Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 679, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m. on Friday, April 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand in recess under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I don't know a lot of people who look forward to April 15. No. I suspect tax day doesn't rank high on Americans' favorite days of the year, but I would wager that a lot more Americans were pleasantly surprised this year when they went to file their taxes because thanks to Republicans' Working Families Tax Cut bill, a lot more Americans kept a lot more of their hard-earned money this year.

That is right. Hard-working Americans saw lower tax bills. Tax refunds increased by more than 10 percent compared to last year, and the average refund is more than $3,400 this year thanks to Republicans' tax cuts.

As the American people have now seen firsthand, the Working Families Tax Cuts provided significant tax relief. First of all, it locked in the lower rates permanently. In 2017, Republicans lowered rates--tax rates--across the board, and as of last year, these new lower rates are now permanent which means that hard-working Americans won't have to worry about a higher tax bill in the years to come.

We also nearly doubled the standard deduction in 2017. The Working Families Tax Cuts raised it even further and made that permanent too.

And then there is the child tax credit which Republicans doubled in 2017. The

Working Families Tax Cuts raised it again to $2,200. And Republicans didn't just raise the child tax credit, we linked it to inflation so it doesn't lose its value over time. That, too, is a permanent feature of the Tax Code thanks to Republicans' landmark bill.

The Working Families Tax Cuts also introduced a number of new tax relief provisions into the Tax Code. This tax season, more than 30 million seniors claimed a new $6,000 bonus deduction for older Americans.

Over a million people bought a new American-made car and were able to deduct an average $1,800 in auto loan interest on that new vehicle. More than 25 million American workers were able to deduct overtime pay from their taxes and realize thousands of dollars in tax savings. And over 6 million workers deducted income from tips this tax year.

With all that, a lot more Americans were looking at a bigger refund when they finished their tax returns, and they are thinking about the best use of that additional money in their pocket: Saving for their first home, investing in their kids' education, taking a family vacation, using their money how they see fit rather than sending it to Uncle Sam.

As its name implies, the Working Families Tax Cuts focuses on working families. But this bill also did a lot to support America's small businesses as well as family farms and ranches.

Thanks to Republicans' landmark bill, 12 million small businesses saw an average tax reduction of $7,000. This bill made the 199A small business deduction permanent, which has been a significant boost for small businesses and for family farms and ranches.

One agriculture co-op in my State of South Dakota estimates its impact at over $100 million since it was created by Republicans in 2017.

Millions of small businesses, farms, and ranches were able to use this provision and reduce their tax bill this year freeing up money to invest in their operations and employees, create jobs, and increase innovation.

That is not all. The working families tax cuts made 100-percent bonus depreciation permanent too, which allows businesses and farmers and ranchers to deduct the full cost of a new piece of equipment the year they start using it.

Permanent research and development expensing is already paying dividends for businesses in my State.

A lot of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that this bill raised the death tax threshold and spared them--spared them--from a potentially devastating tax bill, not to mention from the costly estate planning expenses that come with it.

Since Republicans passed this landmark bill last summer, we have heard Democrats' typical refrain that this bill was just tax cuts for billionaires. That is laughable. It really is.

The largest proportional benefits from this bill went to Americans earning less than $50,000 a year. The increased standard deduction from this bill is something that was claimed by more than a 100 million Americans this year to reduce and simplify their taxes. More than 34 million American families claimed the child tax credit this year, which the working families tax cuts permanently increased and linked to the cost-of-living.

And nearly half of filers--half of filers--claimed one of the new tax cuts--no tax on tips and overtime, auto loan interest, or the senior deduction.

Millions of middle-income Americans saw a lower tax bill this year, and that is no fluke. The working families tax cuts puts these hard- working Americans first. It lets them keep more of their hard-earned money to spend, invest, and save how they see fit. It helps hard- working people get one step closer to the American dream.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has received H.J. Res. 140 from the House.

I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 140.

Mr. President, I move to table the point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion to Table

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, we spent the weeks before Easter debating the SAVE America Act here in the Senate. And since the debate began, we have seen Democrats contort themselves every which way to justify opposing the commonsense policies in this bill.

On no issue is that more evident than voter ID. Polls show that 80 percent of Americans support voter ID. Majorities of Americans in both parties support this commonsense requirement, but among Democrats here in the Senate, it is a different story.

Sure, Democrats have spent the last few weeks claiming that they support voter ID, but when it came time to vote on a reasonable, stand- alone voter ID proposal, every Democrat opposed it.

That is right. Senate Democrats have been trying to rebrand themselves as supporters of voter ID, but when Republicans offered a straightforward voter ID proposal, every single Democrat in the Senate voted against it.

I want to be clear about what Republicans put forward and what Democrats opposed. Senator Husted--someone who knows quite a bit about administering elections as the former two-term chief election official in the State of Ohio--offered a very simple voter ID amendment. The only--only--thing it did requires a photo ID at the polls: A driver's license, Tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, passport, the types of IDs that are sitting in wallets right now and that the American people use on a regular basis. That is it.

Supporting this amendment would not have obliged Democrats to support the underlying SAVE America Act. Democrats would have been free to vote for voter ID and then vote against the other commonsense policies in the SAVE America Act.

But Democrats couldn't bring themselves to vote even for standalone voter ID legislation. And it turns out that when Democrats say they support voter ID, they don't mean actual IDs.

When Republicans--and Americans, I would argue--talk about ID, we all mean the same thing: something with a picture, an expiration date, something issued by a government.

And to hear Democrats talk in the lead-up to the voter ID vote, you would have thought that is exactly what they were talking about too.

The senior Senator from New Jersey went on CNN and said:

[W]e all want people who go to vote, to show a valid ID.

