone they are not and cast a ballot. What it will mean is that we will be able to identify those people who should not be voting and prevent them from doing so.

It is not just about preventing people who shouldn't be able to vote from voting; it is about them diluting your vote, because for every illegitimate ballot that is cast, that means it undermines and dilutes or offsets a legitimate vote and ballot.

Our Democratic colleagues act like this is some sort of fanciful innovation nobody had ever heard of before--a

crazy idea--but you look around the world, and other democracies have similar requirements. Norway, for example, requires voters to present a photo ID, such as a passport, a driver's license, or a bank card with a photo, in order to cast a ballot. Northern Ireland requires voters to present a valid ID. France, Israel, Iceland all have voter IDs. Even in Mexico, our neighbor to the south, with more than a third of its population living in poverty, that suffers from high levels of organized crime, a voter ID is required. If Mexico can require a voter ID, so can the United States of America.

Surely no one enjoys paperwork, but the simple fact of life is that sometimes you have to fill out a form and show an ID to do something that is important. We do it to go to the doctor or dentist or travel or to start a new job. When things are important enough to us, we do what is required to make them happen, and what could be more important than voting?

You know, the authority that we exercise on behalf of the people who vote for us and elect us is called the consent of the governed, which is the source of all legitimacy in government. This isn't just my idea or some other Senator's idea or Congressman's idea; it is because we represent people, and they have consented--by electing us to represent them, the governed have consented, in effect, to the laws that we pass. But when people who are not qualified to vote cast a ballot or when fraudsters claim to be somebody they are not and cast a ballot, it undermines the whole fabric and foundation of our constitutional system.

I will make a deal with anybody in Texas that I am sure the great Senator from Pennsylvania or Ohio or Utah or any other Members of the Senate--I have a great constituent service office in Dallas, TX. They do magnificent work. They have won awards. So if you have a problem with your passport, with your VA benefits, with immigration, whatever, we have people available, with a phone call or a stroke of a keyboard, who will help you.

If you are somehow unsure about how to get the paperwork you need in order to demonstrate you are an American citizen and qualified to vote, we will help you. We will make sure you have that documentation. We will make sure you are able to demonstrate that you are an American citizen.

If you have a problem getting a photo ID in Texas--admittedly a red State, so we do have voter integrity measures in place, like photo ID-- if you don't have a driver's license, you can get a free photo ID just for the asking. It doesn't cost you anything.

You know, I frankly find the argument of our friends across the aisle insulting because they act as though the American people are too lazy, too dumb, or too incompetent to do the basic things you need to do in order to meet the terms of the SAVE America Act. And I know that is not true, but that is how they act--or at least that is what they claim.

I have full confidence that all Americans who are legal citizens can rise to the demands of self-government by making sure they can demonstrate that they are, in fact, American citizens and acquiring a photo ID from some source that is readily available that will help you, if you have difficulty, in order to cast your ballot.

The truth is, the SAVE America Act is common sense. That is why you see broad polling support among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. It is supported by more than 70 percent of the American public. So if it was true that this bill would disenfranchise voters, you are, in effect, saying 70 percent of Americans want to disenfranchise themselves. What a ludicrous argument that is.

What is more, passing this bill would strengthen and honor our 250- year tradition of self-government. By opposing this bill, not only are Senate Democrats placing themselves on the wrong side of public opinion but on the wrong side of history. And I hope--maybe this is too much to hope for, but I hope they will reconsider and join us in passing this commonsense bill that so many of the people they represent--not just whom I represent but they represent--want to become law.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am back again to address the SAVE America Act, and what I can't really get my brain around is the fact that in a recent poll, 71 percent of Americans support the SAVE America Act.

Now, it is no secret that our Nation is politically polarized, but when 71 percent of Americans think that this is a good idea and we can't get it done, it is pretty hard to explain. So let me try.

So why would you say that we oppose only American citizens being able to vote? Why would you say that? Why would you oppose the proposition that only American citizens can vote? And why would you oppose the proposition that in order to cast a ballot, that you need to produce an ID, a picture ID?

Well, maybe there are other explanations that I haven't thought of, but the explanation that occurs to me is because you think that illegal aliens should be able to vote. Maybe you think that people should not have to produce a photo ID so they can pretend to be somebody they are not and cast a ballot on their behalf.

I wish our Democratic colleagues would just come out and fess up and admit that that is their motivation: letting illegal aliens vote and letting people commit voter fraud by pretending to be somebody they are not because they are not required to produce a photo ID.

Well, I can think of maybe one other explanation. You remember back when the President spoke at the State of the Union, he asked for all the members of the audience there assembled before him in front of the whole country to stand if you support law enforcement and public safety and not illegal immigrants? All Republicans stood; all Democrats sat on their hands.

I found it particularly telling when some of the TV cameras zoomed in on some of the Democrats who were very--if I am interpreting their body language correctly--they were very uncomfortable because they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they felt like for some reason they had to do it.

And then there is the decision of the President to eliminate the nuclear weapons program of the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime is the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism. They have had American blood on their hands for 47 years, since the Iranian Revolution, produced these explosively foreign penetrators that killed or maimed the servicemembers of the United States over many years, their proxies, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iranian--the Shia militias. They have American blood on their hands, and the Biden administration and previous administrations knew that they aspired to have a nuclear weapon.

Now, I cannot imagine anything worse than the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism getting a nuclear weapon. They are committed to the death of Israel. They want to wipe Israel off the map, but they also chant ``Death to America.''

