Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I don't think this is a hot take: Only American citizens should be voting in American elections. Let me repeat that: Only American citizens should be voting in American elections.

Of course, there is only one way to be sure that only Americans are voting in our elections: Voters have to prove they are citizens when they register to vote. That is just intuitively obvious. It is so obvious, in fact, that one poll shows that most Americans believe that proof of citizenship is already--already--a requirement to register to vote, but it is not.

And polls show that the majority of Americans believe that we should require proof of citizenship to vote. In one recent poll, 75 percent of voters said they support requiring proof of citizenship to vote. That includes 61 percent of Democrats and more than two-thirds of Hispanic and Black voters.

This is just common sense. And it is why requiring proof of citizenship to vote is one of the pillars of the SAVE America Act.

Confirming eligibility is not some new-fangled idea. The American people are used to proving they are eligible, especially when dealing with their State or the Federal Government. You want to join the military? You should be prepared to show you are old enough, fit enough, and have graduated from high school.

SNAP benefits? Same story. You need to hand over documents to prove need, residency, and eligibility.

Seniors who have paid into this system their entire lives still need to prove that they are eligible for Social Security and Medicare when they are old enough.

And every single job in this country requires new employees to fill out an I-9 and provide documents that prove they are eligible to work. Every job requires you to prove you are eligible to work in this country, whether you are working your first job scooping ice cream in the summer or joining a law firm as a senior partner.

So why--why--don't we require proof of eligibility that is, proof of citizenship to vote?

As I said, you need to prove you are eligible to work, to join the military, and to get any sort of government benefit. But under current law, you don't need to prove you are actually eligible to vote when you register.

And the lack of a Federal requirement on this point has stood in the way of States deciding for themselves to implement proof of citizenship requirements. On two separate occasions, the State of Arizona has attempted to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. In 2004, Arizona voters approved a ballot referendum requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote in the State. It passed with a clear majority: 55 percent of Arizona voters supported the ballot question. But the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down.

Fast forward to 2022, and the Arizona Legislature passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. And, once again, the Supreme Court said that States cannot impose requirements that go beyond the standard Federal voter registration form to vote in Federal elections--the standard Federal form that does not require proof of citizenship.

And so here we are. The SAVE Act would put this commonsense proof of citizenship requirement in place. This commonsense requirement, that, as I said, polls show the majority of voters support. Passing this requirement should be a no-brainer.

But Democrats roundly oppose this commonsense policy, and this should surprise nobody. A number of blue States happily issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Democrats uniformly opposed Republican's efforts to prevent noncitizens from getting Federal healthcare and nutrition benefits last year.

And while States like Arizona and my home State of South Dakota are passing legislation to ensure only American citizens vote in our elections, blue cities are passing laws to allow--allow--noncitizens to vote in local elections. That is right. In cities in Vermont, California, right here in Washington, DC, noncitizens are allowed to vote in local elections.

So it should be no surprise that Democrats seem not to care very much about ensuring that American citizens--and American citizens only--are voting in our national elections, but it is deeply concerning.

The vote of even one ineligible voter dilutes the vote of an American citizen, and that is unconscionable. It is unconscionable for Americans who faithfully cast their votes to nudge our country in the direction they believe is best for our future.

And I have to imagine it is especially galling for legal immigrants who have become American citizens who have often spent years waiting and working for their citizenship and their right to vote.

One individual in my State said this on getting his citizenship a few years ago:

It's a long time coming . . . I'm eager to vote, I'm eager

to cast my voice and how I feel.

And that is no surprise. Voting is, in many ways, synonymous with being an American. It is one of our most sacred rights as Americans and a serious obligation we have to our fellow citizens and to the future of our country. Why shouldn't we make sure everyone who casts a ballot in this country is actually eligible to vote?

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, today is day 32 of Democrats' shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. On Thursday, Democrats, once again, blocked the Senate from proceeding to a DHS funding bill--a bill, I should note, that already includes a number of reforms to immigration enforcement: more money for body cameras, deescalation training, and additional oversight of immigration enforcement activities. And getting on this bill would not have precluded additional reforms from being added. But for the fourth time now, Democrats stopped the Senate from proceeding to consideration of this legislation.

For weeks, Democrats have spoken about the urgent need for reforms to immigration enforcement, but it has been Democrats who have been the biggest obstacle to getting those reforms enacted. The Trump administration took a number of steps on its own, I might add, to reform immigration enforcement, and on top of that, the White House made two substantial and serious offers to Democrats to legislate reforms, the most recent of which was sent more than 2 weeks ago.

