Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the last speaker was the Republican Senator who leads the majority in the Senate. He is talking about a bill that is pending before us which changes the way people in America will be required to register to vote. It is a question of proving who you are and where you are from.

We know, historically, that showing an ID is pretty common. If you buy an airplane ticket, you show an ID. It happens all the time. And what do we usually show? Our driver's license. It has our picture on there and basic information to prove who you are, and it is sufficient in virtually every place in America--but not for this bill.

This bill, creating a new law, says that your driver's license is not enough identification. What can you use to prove who you are and where you were born? A passport. You have heard it suggested that obtaining a passport is rather routine. It is not routine. If you have done it, you know what I am talking about. First, you are going to have to pay a fee for a passport: $165. You may have to wait 3, 4 weeks or maybe even a month or more. So if you are trying to get a passport in time to register to vote, to vote in an election, you had better think ahead a few months, and you better have the money--$165--to get the job done.

There is another proof that you can make, and that is your birth certificate. Of course, that is not always easily available for everybody. Do you know where your birth certificate is, a copy that you can use? I think mine is upstairs in the closet in the bedroom. I have to check. I think that is where I left it, but I am not 100 percent certain. And there is a complication on the birth certificate if you are a married woman. You may have taken his name now, and so your birth certificate doesn't reflect the name that you use legally today.

The third possibility may be some form of ID with a photo on it. It is not clear in this bill.

So you say to yourself: Why would we--if we do 50 million voter registrations a year--and that is on the average--50 million a year-- why would we change all of those registrations to vote with new standards of proof? Because of the argument on the other side that there are illegal aliens voting in America.

Well, they had better take care if they try that. It is against the law today, without any change on the Senate floor, if you try to vote and you are not legally an American citizen. How often does it happen? Well, we are talking about 50 million registrations a year.

So between the years 1999 and 2023, in that 24-year period of time, how many people who were not American citizens were actually caught trying to vote in America? Fifty million people a year registered. Would you guess 7 million, to justify us changing the law for everybody in America? No, it is not 7 million. How about 700,000 in a 24-year period of time? No, it is not 700,000. How about 70,000? No. How about 700? No.

Seventy-seven people in the United States of America, in a 24-year period of time, tried to vote when they were not legally entitled to vote--77 people. So the Republicans want us to change all of the laws on registration across the United States because of 77 people over a 24-year period of time. Does this sound like a crisis situation? Not to me.

We have the most accurate and honest and valid voting system in the world; there is no doubt about it. Trying to create the impression otherwise is just plain wrong. The facts don't back you up.

Then what is this all about? Why would we have to pass this bill before any other measure, any other legislation? That is what President Trump said: I won't consider anything. If a proposal was brought to him to make sure that people working at the airport are paid on time, he said: I am not taking that up until you pass the voting bill.

Why is it so important to him to change registration to vote? Because it is going to create chaos in the situation for the next election, which is only a few months away. He is worried about the outcome. Historically, the President's party doesn't do well in an off-year election, and so he is trying to find ways to diminish the number of voters in America in certain areas. It is their strategy. It is their algorithm that they are following. It doesn't make sense.

We need to protect the right for legally eligible Americans to register to vote and to vote. We shouldn't have a poll tax, like a new passport fee of $165, to make you eligible to go register to vote in your precinct. Fifty million people a year are going to register to vote based on what we change. If it is a true constitutional challenge, if it is a true legal crisis, let's change it. But 77 in 24 years? That, to me, doesn't strike me as any kind of a crisis. It is a crisis that is being created by the Republican leadership to push a bill that is unnecessary.

Many people fought and died for our right to vote. We shouldn't have it taken away from us because we have stacked up bureaucracy in the path toward registration. That doesn't make sense.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Colin McDonald to be Assistant Attorney General for the National Fraud Enforcement Division. Before Mr. McDonald's hearing, I had many questions about this newly created division. I still don't have answers.

But one thing is clear: Mr. McDonald is more committed to scoring political points for President Trump than he is to fighting waste, fraud, and abuse--much of which is being perpetrated by this administration. Mr. McDonald supervises the so-called Weaponization Working Group, which he coled with disgraced nominee Ed Martin prior to Mr. Martin's demotion due to alleged improper handling of grand jury materials.

According to Mr. Martin, the goal of this working group is to ``name'' and ``shame'' the President's political opponents, even if they haven't committed a crime.