What is it about that, that we don't understand and believe? And thank goodness President Trump had the courage--political and otherwise, and the confidence in the United States military--to do what needed to be done in order to protect our own troops in the Middle East and help prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

What do our Democratic colleagues do? They said: Well, Trump started the war, and there is no identifiable end state, so we oppose what President Trump is doing.

So Trump derangement syndrome causes people to do really strange things, to take the side of the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism that wants a nuclear weapon, to cause Members of Congress to sit on their hands rather than to support and applaud our law enforcement personnel that keep our communities safe.

And now, we see this happening at our airports across the country where, because of Democratic obstruction, our TSA agents--the people who are maintaining the security at the airports--they have been working. They have now missed two paychecks--and for what good reason could that be?

Well, I think it is Trump derangement syndrome. They know that President Trump wants the Department of Homeland Security funded, which means they automatically reflexively

don't want it funded and they frankly don't care who they hurt.

It is shameful. It ought to be embarrassing, but some people can't be embarrassed. So Democrats are now forced into a strange posture on this SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship to vote and proof of identification in order to cast a ballot.

Democrats are forced into the awkward position of saying we should block--they should block this legislation that so many of their own constituents apparently want and agree with.

I have to say listening to some of what passes for arguments on the other side, I find myself unpersuaded by their fearmongering. I remember I asked in the Judiciary Committee the other day--I asked the ranking member, the Democratic whip Senator Durbin from Illinois, I said: What is it that the Democrats dislike about the SAVE America Act?

He said: Well, it will disenfranchise people.

Well, not if you can show you are an American citizen, not if you have a photo ID. You are not going to be disenfranchised. So that must mean that you are worried about disenfranchising noncitizens, illegal immigrants. You are worried about disenfranchising the election cheat who wouldn't be required to show photo ID but yet casts a ballot pretending to be someone they are not.

Two days ago, Minority Leader Schumer came to the Senate floor and said: The SAVE Act is not about election integrity. It is voter suppression. Well, he is half right. It is illegal-voter suppression.

But his general argument that American citizens would be denied the opportunity to vote is patently false. Thirty-eight States, including States like Georgia and Rhode Island, currently represented by Democrats, require voter ID. Are those States suppressing the vote? Is the minority leader suggesting that 38 out of our 50 States are actively engaged in voter suppression?

Well, that is preposterous on its face. Some States like my State of Texas requires voters to show an ID with an option to sign an affidavit alongside the secondary form of ID to establish their identity. In other words, we make it easy.

So the idea that the SAVE America Act will disenfranchise legitimate voters is a baldfaced--well, let me try to be generous. It is not true, and he knows it. The Democratic leader knows that is false, but he has the temerity to stand up here on the Senate floor and to tell people who may not be informed about the details of this, that we are trying to take away their right to vote.

Well, it is the Democrats who are diluting your vote if you are a qualified voter by allowing noncitizens or people who engage in election fraud the opportunity to vote.

They are diluting your vote, making it less valuable. So the SAVE America Act will not disenfranchise legitimate voters. It will simply universalize ID requirements, so that all 50 States will play by the same rules.

Another charge that we are hearing is that, well, it is just too hard to prove you are an American citizen because you need a passport. You will need a passport to vote, and any requirement that you need a passport will be too burdensome. Well, of course, anybody who has traveled will have a passport, of course.

But, once again, this argument that you need a passport to vote is not true. The SAVE America Act allows Americans to prove their citizenship by a variety of documents, including, but not limited to, a passport.

Americans can present an enhanced driver's license, a REAL ID- compliant license, or a State ID card, all of which are sufficient under this bill to prove you are an American citizen.

I have a REAL ID driver's license in my pocket as do most drivers. We required licenses, post-9/11, to prevent terrorists from getting false identities and traveling on our airplanes and blowing them out of the sky. We required that States eventually would require a REAL ID, which just has a radio frequency chip in it that is hard to counterfeit so that we have assurance that people who produce a driver's license with a REAL ID in it are who they say they are.

So you don't need a passport. You can use a military identification card. You can use a certificate of naturalization, if you weren't born in this country but became, by grace of God, an American citizen.

Furthermore, if an American does not have any of the above, they can pair a photo ID with their birth certificate, a consular report of birth abroad, or similar documents. In other words, there are a lot of different ways that people can establish that they are qualified to vote.

Finally, and perhaps the most outrageous charge that our Democratic colleagues have been flinging at us is that married women--we are going to disenfranchise married women whose birth certificate does not reflect their current married name. They won't be able to vote.

Well, that would be foolish if that were true. As somebody who is not only married for 46 years but the father of two adult daughters, I promise I would be the last person on the planet to tell a woman she has no right to vote.

So this is nothing but a scare tactic. Certainly it is easy to be able to establish, based on a marriage license or something else, some other qualifying document, that your birth certificate name is different than your married name. So this is nothing more than a scare tactic by our colleagues who want, what? Why are they objecting to this? Let me put it less charitably. They want to make it easier for people to cheat. That is a harsh statement, but you tell me what the other alternatives are. They want to make it easier to cheat.

The reality is, the SAVE America Act provides a process for anyone who changes their legal name for reasons of marriage or otherwise to register to vote.

And anyone who is already registered to vote at the time they change their name would just have to update their voter registration. Well, I think women voters should be offended that somehow they are not capable of being able to identify themselves, either with a marriage license or a birth certificate, or that it is just too hard for them; they can't figure it out.

That is insulting. Well, I have full confidence that American citizens who happen to be female who go through these heroic efforts to keep our businesses running and take care of our families, I have full confidence they will be capable of updating their voter registration to match their new married name.

To listen to our Democratic colleagues, you would think the American people are incapable of thinking for themselves or are incapable of simply locating these legal documents.