The Democrat whip said:

I'm not opposed to that. They ask you for an ID at the

airport, don't they? That's reasonable.

Yes, it is reasonable.

The junior Democrat from New York said this:

The IDs that we have in our wallets should be good enough

to vote.

Well, that is exactly what we offered: licenses, State ID cards, Tribal IDs were all acceptable forms of ID in our proposal, the same kinds of IDs that we have in our wallets right now.

Multiple Democrat Senators even acknowledged that their own States have voter ID requirements and that they work.

The junior Senator from Georgia came to the floor and said this:

I think you should have to prove that you are who you say

you are before you vote. I support voter ID. We have voter ID

laws in my State. You should have to prove that you are who

you say you are before you vote.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And the Democrat leader said:

[O]ur objection, as Democrats, is not to a photo ID.

Except as Democrats' recent vote demonstrates, that is not actually true. Before the vote, the Democrat leader spoke on the floor and made it clear that when he says he supports voter ID, he means that he supports voter ID as long as the ID requirements in question are essentially meaningless. And he is not the only one.

To quote a recent news story, the junior Senator from Colorado said he ``supports voter ID but signaled he will vote no when informed that the bill does not allow voters to use a utility bill to prove identity.''

He voted no because you can't show a utility bill as a form of ID. You can't make this stuff up.

The Senator from Colorado used to own a brewery in Denver, and I have to wonder whether you could show a utility bill to buy a beer there. I doubt it.

But this is what Democrats think is good enough for our elections. The Democrat leader has said that voter ID requirements need to be ``inclusive'' and ``flexible,'' and he referenced a bill Democrats put forward a few years ago that included the sort of ID requirements that he says Democrats support.

Well, let me read a few of the so-called IDs that that bill would have found acceptable for voters: a debit card, a utility bill, an expired fishing license, any document containing an individual's name-- just their name--from any government, and of course, a photocopy of any of those would have been fine too.

If this ID list were any more inclusive, my Jones County High School basketball jersey would have counted.

In any other circumstance, requiring an ID means requiring an actual--actual--ID. You can't board a plane by showing a photocopy of your debit card. You can't do an early pickup at your daughter's school by showing a copy of your electric bill.

Republicans believe that we should apply the same standard to voting. The American people are presenting their photo IDs on a regular basis and having a pretty easy go of it. We don't think it is too much to ask for the same when they go to vote.

Ask anyone on the street for their ID, chances are they are going to pull out their driver's license, not their water bill. The American people know what an ID is. I guess we are still waiting for Democrats here in the Senate to figure it out.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 671.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I have two 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are now more than 6 months--halfway through--the 2026 fiscal year, and somehow, thanks to my Democrat colleagues, there are still parts of the Federal Government that aren't funded for 2026.

Mr. President, 43 days--43 days--Democrats shut down the government last fall--the longest government shutdown ever--all because they couldn't bring themselves to accept a clean, nonpartisan funding bill. Now they have refused to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security for well over 50 days--all because they couldn't take ``yes'' for an answer.

Republicans and Democrats had reached an agreement in January to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year, but Democrats reneged on that agreement, demanding reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement--over and above the reforms, I might add, that had already been agreed to in the funding bill. Republicans offered to give them additional reforms. In addition to implementing reforms on its own, the White House repeatedly offered Democrats a robust package of additional reforms.

But nothing was ever enough for the Democrats. They just kept moving the goalposts, and eventually--eventually--they just walked away. It turns out their objective wasn't actually reform; it was a political issue. They didn't want a solution; they wanted a talking point-- although I think they have overestimated how well ``defund law enforcement'' is going to play in November, because, let's be very clear, that is what this is. If this were about making reforms to some of the ways law enforcement does business, then Democrats would have accepted reforms, but they didn't. Instead, shortly before Easter, Democrats voted to defund--defund--law enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. They voted to defund deportation of criminal illegal aliens--individuals guilty of things like murder, assault, and sexual crimes against minors. They voted to defund drug interdiction. They voted to defund the DHS arm that investigates transnational criminal organizations, narcotics smuggling, and human traffickers. They voted to defund our border security. That is right--Democrats voted to defund U.S. Border Patrol. Apparently, the Biden administration, with its 4 years of recordbreaking illegal immigration, was not an anomaly; Democrats really don't believe in defending our borders.

I have to say it is mind-boggling. Leaving aside the national security implications of Democrats' position, Democrats do realize that it was partly the Biden border crisis that helped sink their party in the last election, don't they? I would think so. Do they really think that defunding border enforcement--border enforcement--is going to give them a victory in November?

Since Democrats have chosen to abdicate their responsibility to fund key parts of the Department of Homeland Security, Republicans are stepping in. Thanks to our foresight in the Working Families Tax Cut, immigration enforcement and border security are funded through the end of this fiscal year. But it is clear we can't rely on Democrats to fund law enforcement when it comes time to pass fiscal year 2027 funding in September, and so Republicans are going to take up a reconciliation bill to fund border security and immigration enforcement for the next 3 years.

Senator Graham and the Senate Budget Committee are already working on a budget resolution to set up consideration of this bill. And I want to see the Senate take up this resolution and the subsequent bill--the reconciliation bill--to follow without delay.

We need to keep this process tight and focused so that we can get this done. Otherwise, we are going to end up in the unacceptable situation where parts of the Department of Homeland Security are going unfunded, not just now, but for the long term.

I know the Republicans in both Houses of Congress are in complete agreement on the need to ensure that law enforcement is fully funded. And I am more than confident that if we work together, we can have legislation to the President in the near future.

As for my Democrat colleagues, well, I guess we will see how well open borders and defunding law enforcement play for them in November.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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