But Democrats couldn't even be bothered to respond to the White House's latest offer until late last night, 18 days for Democrats to even bother replying. And that offer--Democrats' third--was basically the same as their first two offers: no compromise and still filled with a number of nonstarters that would make it more dangerous for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. Meanwhile, on the Senate floor, the best Democrats have been able to offer is funding some DHS Agencies and leaving others unfunded. It is really pretty remarkable.

Last summer, Democrats threw a fit over Republicans' rescissions package that cut just $9 billion in Federal spending, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the entire Federal budget. Now, to hear Democrats talk, they seem to think that entire Agencies--especially the Agencies that secure our border and enforce immigration laws--are dispensable.

The Democrat leader had the audacity to call this a ``moderate'' plan last week. When did defunding law enforcement become a mainstream position in this country? Now, this might be considered moderate for Democrats, but I think the average American would view it as extreme.

We are now a month into Democrats' second shutdown since October. And like their record-long shutdown in the fall, the victims of this shutdown are beginning to pile up. TSA agents are working without pay. A significant number of agents are calling out sick, leading to long wait times and lines stretching into airport parking garages.

CBS reports that 300 TSA agents have quit since this shutdown began, and that is on top of the 1,100 agents who quit after Democrats' shutdown in the fall. It is pretty darn understandable if you think about it. What do you do when, for 2 out of the last 6 months, you have to work without pay? Well, that is what Democrats have put these people through. So it is more than understandable that they might be thinking that there has got to be an easier way to earn a living.

I heard from one TSA agent in South Dakota who was at the end of her rope. She writes:

It is very hard to live without getting paid. . . . I do

not know how long I can keep doing this.

Well, that is what happens in a shutdown: real people get hurt.

But if you ask the senior Senator from Hawaii, a Member of the Democratic leadership, he says:

We are very serene with what is going on.

``Very serene.'' I suppose that is not a surprising statement considering the Democratic leader characterized Democrats' last shutdown in the fall by saying:

Every day gets better for us.

``Very serene.'' ``Every day gets better for us.'' For Democrats, a government shutdown is just fine as long as it seems to be working for them politically, no matter whether it is hurting hard-working Americans, no matter if it is jeopardizing public safety and national security. Make no mistake, Democrats' shutdown is harming hard-working Americans and putting national security in jeopardy.

Our country is facing a heightened threat environment right now. There are a few examples of that. Stryker, a medical tech company, was the victim of an Iran-linked cyber attack last week. ISIS-inspired individuals attempted to detonate bombs targeting protesters outside of the home of the mayor of New York City last weekend. And on Thursday, we saw two tragic attacks take place. One of those, in Virginia, was perpetrated by an individual who was arrested in 2016 for attempting to provide materiel support to ISIS. The other, an attack on a Detroit- area synagogue, was perpetrated by an individual who was reported to have had connections to known or suspected Hezbollah terrorists.

This is no time for Democrats' political games. Republicans are at the table and ready to work whenever Democrats are done playing.

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

Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has received a message from the House to accompany S. 1383.

Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the House message to accompany S. 1383.

Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to

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

I move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the motion to concur with amendment.

I ask the reading be dispensed with.

I move to refer the House message on S. 1383 to the Committee on Rules and Administration with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment No. 4422.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask 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.

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

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for 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 proceeding.

Mr. President, later today, we will finish up the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the latest piece of legislation in Republican's affordability agenda. And next week, I will be bringing the SAVE America Act to the floor, and we will be having a full and robust debate.

So what is the SAVE America Act? It is a package of commonsense policies--the kind of commonsense policies that should get an automatic ``yes'' vote from literally every Member of this body.

At the core of the SAVE America Act is the requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and then show an ID when they go to the polls. In other words, it would require Americans to demonstrate that they are eligible to vote and that they are who they say they are when they go to do so.

Not to keep using the word ``commonsense,'' but it is pretty commonsense, right? We require a photo ID for a whole lot of things in this country, for obvious reasons.

Getting on a plane? Show your official government-issued photo ID.

Go to the doctor? The same thing, provide your government-issued photo ID plus your insurance card.

Get hired for a new job? Provide your government-issued photo ID when you start.

Public libraries ask for a photo ID. In New York City you have to provide some type of photo ID to get a library card. In Baltimore, MD, it is the same thing; in Washington, DC, again, photo ID.