And we are not doing this for frivolous reasons. It is because, apparently, our Democratic colleagues think that noncitizens should be allowed to vote and that election fraudsters should be able to vote without proving their identity.

On behalf of the 32 million Texans I represent, I find this argument deeply offensive.

America is the greatest place on Earth. What we have here is the envy of people around the world who want to come here because of the opportunities that this great country provides.

But one of the most important aspects of America is that our laws are passed by elected representatives and that our laws are legitimized by the consent of the governed, who cast a vote on behalf of those officeholders, those Members of Congress on their behalf. And these are positions of trust that we hold. But the authority comes from the voters and comes from the citizens, not illegal immigrants, not election fraudsters.

That undermines the very foundation upon which the legitimacy of our government rests. I think a country with citizens bright enough to put a man on the Moon and to build the strongest, most powerful military in the world and the greatest economy that the world has ever known, I think those folks are smart enough and capable enough to be able to locate their driver's license when they cast a ballot and to establish their citizenship in order to qualify to vote.

Any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it has been 34 days since Democrats chose to shut down funding at the Department of Homeland Security, jeopardizing America's safety and well-being.

No less than 120,000 DHS employees have missed paychecks, including the hard-working TSA agents and screeners that work at our Nation's airports, who have been working around the clock, without pay, to keep spring break travelers and others safe.

For example, in my home State of Texas, Houston Hobby Airport has been recommending that travelers arrive at least 3 hours before their flights, and if it is an international flight, they recommend 4 hours in advance.

Well, they are not alone. Staffing constraints have not only led to longer wait times around the country but also significant delays, disruptions, and missed flights.

The only reason I can fathom, other than being completely out of touch, that our Democratic colleagues would do this is because not all Members of Congress are being forced to experience the same mess of their own making right now.

As many Americans probably don't know, but most of us in Washington do know, airports around the country allow Members of Congress to bypass the usual TSA security screening process at airports nationwide. In other words, they get to skip the line.

This should end today. Instead of enduring the same travel tribulations and security requirements that everyone else has to meet, Members of Congress are getting an unfair perk, while TSA officers have to work without pay.

That is why I come to the floor today to pass my legislation, called the End Special Treatment for Congress at Airports Act, to stop the practice of expediting TSA screening processes for Members of Congress at our Nation's airports.

This legislation would ensure that no Federal funds or resources will be used by TSA moving forward to provide Members of Congress with these special privileges. In other words, Congress is going to have to live with the laws that everybody else has to live with.

Ending these courtesy escorts for Members of Congress in our Nation's airports during a DHS funding shutdown is the right thing to do.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 4123 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I am glad the Senate has agreed with this commonsense bill to prevent those of us who pass laws--or, in this case, refuse to pass the laws funding DHS appropriations--to prevent us from receiving special privileges. Maybe, just maybe, if Congress has to live under the same laws that everybody else does, it will motivate us to get our work done--in other words, to fund the Department of Homeland Security--so no American, so no air traveler will have to suffer the disruption and the tribulations that many, many travelers are having to experience now.

It is not too much to expect that Congress will be subject to the same rules as everyone else. We know trust in Congress is at an alltime low, but today, thank goodness, the Senate has taken an important step toward restoring the trust of the people we are here to represent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have five 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 came back to Washington, DC, on Monday afternoon and decided I was going to leave some hamburgers--some Whataburgers--it is a famous hamburger from Texas--with some of the TSA agents who have not received a paycheck now for two pay periods.

We have seen the pictures during spring break and during all the activities in Austin--South by Southwest is going strong. So there is a lot of stress on the men and women who are working in the Transportation Security Agency, and they are not being paid because of the Democrats' obstruction.

In fact, they are objecting to the payment of not only TSA agents but also the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and, as it turns out, one of the premier criminal investigation directorates in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement known as Homeland Security Investigations.

This morning, during the ``Worldwide Threats'' hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee--this was a public hearing--the FBI Director confirmed that Homeland Security Investigations was a critical part of the interagency process to deal with the threat of homegrown terrorism.

On March 1, we had a gunman go to 6th Street, a heavily populated area where people like to party, and proceeded to kill 3 innocent people and wound 12 others. He wore a sweatshirt that said ``Property of Allah'' and a T-shirt underneath that bore an Iranian flag.

Of course, we are all familiar with the incidents that have occurred in New York, in Virginia, in Michigan at the synagogue, and numerous other places which will be repeated time and time again as long as Democrats decide not to pay the very people whom we are depending on to investigate these cases and protect the American people.

I know a lot of focus has been on TSA--and, certainly, they deserve to be paid and are doing heroic work. And by delivering some lunch to them, I thought: Well, this at least will show some appreciation. Unfortunately, I couldn't deliver them a paycheck. That is all I could do because of the obstruction on the Democratic side of the aisle.

But this is something that I don't know whether the American people or even Members of the Congress are fully aware of; that by blocking the Department of Homeland Security funding, the Homeland Security Investigations directorate, in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of DHS, is not being paid, which is endangering the safety of the American people. Director Patel of the FBI confirmed that this morning.

This has got to stop. It is hurting a lot of innocent people for no good cause. It is all based on political posturing, and innocent people are being hurt in the process.

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

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

I have been taking the time in recent days to walk through some of the lesser known provisions of the Working Families Tax Cut Act that, all of which combined, will make life more affordable for the American people and the people I represent back home in Texas.

Affordability, of course, is not a new issue. Kitchen-table issues, as I like to call them, have always been one of the most important things in every poll that you have seen. But many people are not yet fully aware of how the working families tax cuts are already helping to alleviate some of these rising costs.

