Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 674.

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

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

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

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 notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all Members of the Republican conference be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from March 27 through April 13.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 664, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 647, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions which are at the desk: S. Res. 665, S. Res. 666.

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

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, March 30 at 10:30 a.m.; Thursday, April 2 at 7 a.m.; 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, following the remarks of the Democrat leader and myself.

Mr. President, President Trump recently announced that he has found a way to provide relief for tens of thousands of TSA officers currently working without pay. And thanks to his actions, the money to pay them will start flowing immediately.

I am grateful--and I suspect that every American traveler will be grateful--that the President has found a way to address the terrible situation at U.S. airports and finally give TSA officers the pay that they are owed.

But President Trump should never have had to step in to rescue TSA workers and U.S. air travelers. We are here because, thanks to Democrats' determined refusal to reach an agreement, there will be no Homeland Security funding bill this year.

Instead, just a few minutes ago, Republicans funded the Department of Homeland Security piecemeal. This is not the way to fund the Department, but we are out of time for the critical responsibilities and tens of thousands of workers currently going without pay.

And since Democrats have made fiscal year 2026 the year they choose to repudiate one of their most basic responsibilities as Members of Congress--to fund the government--this is what we now have been reduced to. Mr. President, 84 days--84 days--nearly half of this fiscal year so far the government has been shut down in whole or in part by Senate Democrats.

And for what? For what? In October, Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government for a recordbreaking 43 days because they couldn't bring themselves to accept a clean, nonpartisan funding extension.

The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down now for an additional 41 days--since mid-February--because Democrats couldn't take yes for an answer.

They wanted reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Republicans offered to give that to them. The White House made offer after offer, putting forward a robust list of additional reforms; and Democrats just kept moving the goalpost.

And today, they just walked away; and so here we are. Democrats are rejecting funding for deporting criminal illegal aliens--criminals guilty of assault, murders, sexual predators. They are rejecting funding for border security, drug interdiction.

They are denying us the ability to fund the DHS arm that investigates transnational criminal organizations, narcotics smuggling, and human traffickers.

I thought Democrats had learned their lessons on defunding law enforcement, but I guess we are right back there. Did they think that defunding law enforcement will be a winning issue for them in November? If I were Democrats, I might think twice before I assumed that.

We could be standing here right now passing a funding bill with a list of reforms if Democrats had made the smallest effort to actually reach an agreement, but they didn't because it is now clear to everyone Democrats didn't actually want a solution. They wanted an issue: politics over policy, self-interest over reform, pandering to their base over actually solving a problem. It is an appalling commentary on the state of the Democratic Party.

Democrats got their issue, I guess. And in the process, they are irreparably damaging the appropriations process and this institution. I hope they are satisfied.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are on day 40 of Democrats' shutdown of Department of Homeland Security--day 40. And that is on top of Democrats' recordbreaking 43-day full-government shutdown in the fall.

Altogether, thanks to Senate Democrats, a lot of DHS employees have been working without pay for more than 80 days so far this fiscal year.

That is shameful. It is no wonder TSA agents are quitting in droves-- anyone would be if they had been working without pay for almost 50 percent of the fiscal year so far.

My Democrat colleagues, of course, are working with pay, having rejected a Republican proposal to stop Senators' pay while DHS continues to be shut down. I am hoping that Democrats can at least envision what it is like for stressed-out Homeland Security workers wondering if they will be able to

pay their rent, and I hope they will recognize the situation can't continue.

Homeland Security workers are hurting; travelers are beyond fed up with the disastrous situation at U.S. airports; and we cannot continue to keep this critical Department unfunded. Democrats have a proposal before them with legislative text--the latest serious offer from Republicans to get this Department back up and running.

Democrats have repeatedly said that they want to pay TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, and employees who defend America from cyber attacks. This bill would do it. I hope Democrats will work with us to finalize an agreement and reopen the Department of Homeland Security this week.

SAVE America ACT

Mr. President, since we began debate on the SAVE America Act, my Democrat colleagues have spent a lot of time hedging. And that has been particularly evident on the issue of voter ID--something that Democrats have spent years decrying as a tool of voter suppression but are now suggesting they somehow support.

Democrats can read the polls as well as any of us, and I suspect that Democrats are not eager to be seen as on the 20-percent side of an 80- 20 issue, so they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

So the Democrat leader is out there claiming Democrat support for voter ID--as long, of course, as he doesn't have to vote for any ID proposal that we actually put forward.

On Thursday, the junior Republican Senator from Ohio offered an eminently reasonable voter ID proposal. All that it would have done is require a photo ID for voters when they go to the polls--a driver's license, military ID, Tribal ID, passport--the types of IDs that are sitting in wallets right now that the American people use on a regular basis.

Democrats said: No, we don't like that. And so they blocked it.

And more than blocked it. The junior Senator from Oregon offered an alternative bill that would have actually banned voter ID for absentee ballots.

And then yesterday--yesterday--Democrats said the quiet part out loud. The Democrat leader came down to the floor and made it clear when Democrats say they support voter ID, they mean that they support voter ID just as long as the ID requirements in question are meaningless.

That is right. The Democrat leader brought up a bill Democrats introduced a few years that included a voter ID requirement--well, sort of.

Let me read a few of the IDs that the Democrats' bill would have accepted: A debit card, a lease or mortgage document, a utility bill, any document containing the individual's name--name, not photo--issued by a government, or a photocopy of any one of the above.

Now, sure, Mr. President, some of these things are accepted or requested as adjunct documents when you are trying to get something like a driver's license or a library card--along with, you know, things like photo ID or a birth certificate. But just showing a utility bill to prove your identity? Give me a break.

If someone asked you for an ID in any other circumstance, are you going to pull out your electric bill? Can you get into a bar by showing your lease? Can you prove eligibility to work at your new job by pulling out the water bill? No, you cannot. Now, I would like to see someone try to get on a plane by presenting a photocopy of their debit card.

When Republicans say voter ID, we mean an actual ID with a picture issued by a government. The kind of ID that is required for a whole bunch of things in our daily lives--starting a new job, driving a car, doing an early pickup at school, opening a bank account, getting a library card.

The Democrat leader suggested that photo IDs are somehow out of reach for voters--that they need ``inclusive'' voter ID options. How does the Democratic leader think Americans are navigating all of the scenarios I just mentioned? Well, I will tell him: With their photo IDs. And yet, it is somehow an intolerable burden to ask Americans to bring those IDs with them to the polls.

Give me a break. Requiring a photo ID isn't onerous. It is common sense, and the American people agree. Poll after poll shows that Americans of both parties strongly support requiring a photo ID at the polls. And just to reassure my Democrat friends, a 2019 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found:

[S]trict ID laws have no significant negative effect on

registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined

by age, gender, race, or party affiliation.

Democrats are going to have another chance tomorrow to support election integrity by implementing a commonsense photo ID requirement. Will they stand with Americans, or will they continue to oppose any meaningful ID requirement at the polls?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.