Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 672, John Shepherd; further, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Shepherd nomination and following disposition of the nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 674, Christopher Wolfe, and if cloture is invoked on the Wolfe nomination, the Senate recess following the cloture vote until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Wolfe nomination at 2:15 p.m.; and, finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the morning hour be deemed expired.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of proceedings be approved to date.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany H.R. 7147.

The Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the

Senate to the bill (H.R. 7147) entitled ''An Act making

further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.'', with an

amendment.

Motion to Table

Mr. President, I move to table the House message.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times: Monday, April 6, at 1 p.m.; Thursday, April 9, at 12 noon; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 9, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, April 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 672, John Shepherd; finally, that the cloture motions filed on Friday, March 27, ripen at 5:30 p.m.

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

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, enough is enough. Republicans have bent over backward to negotiate with Democrats, and now Democrats need to get serious about funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Now, let's just review things for a minute here.

In January, Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate reached an agreement on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, including a number of reforms: deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, increased funding for body cameras, and increased oversight of border security and immigration enforcement funding.

Then Democrats reneged on that agreement.

Republicans said: OK, we will reopen negotiations.

The White House offered up a robust list of additional reforms. The Democrats said no.

And then, over the weekend, Democrats suggested that they would agree to fund the entire Department with the exception of immigration enforcement operations, and we offered them a bill to do exactly that. And Democrats still refused.

It seems that Democrats have no interest in reaching an agreement. Many of them are perfectly willing to leave the Department of Homeland Security unfunded for the long term.

They claim that they want to fund the Department. They claim that they are concerned about TSA officers and others working without pay. But talk is cheap, and their actions belie their words.

If Democrats cared about TSA officers, if they cared about Coast Guard employees, if they cared about the vital work of the Department of Homeland Security, then they would be getting serious about closing a deal, not ceaselessly offering up the same unchanging list of demands, like a broken record or a particularly nightmarish version of ``Groundhog Day.''

Last fall, Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government for a recordbreaking 43 days. Their Department of Homeland Security shutdown is now on its 41st day, which means that, thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have spent almost half--almost half--of the fiscal year working without pay.

Let that sink in for a minute. Thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have spent almost half of this fiscal year working without pay.

It is no wonder they are quitting in droves or that, as an NBC article yesterday reported, they have been reduced to things like selling blood and plasma--yes, blood and plasma; that is from an NBC article--just to get by.

And all of this--all of this--is because Democrats have been unwilling to consider anything other than what they think will serve them politically.

Republicans are at the table. We have been at the table. Now it is long past time for Democrats to get serious. How much worse do things have to get? How many more Americans have to suffer before Democrats do their job and work with Republicans to fund the government?

SAVE America Act

Just where do Democrats stand on voter ID? It is pretty darn hard to tell. I mean, we spent years hearing from Democrats how voter ID is a tool of voter suppression. As recently as mid-February, the Democrat leader was decrying voter ID, and then suddenly Democrats started hedging their bets.

Wait. Of course, Democrats support voter ID, Democrat after Democrat has been claiming--and photo ID specifically. The Democrat leader said last week:

Our objection as Democrats is not to a photo ID.

Except, is that true? Is that really true? Because on Tuesday the Democrat leader came down to the floor and made it very clear that he, at least, does object to photo ID. We need, in his words, ``inclusive'' voter ID options, like leases or utility bills or debit cards or photocopies thereof. He is apparently OK with a demand for photo ID in a million other situations--from boarding a plane to signing your kid up for school to opening a bank account--but heaven forbid that we ask Americans to produce the same ID they produce all over town when they go to the polls. It is not inclusive.

Other Democrats have acted similarly, paying lip service to voter ID and photo ID, in particular, but backpedaling the minute actually supporting voter ID legislation comes into question.

The senior Democrat from New Jersey was on CNN Tuesday and said that he would support a voter ID bill, until he was pressed on that commitment, and then he suddenly started avoiding the question. The junior Democrat Senator from Georgia boldly claimed:

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

you are before you vote. I support voter ID.

Then he went on to knock the voter ID requirements under discussion.

And just to give the Presiding Officer an example of some of the--I mean, this actually is quite revealing. Here are quotes from one, two, three, four, five Democrats. This one:

Who could be against that, requiring an ID to vote?

That from a couple of days ago. Here is the Senator from Arizona:

If people want to adopt the Arizona way, which is strict

voter ID, I think that would be fine.

That was about a week ago.

The Senator from Rhode Island:

I represent a State that has a sensible voter ID law and

that regularly reviews its voter rolls. This approach has

been extremely effective.

That, again, just a few days ago.

And as I said, the Democrat leader--and this is 10 days ago:

Democrats support voter ID.

The Senator from Michigan:

[H]opefully all Americans are in agreement about [voter

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 672.