And, today, I want to talk about something that is not receiving the attention it deserves from the mainstream media, and that is what reforms we have made in the healthcare area.

Certainly, healthcare expenses are one of the most frequently cited affordability concerns in the country, and we all understand that. But very few people are aware of what Republicans did in the Working Families Tax Cut Act to improve the healthcare landscape under President Trump.

And, again, we have had to do all this because we got no support whatsoever from the Democratic side of the aisle. Just think of what we might be able to do if Democrats would actually get over their Trump derangement syndrome and actually work with us in the best interest of our constituents. There is no telling what we might be able to do.

But in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we expanded access to something called health savings accounts for those enrolled in bronze, or catastrophic, exchange plans. Those, of course, referred to--the bronze plan, of course, was part of the Affordable Care Act exchanges, and now these are available to people who are in those exchanges as well as catastrophic insurance plans.

What I mean by that is many people may figure out, well, the most efficient and effective way for me to deal with my healthcare costs is to buy a plan, a hospitalization plan, but to couple that together with a savings account, which you can create--known as a health savings account--to help manage your day-to-day or week-to-week or your regular--let me just call it your regular sort of healthcare expenses, doctor visits and the like.

HSAs are a popular tool that allows Americans to set aside pretax dollars--pretax dollars--in a special account where their savings can grow tax-free and use these savings to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses. These accounts are particularly handy when unforeseen medical expenses arise, when many Americans would otherwise have to turn to their credit cards.

Approximately 41 percent of adults in America have medical debt in one form or another--whether it is unpaid bills, loans, or credit card debt--associated with healthcare expenses. Nearly half of this 41 percent owes more than $2,000--certainly a substantial amount of money for most people. One of every eight of these individuals reported that they owe $10,000 or more.

If more Americans had access to health savings accounts, they would be far better prepared to face these unforeseen out-of-pocket expenses. Again, this is pretax dollars, so basically you are having your tax rate subsidize your healthcare expenses.

Americans who are generally healthy and don't require frequent medical treatments will often choose to enroll in a lower tier health plan or one of these catastrophic hospitalization plans in order to save on their monthly premium. But when an emergency hits--a car accident, a sports injury, or a sudden unwelcome diagnosis--an HSA, a health savings account, can provide a cushion to soften the financial blow and allow people to avoid incurring medical debt to pay these unexpected bills.

In addition to expanding health savings account access, the Working Families Tax Cut expanded access to telehealth services. This was one of the good things that came out of the pandemic, was expanded access to telehealth. Thanks to the fact that most people are now online and broadband has been expanded pretty dramatically, to know that you can access healthcare online without having to schedule a personal visit is a real boon to many people, particularly to the elderly and folks who are homebound. We modified the rules for insurance plans so that HSA high-deductible plans can now offer zero-premium telehealth services on a permanent basis.

As I said, the COVID-19 pandemic really opened all of our eyes to the possibilities of what healthcare services can be provided efficiently and effectively without requiring an in-person meeting or examination. Of course, it can't do everything, but it can do a lot to help fill the gap. Telehealth visits were one of the very positive things to come out of what was otherwise a catastrophic global disruption known as the pandemic.

These have been particularly helpful to those in rural communities where access to healthcare is a particular concern. People now don't have to drive a long way to see their healthcare provider. Many schools and universities in Texas--like Texas Tech University, for example, in Lubbock, comes to mind. They have been pioneering telehealth for a long time because much of what Texas Tech draws from in terms of their student population and alumni happen to be in rural areas around Lubbock, where Texas Tech is located. Folks with compromised immunity benefit as well; they don't have to be exposed to other people.

Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cut, telehealth visits and HSAs are more accessible to the American people. So those are two of the things on a very positive level that we did in the Working Families Tax Cut.

The other thing that we did, which was really important, is to make sure that States couldn't game the Medicaid system--which is the healthcare system that is basically the safety net for lower income individuals--by providing benefits to illegal aliens and thus jeopardizing the limited resources that should be available to only those people who are legally present here in the United States.

We also invested in long-term care for those who rely on services like nursing homes and home- and community-based services. The Working Families Tax Cut prevented implementation of Biden-era regulations on nursing homes that would threaten their very existence as well as that of other long-term care providers. For many of the elderly population who require full-time care, a long-term care facility can

be the best option, but because the Biden administration's burdensome regulatory regime threatened to run these essential-care services out of business, that access to care was in serious jeopardy. So we fixed that with the Working Families Tax Cut.

We also expanded access to home- and community-based services to individuals with disabilities and mental health or substance use disorders. These are some of the most vulnerable and at-risk individuals in the country. I am proud of what Senate Republicans did-- unfortunately without any support from our Democratic colleagues--to improve access to care in these areas.

Texas is a big place, with going on 32 million people, and while our urban populations are well known--cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio--many people live in rural areas of the State of Texas. In fact, that is true around the country. There is a large rural population for whom access to healthcare is particularly challenging. So we made the single largest investment in rural healthcare since 2003 in the Working Families Tax Cut.

Rural healthcare providers have always struggled to stay afloat, particularly in recent years due to these higher regulations, low patient volumes, and the like. Since 2005, close to 112 rural hospitals have closed outright. That is 112 fewer hospitals in rural America, where people now have to travel long distances just to be admitted into a hospital.

Through the Working Families Tax Cut, we established something called the Rural Health Transformation Program, which provided $50 billion to stabilize and strengthen rural hospitals and providers. Half of these funds were allotted equally among all the approved States, but I am delighted to say that the other half were awarded on a merit basis. Texas received $281 million for a single year. That will then extend over a 5-year period, so well in excess of $1 billion will come to the State for improved access to rural healthcare.

