Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote from March 12 on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a couple of observations and remarks before this vote.

Mr. President, let me just say that this obviously is a vote which we have had multiple times now. It is on the House-passed legislation that would fund the Department of Homeland Security in accordance with the agreement that was reached between Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, some time ago.

But I would say, to reflect on it, there have been a lot of conversations over the past couple of days with respect to how do we get the Department opened up and funded again, and this vote will reflect the amendment that was proposed by Senator Collins and others that would fund all of DHS, except the Office of ERO.

So this is the one office that would be--that the Democrats have indicated, particularly over the weekend, this is what they had desired to see happen, and so this vote will reflect that particular provision that was put forward by Senator Collins. It is in response to what Democrats have insisted on and said that they wanted all along, which was to fund everything but the Office of ERO, the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

So this vote should reflect that, and I hope Members who are interested in getting all of these Agencies within the Department opened up would cast a ``yes'' vote when the opportunity comes.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 661, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 that the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 648 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the Klobuchar amendment to the preamble be considered and agreed to; that the preamble,

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Thursday, March 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume the House message with respect to S. 1383; finally, that the cloture motions filed during Tuesday's session ripen at 1:30 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 Senators Cassidy, Welch, Whitehouse, Padilla, and Lee.

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, if one thing is abundantly clear from polling,

it is that there are a lot of Americans out there of both parties who find voter ID requirements and proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration to be pretty commonsense policies.

One poll, in fact, showed that a whole lot of voters already believe proof of citizenship is required to register--I assume because it seems pretty darned common sense to most people to ensure that those registered to vote are eligible.

I mean, Americans are pretty used to proving eligibility--joining the military, signing up for Little League, applying for SNAP benefits, signing up for Medicare, starting a new job, all situations in which Americans have to prove that they are eligible.

And you know what? Americans are doing a pretty good job in those situations. I haven't heard a lot of sob stories about how someone would have signed up their kids for Little League if only the paperwork wasn't so darned complicated. And yet, do you know what Little League requires? A birth certificate, and not one, not two, but three proofs of residence. And yet somehow every year thousands of kids sign up for these teams.

Do you know what else you need a birth certificate for? Signing your kid up for public school. That is right. A birth certificate is an extremely common requirement, and somehow parents of all sorts of backgrounds and income levels have managed to produce their child's birth certificate to sign them up for school. If only Democrats knew that.

The senior Democrat Senator from Vermont was on the floor the other day bewailing the SAVE America Act's birth certificate requirement for voter registration. This is what he said ``[A]s many as 69 million married women have last names that do not match their birth certificates and would need to provide additional documentation proving their name changes in order to register to vote,'' he lamented. ``Further, an estimated 4 million Americans have had their birth certificates or other necessary documents stolen or destroyed. If you are watching this out there, just think: Do you have a birth certificate? How are you going to get a birth certificate? . . . You will have to go through all of the bureaucracy to get your birth certificate.''

Well, first, can I just say how nice it is to hear a Democrat Senator worried about government bureaucracy. The very same Senator who has repeatedly introduced legislation to drown your healthcare in government bureaucracy is now worried about the bureaucracy at vital records offices. It is nice.

But setting that aside, let's talk about the rest of his statement. Let's say you are one of those Americans that the Senator claims have had their birth certificates stolen or destroyed. Well, let's see. What would you do?

Probably the same thing you would do if you misplaced your child's birth certificate and had to register him or her for school or Little League: A quick Google search to find the replacement process in your State--frequently an in-person visit, an online application, or a mail- in application. It is your choice. You can do any of the above.

And as for married women, well, let's talk about married women. Throughout this debate, Democrats have pushed the ludicrous narrative that married women will be disenfranchised under the SAVE America Act. Well, give me a break. Let's go over the scenarios if you are a married woman.

One, if you decided not to change your name, then you don't have to do anything about your voter registration.

Two, if you have changed your name socially but not legally, then, once again, you don't have to do anything.

And, three, if you have changed your name legally and apply for a new driver's license, you can update your voter registration at the same time--just as you can under the current motor voter law.

So the scenarios in which a married woman would have any trouble voting are somewhere between exceedingly rare and nonexistent. But just in case, the SAVE America Act adds a provision to allow women to sign an affidavit testifying to their name change. And if their State allows same-day registration, they can do that on the same day that they vote. So married women will be just fine under the SAVE America Act.

Sometimes I wonder about the view my Democrat colleagues seem to have of the American people and, in this debate, of their voters in particular. The junior Democrat Senator from Oregon had this to say at the beginning of the debate:

This bill is about stopping groups from voting who tend to

vote for Democrats.

This bill is about stopping groups from voting who tend to

vote for Democrats.

Well, one of two things is going on here. Either the Senator from Oregon thinks there are a lot of noncitizens voting in our elections and they are voting for Democrats or else he has a pretty poor opinion of Democratic voters. Is he suggesting that Democrat voters are too dumb to be able to obtain a birth certificate or a driver's license? How does he think they are starting new jobs or signing their kids up for school or going to the doctor or doing any one of the hundred other things that require a birth certificate or a photo ID--for themselves or for their child? I may be a Republican, but I am 100 percent confident that Democrat voters are capable of obtaining their birth certificate, if they don't already have it, and producing a photo ID.

Is this where Democrats get their belief in Big Government? Do they think Americans are too stupid to figure out how to do anything for themselves and so they need Democrats in Washington to do things for them? Come on. Americans are more than used to providing documentation, whether that is a birth certificate, Social Security card, photo ID, or a passport. I don't think it is too burdensome to suggest that we require some of that same documentation for voting to maintain the security of our elections.

The American people certainly don't seem to think it is too burdensome. Poll after poll shows that Americans support proof of citizenship to vote and a photo ID at the polls. Perhaps Democrats should listen to them.

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, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I move to table the Schumer motion to suspend rule XXV.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic leader be able to speak for a minute.

Mr. President, I move to table the Schumer motion to suspend rule XXV.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I move to table the motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Rules and Administration and report back forthwith with instructions.

Mr. President, I withdraw Senate amendment No. 4421.

Mr. President, I call up Husted amendment No. 4732 to the motion to concur with amendment.

I ask the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for Senate amendment No. 4732.

Mr. President, I move to refer the House message on S. 1383 to the Committee on Rules Administration with instruction to report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 4772.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions.

I ask that the reading be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that the reading be dispensed with.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday, March 25; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume the House message with respect to S. 1383.