I will stop with the list of libraries, but I think we can all agree that if you have to show photo ID and prove where you live to get a library card, it is not too much to ask voters to show ID to vote in Federal elections. It takes about 10 seconds and protects the security of our elections.

Americans overwhelmingly agree that voters should have to show ID at the polls. Eighty-three percent of Americans--83 percent--in an August 2025 poll supported requiring photo ID at the polls for all voters. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Black Americans, 77 percent of Asian Americans, and 82 percent of Hispanic Americans.

It kind of feels like the only Americans not to support voter ID requirements are Democrats here in Congress. That is right. We are expecting continued, full-throated opposition to voter ID and the SAVE America Act from Senate Democrats, as well as more of the unforgiveable rhetoric that Democrats have already been engaging in.

The Democrat leader has been calling this bill ``Jim Crow 2.0,'' a phrase that is not only deeply irresponsible and insulting for those who actually lived through that dark chapter in our history but also insults the overwhelming majority of Americans, including minorities, who look at voter ID and see nothing more than commonsense.

In fact, I can really see only two reasons for Democrats opposing this legislation: Either Democrats are just reflexively opposing this proposal because it originated from Republicans, or Democrats believe that there are, in fact, people out there voting illegally; and that it is benefiting Democrats, and they want to keep it going.

I honestly cannot think of another reason to oppose something so eminently reasonable as requiring people to demonstrate that they are eligible to vote and that they are who they say they are when they go to the polls.

Now, I will have a lot more to say about the SAVE America Act next week, including about two other commonsense measures in the bill that would prevent biological males from competing in women's sports and protect minors from gender transition procedures--two other things, I should note, that are supported by the American people.

I can't guarantee an outcome on this legislation, but I can guarantee that we are going to put Democrats on the record and that they will be forced to defend their outrageous positions on these issues and explain to the American people why common sense and the Democratic Party have parted ways.

Republicans are looking forward to this debate, and I look forward to saying much more about the SAVE America Act in the very near future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Democrat leader yield?

So I assume the Democrat leader is aware of the fact that we have tried repeatedly to fund everything temporarily to allow the negotiations over the ICE budget to continue.

And the reason that hasn't--

The reason that hasn't worked--

--is because the Democrats are blocking it.

Mr. President, will the Democratic leader--

--yield for a question?

Well, I would say again to the Democrat leader that the Democrats have had multiple opportunities--and will have another one today--to provide funding for all of the Agencies that he just mentioned, under a continuing resolution, to allow us to consider how we are going to resolve the DHS issues that the Democrat leader has raised, which are being negotiated, I might add, at the moment between Democrats and Republicans and the White House. So there will be an attempt. The Democrats will have an opportunity to block--because they have now repeatedly--a continuing resolution that would fund all the Agencies to which you just alluded and allow us more time to negotiate.

So those Agencies will be funded--

--if the Democrats don't block it.

I would support a resolution, which will be offered, to fund not just TSA but Coast Guard; Cybersecurity, CISA; FEMA; other Agencies and Departments of our government that are essential not only to national security and homeland security but to making sure that people can move through our airports in this country, that the FEMA-- Federal Emergency Management Agency--has the ability to respond to disasters. Those are things, I would say to my friend the Democrat leader, that could all be funded today, and then we can continue this discussion that he wants to have, which, again, there have been offers made repeatedly, the most recent of which was about 13 days ago, I think, from the White House, and the Democrats have yet to respond.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 673.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are almost now a month into the Democrat's DHS, Department of Homeland Security, shutdown. Democrats have essentially walked away from trying to solve it. That is right. After almost a month of forcing DHS employees to work without pay, Democrats have shown their true colors. They don't care about funding Homeland Security. They don't actually care about reforming immigration enforcement; that has also become very obvious. They are only interested in keeping this issue alive for an election that is 8 months away.

This is the type of political game that the American people are sick of. I am sick of it.

I want to read for you something that was reported here by Bloomberg. This is a Member of the Democrat leadership. The quote is this:

We are very serene with what is going on.

We are very serene with what is going on.

We have a job to do. Part of that job is funding the Federal Government. That hadn't always been treated like a priority around here, but this year we made some real bipartisan progress in government funding. We made progress despite the fact that Democrats delayed things with a record-long 43-day government shutdown last fall. And we were on track, this year, to complete all 12 appropriations bills by the end of January, finishing the work for fiscal year 2026 and laying the groundwork to continue our progress in fiscal year 2027.