These funds, this plus-up over the per capita funds that were distributed, were based on a need-based formula developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services--otherwise known as CMS--based on factors like population, the proportion of healthcare facilities in rural areas, and the potential of application initiatives for long-term improvement in rural communities.

Because of the unique vulnerabilities faced by our rural hospitals and providers, the Rural Health Transformation Program is giving States like Texas critical resources to work directly with rural health providers to address these vulnerabilities and best determine the use of these Federal funds.

As I mentioned, the Trump administration has awarded the largest allocation of all to the State of Texas--more than $200 million--and that is for just 1 year. I look forward to seeing the benefits that this program has for our rural Texas communities and my constituents.

This program marks the most significant investment in healthcare for rural communities in decades, and I am proud that Republicans-- unfortunately, once again, without any Democratic support--have made our rural communities a priority under President Trump.

Now, I suspect these provisions may be news to many American people, with no small thanks to the neglect of the media in informing them of what we have been up to during this last year, which is something really significant and important. The Working Families Tax Cut made significant progress toward making healthcare more accessible and more affordable for the American people, and I am proud that, working together with President Trump, Republicans are taking America back in the right direction when it comes to access to healthcare in our rural communities.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, with the change of our clocks in recent days, the Sun seems to shine later in the day and days are getting longer. We are even starting to feel signs of spring in the air here in Washington, DC. But along with the longer days and the budding flowers, something else is rapidly approaching that Americans find far less palatable, and that, of course, is tax season.

Americans have long had a distaste for taxes in this country, going back to the Boston Tea Party--a protest over seemingly minor taxes imposed by the British Empire that helped spark the American Revolution. While we may not find ourselves clamoring for a revolution on April 15, it remains, nevertheless, a hapless ritual of forking over a good percentage of our hard-earned wages to the Federal Government-- something none of us looks forward to.

Fortunately for the American people, Senate Republicans have delivered a series of important victories through the Working Families Tax Cut Act that will set them up for a far less painful tax season than they would have experienced if the Democrats had been in charge. In fact, our Democratic colleagues uniformly voted against any of these tax cuts.

With the 2017 Trump tax cuts set to expire, Americans would have experienced the largest increase in history if it weren't for this new legislation--and again, our Democratic colleagues were OK with that. We saved the average Texas family more than $3,000, and we prevented 62 percent of Americans from seeing a tax increase. Small business owners alone would have seen their Federal tax rates increase by nearly 50 percent, and American households would have faced a more than $4 trillion tax hike. Democrats, as I said, were OK with that.

By now, at least most of my colleagues have become familiar with some of these top-line numbers, but today, I want to highlight a few provisions that have seen a little less daylight even though they will serve as a boon to working families all across our Nation.

As we all know, 56 percent of American voters have said that affordability is their top concern. I am actually surprised it is that low, but 56 is no small number. Parents of small children in particular are feeling the affordability crunch even more than their childless peers as they try to stretch their paychecks to meet the increasing costs of housing, groceries, and childcare each month.

While there is no silver bullet that can magically make the cost of raising a family go away, Republicans have delivered provisions through the Working Families Tax Cut Act that will attempt to lessen that burden. For example, back in 2017, Republicans doubled the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. In 2025, that was scheduled to go back to $1,000, but Senate Republicans built on their prior success and permanently increased the child tax credit to $2,200 per child. We ensured that this was not via temporary provision, and we provided that it would not be eaten up by inflation by making sure that it was permanent and tied to inflation so that the child tax credit can keep pace with the increasing costs of raising a child over time. Parents who are married and filing jointly can earn up to $400,000 and still be able to claim this credit.

In addition to expanding the child tax credit, Republicans took steps to alleviate what is perhaps one of the most commonly cited concerns that parents face, and that is the increasing cost of childcare.

Some families are spending as much as $15,000 or more per year for each child in full-time childcare--higher than the annual median cost of rent in the United States, with even higher costs for the very young. This marks a more than 50-percent increase over the past decade--far outpacing inflammation.

These skyrocketing costs leave many families with two working parents in a very difficult dilemma: They can either eat this cost or choose to have one or the other parent give up their income entirely in order to provide full-time childcare. This choice can bring with it a great deal of mixed emotions, with the tradeoffs involved being much more complex than simply the dollars and cents on either side of the ledger. And this isn't to mention the situation of single parents, who often have even fewer options on the table.

Once again, there is no single legislative fix to this dilemma, but Republicans have taken important steps toward addressing the struggles that working families face in the Working Families Tax Cut Act by enhancing the paid family and medical leave credit and the employer- provided childcare credit.

The paid family and medical leave credit is a general business credit that is now offered to employers who provide paid family and medical leave to qualifying employees. That makes it a lot easier for these businesses--often small businesses--to offer this childcare support for their employees. Our 2025 legislation strengthened this credit, broadened the eligibility to make it more widely available, and made it permanent.

This provision will reward businesses that offer these valuable benefits to their employees, allowing mothers to recover from childbirth and allowing both mothers and fathers the time they want to bond with their newborns in the first important months of their lives.

We also built on these successes by bolstering the employer-provided child tax credit. This credit rewards businesses that provide childcare to their employees, whether by constructing an onsite daycare center or by assisting employees with subsidies or other options that help them afford childcare.

By incentivizing onsite childcare options, which can make the dropoffs and pickups less logistically challenging, and offsetting the high costs, this tax credit is another step toward a less stressful experience of parenting in America--and if there is anybody who needs a little less stress, it is parents.

But this isn't the end of the pro-family provisions in the Working Families Tax Cut Act. We also bolstered the adoption tax credit by making it partially refundable--up to $5,000--in order to support those who have decided to build their families through the heroic path of adoption. We increased the dependent care assistance exclusion--up to $7,500 from $5,000--and we increased the child and dependent care tax credit, which will help millions of families offset the cost of childcare by nearly $1,000, on average.

There is no doubt that raising a family in today's world is a rewarding but challenging experience, but thanks to the historic inflation that the Biden administration imposed on the American people, this already daunting journey became much harder. While, again, we don't have a silver bullet or a magic wand that can make all of these rising costs go away overnight, I hope that the pro-family reforms that we champion in the Working Families Tax Cut Act can make this journey easier on the millions of parents around the country.

So while none of us are looking forward to filing our income tax returns come April 15, I hope that working parents will see a little bit of well-deserved relief in their pocketbooks as a result of these provisions that Republicans provided in the Working Families Tax Cut Act and which President Trump signed into law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there is an old saying that you can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are. It is also the case you can tell a lot about a person by who their friends are not, and this could easily be said about many within the Democratic Party at this time.

It continues to amaze me the way that the widespread phenomenon of Trump derangement syndrome has led many Democrats to take what is so obviously the wrong side on almost every occasion. This pattern of behavior touches on matters across the policy spectrum, from refusal to participate in patriotic celebrations to deliberately siding with some of the worst human beings on the planet.

This bizarre conduct was on full display a few weeks ago at the President's

State of the Union when many Democrats couldn't even find it within themselves to stand up and celebrate the U.S. Olympic hockey team who had just won a gold medal in an epic victory against our neighborhood to the north.

Very, very strange.

But this refusal to celebrate the victory of the U.S. men's hockey team was not limited to the State of the Union: Somehow the Trump derangement syndrome has sustained an entire internet controversy around this group of young hockey players who should be celebrated by all Americans, regardless of politics.

The fact that Democrats are incapable of checking their politics at the door on literally any topic speaks volumes about their mindset.

Now, it is only common sense--and this has been something that has happened since Ronald Reagan first started recognizing individuals for their accomplishments and their patriotism in the audience at the State of the Union. It is only common sense that President Trump would recognize these Olympic athletes who won the gold medal. It shouldn't have been controversial, but yet thanks to Trump derangement syndrome, it was. But this strange behavior doesn't stop with hockey.

We heard the same message loud and clear in January following Operation Absolute Resolve. President Trump pulled off an impressive feat, along with the incredible demonstration of professionalism and competence by the U.S. military, in apprehending Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in the dead of night, with no American lives lost in the operation.

Somehow, Democrats' response was reflexively to criticize the President for conducting what they called a violation of international law. But it is astounding to me that anyone who cares about law and norms would side with a dictator like Maduro. And the President was, in fact, enforcing U.S. law, making sure that this fugitive from justice was called to respond in Federal court in New York to an indictment that was issued against him for drug smuggling.

Maduro and his close associates conspired with the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua, using their power to facilitate the flow of drugs into the United States and making themselves rich off of the trafficking profits. Maduro also gave America's enemies a foothold in the Western Hemisphere, including providing safe haven to Lebanese Hezbollah, partnering with Iran and Russia to evade U.S. sanctions, and partnering with China to procure military equipment and other tools used to repress the Venezuelan people.

Under his rule, the Government of Venezuela rapidly devolved from a democracy into an authoritarian dictatorship. How is it the very people who claim to care about democracy and protest in the street with signs that say ``No Kings'' are cheering, are siding with a literal dictator in order to demonstrate their opposition to the democratically elected President of the United States just because his name happens to be Donald J. Trump? It makes no sense at all.

But the leftwing outrage goes on. We saw it again last week in response to Operation Epic Fury. President Trump and our brave military servicemembers successfully eliminated another dictator who literally murders his own people in the streets of Tehran, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ali Khamenei. Once again, the Islamic Republic of Iran, under his leadership, was far from a beacon of democracy and human rights, as I said.

The United Nations, which is not a model of courage when it comes to calling out abuses, has repeatedly found that his regime engaged in excessive use of force, systematic torture, enforced disappearances, and pervasive persecution of women and young girls.

Even the liberal bastion known as the Human Rights Watch has criticized his regime for persecution of religious minorities. While others have decried the widespread and systematic killings, imprisonment, and torture of civilian protesters, all this adds up to their status, the regime's status as the world's largest state sponsor of terror, funding the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Shia militias. We know the Houthis have attacked U.S. owned and operated ships passing through the Red Sea.

And Hezbollah, which has been estimated to receive 70 to 80 percent of the funds from Iran's patronage accounts, has repeatedly set up criminal operations in the United States and the Western Hemisphere.

And most significantly, Iran has long pursued nuclear weapons, maintaining a stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity, just a step away from the 90 percent weapons-grade uranium.

After President Trump dealt a severe setback to Iran's nuclear sites through Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran quickly began to rebuild these sites, including ballistic missile facilities. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, it would massively destabilize the Middle East and cause substantial harm to U.S. security and threaten the very existence of our ally Israel.

President Trump has always been right in his long, repeated insistence that Iran must never--never--get a nuclear weapon. This world would be a safer and less violent place if the Islamic Republic of Iran fell tomorrow. And yet our friends across the aisle seem to want to side with the Iranian regime strangely.

The Democrat Party's favorite darling, mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, condemned President Trump's ``escalation'' of this ``illegal war of aggression.'' These are the same people that have American blood on their hands from the IEDs and roadside bombs that were used against our troops in the Middle East.