Among those bills was a bipartisan agreement for a full-year Department of Homeland Security funding bill, with reforms requested by the Democrats. It had money for more body cameras, deescalation training, and additional oversight of immigration enforcement activities.

But then Democrats reneged on that agreement. So we went back to the negotiating table--or, I should say, when I say ``we,'' I mean we the Republicans, at least, went back to the negotiating table.

Since Democrats reneged on the DHS agreement, the White House has made two very serious offers for legislating additional reforms. The same cannot be said of the Democrats. And with their refusal to respond to the White House's second--and, again, serious and substantial offer--Democrats have now essentially walked away from negotiations entirely.

We have made repeated overtures to them to get them back to the negotiating table, but they are not interested in talking.

It might be understandable to walk away from a negotiation when there doesn't seem to be a prospect of coming to a resolution, but that isn't the case here. As I said, the Republicans and the White House have demonstrated their willingness to negotiate and compromise. It is Democrats who are refusing to talk.

So why would Democrats walk away from what could otherwise be a very productive negotiation? Not long ago, Democrats were telling us how urgent the need for reform was. Now they are apparently fine without reforms.

Now, why would that be?

Well, it could be that Democrats believe the actions the Trump administration has already taken on its own are enough to resolve the issues, or it could be that Democrats were never really interested in implementing reforms in the first place.

Actually, if Democrats cared about reforms, they would be coming to the table to get a bill. Instead, they are playing politics.

There was a time when Democrats--I remember very well--would lecture about the importance of funding the government and the dangers of government shutdowns. Well, those days are apparently long gone. Democrats now see government shutdowns as a handy tool to use any time they don't get everything that they want.

They don't care if they force people to work without pay indefinitely. They don't care if they put our national security and public safety in jeopardy. They only care about what is in it for them.

As I said, the American people are tired of the games. Lines get longer at the airports because TSA isn't funded. The American people want us to do our jobs.

Republicans are at the table. We are ready to work toward a solution. Democrats have walked away, and they will need to explain to the American people why they refuse to do their job and why they regard doing nothing as better than doing something.

And maybe, again, it is because, in the words of one of the Democrat leaders, ``We are very serene with what is going on.''

We are very serene with what is going on.

That captured it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just heard the Senator from Washington suggest that they are willing to sit down and talk with anybody at any time. But my understanding is, there have been repeated overtures to the Senator from Washington and other Senate Democrats from Republicans and the White House that have been rebuffed.

Would the Senator like to clarify her position on that?

That is my understanding, and I think that point--that offer has been made repeatedly.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

The situation which I think the Senator from Washington is referring to is how we landed at the agreement on the DHS bill that we have been trying to vote on. Subsequently, Democrats walked away from that agreement.

It was the White House, it was House Democrats, it was Senate Democrats, it was House Republicans, and it was Senate Republicans who all negotiated the original deal.

The Democrats have more recently said: That is not adequate.

And so subsequent to that acknowledgment by the Democrats, there have been several, now, occasions where Republicans have offered to sit down and talk with Democrats, and there have been offers from the White House.

And just to be clear, the latest offer between Senate Democrats and the White House--which is where the Senator from Washington is suggesting this should reside--has come from the White House. I think it was somewhere on the order of about 12 or 13 days ago now.

Thirteen days ago.

And there has been no response from the Democrats to the latest offer.

And subsequent to that, my colleague the Senator from Alabama and others have tried by approaching the Senator from Washington and other Members of the Democrat caucus and leadership to actually sit down and have a conversation about a path forward.

And usually around here, in order to get a deal, there has to be a negotiation where the two sides sit down together, and my understanding is that has been completely rebuffed by the Senator from Washington.

And so we are here today, and we are trying to close a deal that would enable us to fund all the Agencies that

the Democrats say they want funded, with reforms--with reforms to ICE.

And I have seen the offer sheet from the White House. And they have gone a lot further--a lot further--than any Democrat would think was even possible.

And so we have a situation here where one side is trying to get a deal to open up the government, to get people back to work, to fund the programs and functions that are important to the national security of our country, and we have one side that is saying: We are not going to sit down and talk.

I don't know how you defend that, honestly. I mean, this is a one- sided negotiation in which the White House has put forward a proposal. Senate Republicans have said repeatedly: We are prepared to sit down and talk with Senate Democrats, and Senate Democrats--and my understanding is the Senator from Washington--has said: Sorry. We are not ready to talk.