At the same time, many of Mayor Mamdani's own residents, with firsthand experience of the Iranian regime, lambasted him on social media for his defense of the Supreme Leader. It takes a delusional person to sympathize with these terrible dictators who are finally receiving the justice they deserve under President Trump.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the madness that leftwing agitators will embrace in order to register their opposition to the President. As my colleagues here all know, we are currently in a partial government shutdown, with no path forward to passing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.

Supposedly, this was to register their objection to immigration law enforcement by ICE, but this bill funds the Coast Guard. It funds the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Agency that operates at all of our airports.

We are one natural disaster away from a very severe emergency while FEMA is out of money, and while none of us enjoy waiting on the line at airports for security, defunding the workers who perform this essential service to keep us safe while we travel is nothing short of absurd.

Now, this comes on the heels of a record-long full government shutdown by our Democratic colleagues when so many of our essential workers were forced to work without pay. If Republicans pulled stunts like that to register their opposition to President Biden, you can only imagine what the media would do and say.

It speaks volumes about where our Democratic colleagues' true loyalties lie when we observe whom they are willing to cheer for and who was met with callous indifference.

This is not just my imagination, but Democrats are more willing to rally behind Nicolas Maduro and the Supreme Leader of Iran than to stand alongside of Republicans and show their appreciation for the U.S. men's hockey team.

And they would rather sustain a government shutdown than make sure that the men and women who keep our airports and skies safe have the resources that they need. I can't understand it.

President Trump, at the State of the Union, said these Democrats, at least the ones who were in the Chamber at the State of the Union, were crazy. Certainly, they are misguided, and they need to come to their senses.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the DeLeeuw nomination.

Mr. President, as the whole world knows, yesterday evening President Trump gave his State of the Union Address. It is one of our country's finest traditions that the President personally gives an update to the American people on what he has done over the last year, before a joint session of Congress, and what he intends to do in the future. It was an exciting night, with Members of the House, Senate, and the Supreme Court gathered, along with our military leadership, to hear about the impressive year that we have had under President Trump here in the Congress and, of course, at the White House.

And as we just heard from our friends from Wyoming, we had an appearance from the U.S.A.'s men's hockey team, who recently won the gold medal at the Olympics. And the President recognized, appropriately so, so many of our Nation's heroes in a tremendous display of patriotism that, I know, I welcomed.

Unfortunately, many of our Democratic colleagues disgracefully chose to boycott the President's Address. But their collective temper tantrum couldn't stop the rest of us from enjoying the President's speech.

I was honored to have as my guest the president of the National Border Patrol Council, Paul Perez, who has worked for 29 years in the U.S. Border Patrol and who has done a magnificent job leading that organization of incredible patriots, when Democrats have demonized law enforcement across the country, starting with defunding the police, abolishing ICE, and, of course, then the disrespectful way that President Biden's administration treated all of our professional law enforcement officers whose job it was to secure the border.

As we heard last night, President Trump has many achievements that we can all be very proud of, from securing the border from the massive surge of illegal immigration our country experienced during the Biden administration to reestablishing America's credibility on the world stage. But one of the accomplishments that I would like to highlight today is the improvement in our Nation's fiscal situation through the Working Families Tax Cut Act and the work of Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought.

Now, this may be the first speech on the Senate floor in a long time that has praised Russ Vought, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, but I think praise is due, as you will hear in a moment.

Through the Working Families Tax Cut Act, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, we were able to extend and make permanent many parts of President Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Unfortunately, no Democrat voted to protect the American people from a massive tax increase. It took exclusively Republican votes to do that. We prevented more than a $4 million tax increase on the American people and saved my constituents in Texas an average of $3,000.

Now, people want to talk about affordability. Allowing a $3,000 tax increase to go into effect by effectively voting against this bill certainly does nothing to make affordability better. It makes it worse. But Republicans stepped forward where Democrats would not, in order to answer the call and respond to the needs of our constituents.

We helped working families by increasing the child tax credit to $2,200, and indexing it to inflation, so people who have children and who have the additional expense associated with that will have some relief, have some money, to basically pay for their necessities of life.

And we strengthened the paid family and medical leave and employer- provided childcare credit. One of the things I hear the most from working moms is the difficulty of finding affordable childcare. We responded, by the paid family and medical leave and employer-provided childcare credits, by incentivizing employers to provide childcare to their employees, allowing working moms the peace of mind and the convenience of having childcare for their children.

And we delivered historic relief to hourly wage workers, as well, like folks who work in restaurants. I think most of us--I know I did when I first started out. I waited on tables at a Steak and Ale restaurant in San Antonio, TX. And I know from talking to a lot of young people who are just starting out, as I did at that point in my life, that they are welcoming the fact that now they don't have to pay taxes on income from tips up to $25,000.

But it doesn't just affect people who wait on tables in restaurants. Hair stylists and anyone who receives tips as part of their compensation will benefit.

And then there is no tax on overtime. You know, many of our law enforcement personnel work more than 40 hours a week because, frankly, they don't get paid sufficiently by just working a 40-hour week. So many of them work overtime, and they are not alone. But by saying no tax on overtime, we not only provide American businesses the workforce that they need, but we also reward people who are willing to continue to work hard and provide for their families, to make sure they can keep more of their hard-earned money.

No tax on tips, no tax on overtime.

Of course, in addition to these, there are many other savings for the American people. President Trump made significant strides in getting our fiscal house in order by starting to rein in runaway government spending. Our national debt currently sits at about $38 trillion, and I know that number boggles the mind. None of us can really adequately conceive of how much that is. But here is one indication: We spend more money on interest on the national debt than we do on defense, which is unsustainable in a dangerous world.

Thankfully, President Trump has made a commitment to request $1.5 trillion for defense spending next year. But the truth is, unless we begin to deal with our runaway debt, that money is just going to be borrowed, and we need to do better. We need to do significantly better.

But the good news is we made a down payment in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, saving $400 billion over 10 years.

You may think: Well, $38 trillion, $400 billion--that is just a drop in the ocean. But it is a start. We need to do more, and I trust that we will. We have to.

As many people know, our national debt is actually not a revenue problem. It is not how much--it is not that we don't collect enough taxes, as our friends on the Democratic side seem to think. They don't think there is any tax that shouldn't be raised. It is a spending problem.

I just came from a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where a new anti-fraud prosecutor has been nominated by President Trump. He testified that what we saw happen in the Somali daycare scandal is just the tip of the iceberg--make believe, nongovernmental organizations providing nonexistent daycare services and bilking the American taxpayer of billions of dollars.

The Government Accountability Office has documented that there is between $2 billion and $500 billion of improper payments. That is money that should not be paid to the recipients of those funds.

And part of it is structural, it seems to me, because when the Federal Government appropriates money, much of that money is then contracted out to service providers or grantees or the like.

But one of the things we have to do is to make sure that there is accountability for those funds and that they are being spent for their intended purpose, not that they are being syphoned off by fraudsters and people that are taking advantage of the generosity of the American people.

But it is not just about the fraudsters and the generosity of the American people. It is about that this is money that could be used to address our debt and to make sure we can allocate the money that we do spend for proper purposes, like maintaining our national security.

Well, unfortunately, when it comes to spending, you know, the saying goes: Somebody is spending like a drunken sailor--which shows a lot of disrespect to sailors. And, unfortunately, it is much, much worse than that. It is like the mindset of an alcoholic giving into the addiction, accepting the notion that our current situation is hopeless. So we might as well enjoy ourselves in the meantime. Well, that is a recipe for disaster.

Time and time again, we hear such tropes as this: Well, the real problem is mandatory spending. So why should we even try to cut discretionary spending?

Well, we need to look at all of it. We shouldn't shy away from any and all conversations when it comes to addressing our spending problem.

But the truth is, just like someone with an addiction to alcohol or gambling who wants to reform, you have got to start somewhere. And, last year, we made important reforms in our mandatory spending programs to make sure that, for example, illegal aliens don't receive free healthcare, and we strengthened work requirements for able-bodied adults who are receiving government benefits. It is not too much to ask that an able-bodied adult get off the couch, quit watching soap operas or playing video games, and contribute to their own support and the support of their family and their community and Nation. It is not too much to ask.

But I would argue that we need more than just trimming around the edges. We need a full change of mindset when it comes to our spending problem. That is where Russ Vought comes in.

Russ Vought is President Trump's Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and he has helped create a paradigm shift that Washington has long needed in order to get our spending under control. Instead of throwing up his hands, as many in Washington have done before him, Mr. Vought and his team have put their noses to the grindstone to cut spending anywhere and everywhere possible.

Under his leadership, the Office of Management and Budget are on track to reduce the deficit by more than $15 trillion over the next 10 years. That is real money. That is real money.

Let's take a look at some of the places where these savings are coming from. For starters, mandatory spending reforms in Medicaid, student loan forgiveness, and food stamps will add up to $2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. Revenue from President Trump's tariffs add up to another $200 billion, which the Office of Management and Budget projects will raise $4 trillion in debt over time.

In addition, deregulation--taking the handcuffs off of huge American jobs' engines--and tax reforms are expected to spur economic growth, which the Office of Management and Budget projects would account for an additional $5.6 trillion in savings. OMB's projections include nearly $2 trillion in savings from lower debt servicing payment. So not only is the debt the problem, but the interest you have to pay

on that debt just racks up more debt. But when you begin to cut, that debt service or those interest payments go down, which help address the issue.

This is where it gets pretty interesting. With such a high national debt, our debt servicing costs or the interest payments on the debt have eclipsed spending on national defense, as I said a moment ago. This is a very troubling sign when we spend more money on interest on the national debt than we do on defense. The good news is that in the same way that paying off a credit card can reduce your monthly interest payments through these spending reforms championed by Mr. Vought and the administration, they will decrease our interest expenses on our debt. And over 10 years, that can really add up.

I was recently with Secretary Bessent, the Secretary of the Treasury, and he shared that the government is projected to save between $26 and $30 billion due to a reduction in the Federal workforce.

Mr. Vought's determination has encouraged those of us here in Congress who are inclined toward fiscal responsibility to return to the regular-order appropriations process and pump the brakes on continuing resolutions and omnibus spending packages, which have been the norm for a long time. Fortunately, we refrained from passing an omnibus spending package this Congress. But we have also made progress through regular- order appropriations on lowering year-over-year spending. Fiscal year 2026 nondefense discretionary spending totalled $18 billion less than 2025, and overall spending levels were about a billion dollars less. Of course, while a billion dollars may sound like pocket change compared to our national debt, again, it is heading in the right direction.

Considering the totality of what President Trump and his Office of Management and Budget have done, it is incredible to see that he has put the United States on track to erase, not just billions, but trillions in projected spending over the next 10 years. For too long, Washington has limited our imagination to think that our fiscal situation is hopeless. We have no choice.

President Trump and the excellent team he has put in place has changed all of that. All of us should be thankful for the excellent work that the President and OMB Director Vought and his team have done to meaningfully shift our fiscal situation in the right direction, save taxpayer money, and protect our Nation.

Of course, this work on taxes and spending represents just one small piece of the President's impressive record, as we were reminded last night. President Trump is helping to make America great again and his State of the Union was a powerful reflection on how far we have come this last year and what the future might look like--the bright future might look like--ahead of it.

I yield the floor.