We have a lot of people who are unemployed, a lot of programs that aren't being funded, a lot of functions that aren't being performed, and they are important to our country's national security.

Now, one other thing.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time. No, it is reserving the right to object.

The other thing that has been offered repeatedly is a continuing resolution--

--that would allow a sufficient amount of time to debate this--

--until we actually get a deal.

So what I just heard was that they are willing to sit down, and yet we have tried repeatedly to sit down with the Senator from Washington and other Democrat leaders to negotiate a solution here. And we have even gone so far as to say that, until we get that sort of a negotiation--and hopefully a solution--that we would fund the government under a continuing resolution, which is done fairly routinely around here, to make sure that these important Agencies get funded, these employees get paid, and these functions of our government that deal with national security and homeland security actually get performed.

And so I guess I am at a loss as to why we continue to have an attempt--a one-sided attempt, it is--to actually sit down and solve this deal, and why we can't then at least fund these Agencies with a continuing resolution until such time as we can.

Now, again, I would point out that the latest offer on the table is from the White House. It is 13 days old. The Democrats have not responded to that, nor have they indicated any willingness whatsoever to sit down with our side and actually talk about how to resolve this.

So you have two things here. You have a White House offer and a willingness by the White House to sit down and talk--an offer on paper with significant changes in the direction that the Senator from Washington and others are asking for. And yet we are just being rebuffed at every turn, even to have a discussion and conversation.

Honestly, I don't know how you get a deal without a negotiation; and to have a negotiation, you have to have two sides at the table. We have one side at the table. Republicans are at the table, willing and ready, able to make a deal--with the White House, I might add.

The Senator from Washington talked about having the White House there, and, obviously, that is an important component of this because we have to get a bill signed into law.

But there is an offer, 13 days old, which hasn't been responded to by Senate Democrats, and repeated attempts by Senate Republicans to sit down and actually have a discussion about this--and complete, utter block resistance. That is--

That is--

And I would yield to a question by the Senator from Missouri.

I appreciate the Senator from Missouri making that point. The response to his question is, I do believe that we have people who are tasked with an important job, and defunding them is not an option, and I think we all agree with that over here. I would hope that some of our colleagues on the Democrat side would agree with that as well. Are there reforms that can be made? Yes. Some were included in the base bill, which this side agreed to and then walked away from. And I understand why; don't get me wrong. But we are trying to sit down now, and the White House--I think in good faith--has put forward what, to me, are fairly significant reforms. But we don't have, I said, a willing partner. And we obviously are not going to defund law enforcement in this country. That is not something we are going to do, which is why it is important that in the context of this conversation here, as we fund these other Agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, that we also come to an agreement about how to fund Border Patrol, which does secure our southern border, and ICE, which enforces the law in this country.

My understanding is the Senator from Hawaii wants to enter into this.

Which is precisely what the Senator from Alabama was going to do here momentarily. And what she is going to suggest is that we fund the government under a continuing resolution to allow additional time to negotiate, and that has now been objected to on multiple occasions by our friends on the other side of the aisle. But that, to me, is something that we have done routinely around here, repeatedly around here: to allow additional time to negotiate until we can finally land what I hope would be a deal that could fund all of DHS and not individual components or pieces of it.

So I don't know why anybody would object to that--if you are sincere in trying to get a deal, why you would object to funding the government for some foreseeable time in the future. We did do it for 2 weeks, which you guys all knew wouldn't be enough time. But if we funded it for whatever that is--4 weeks, 6 weeks--to allow this negotiation to continue, at least these Agencies are functioning. We have tried repeatedly to do that, and you have consistently--the Democrats, I should say, have consistently objected to that.

So I think what you are asking, I would say to the Senator from Hawaii, is precisely what the Senator from Alabama is going to propound in the form of a unanimous consent request, and that is to fund those Agencies to allow this negotiation to continue.

Again, I don't know how you can be more good faith--at least for the particulars that I have seen. The latest proposal that was put forward by the White House had a number of issues addressed in there that I think were important to the Democrats. It would seem to me, at least, that if there is not an interest in agreeing to that latest offer, that there be some counteroffer made or we sit down and talk about that offer. I think that has been offered up by Senate Republicans as well as by the White House.

So I hear what the Senator from Hawaii is saying, and I think it is exactly what we are saying right now and what we are trying to do.