The working group also employs Jared Wise, who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and was charged with assault after encouraging rioters who were attacking law enforcement by yelling, ``Yeah, f*** them! Yeah, kill `em!''

During his hearing, Mr. McDonald repeatedly refused to confirm whether he ever witnessed members of the Weaponization Working Group violate the Justice Department Manual or the law. He also refused to condemn Mr. Wise's continued employment.

President Trump has more than doubled his net worth since returning to office, and fraudsters who made massive contributions to the President have regularly been rewarded with pardons. Mr. McDonald refused to condemn these and other pardons or commit to cracking down on the ongoing pay-for-play pardon scheme. He has demonstrated that he is unwilling to stand up to President Trump and his administration of grifters.

I oppose Mr. McDonald's nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, today is the 16th anniversary of an amazing event in the history of the United States.

Millions of Americans can remember a time when access to affordable healthcare was just not a reality in America. There was a time when, if you had a preexisting condition--you or your family--you could be disqualified from any health insurance coverage because of it. And being uninsured was a reality for those who just weren't healthy and wealthy enough to afford it.

Sixteen years ago today, it all changed when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, opening the door to quality, affordable health coverage for more than 30 million Americans. This transformed our healthcare system. Suddenly, no one could be denied insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition. Addiction and mental health coverage were no longer optional; they were required in the health insurance plans. Young

adults could remain on their parents' plans until they reached the age of 26.

Casting my vote for the Affordable Care Act is something I am proud of and will never forget, but now that law is under attack. Donald Trump and some Republicans in Congress have tried relentlessly to appeal the Affordable Care Act. They called it ObamaCare, mocking it. And while they haven't succeeded outright, they have jeopardized its benefits for millions of Americans.

Last summer, Republicans in a majority in Congress passed their so- called One Big Beautiful Bill--the Trump budget which cut Medicaid by $1 trillion and slashed the Affordable Care Act by $300 billion, which will result in more than 10 million people in America losing their health insurance.

Have you ever lived without health insurance with a family? Have you ever had a child who was sick and you had no health insurance? You will never forget it as long as you live. I have been there.

To make matters worse, Republicans in Congress also refused to extend the ACA's enhanced premium tax credit last year. The fallout of that Republican decision has been devastating to millions of American families. They have contacted my office and the office of every one of us, both parties, and explained to people what happened to their health insurance premiums because of that decision in the Trump big beautiful budget bill. Millions of Americans have had to forgo insurance or watched their premiums double or triple.

The peace of mind that the Affordable Care Act brought to millions of Americans is fading away, and we must build the momentum to reverse these cuts and address the shortcomings of our healthcare system.

I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve healthcare for everyone, but we need buy-in from our Republican colleagues to move forward--something they have refused to do to this point.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, a woman named Kristi Noem came and appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had been asking her to come in and explain her management of the Department of Homeland Security for months. She said she was too busy; we knew better.

We watched one aspect of what that Department was doing with the ICE agents not only in Chicago, which I am honored to represent, but also Minneapolis.

Finally, she weakened and succumbed to our request and basically said: I will come. I will do the Senate on Tuesday, I will do the House on Wednesday, and then don't bother me for a while.

It didn't work out as she planned.

She appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and wouldn't answer questions directly to her about the management of the Department and things she had said and done.

The Achilles' heel turned out to be a $200 million publicity stunt, which she had bilked the taxpayers out of, so that

she could travel around the country by television, by social media, riding horses, appearing before Mount Rushmore, and she said the President approved it.

The next day, she appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and had a similar experience.

By the end of the day, she was finished. Two weeks ago, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, was fired by President Trump.

Clearly, there is something wrong in that Department, and it starts with ICE, this paramilitary force that showed up in the city of Chicago and across the United States and has killed at least two, maybe three innocent American citizens.

Their charge was to go after criminals who managed to sneak across our border and live in the United States. You heard the President's speech over and over again: We are going to get the ``worst of the worst.'' Remember he said that?

The terrorists, the murderers, the rapists, the criminally insane, that is what we are going after. But the record of the ICE Agency is much different. When they take a look at all of those that they have deported and taken into some kind of a holding cell, it turns out that only one out of seven have any kind of criminal record--one out of seven.

So six of the people that they are arresting and detaining and moving off to different detention camps have no criminal record at all. They are not the worst of the worst. They are folks that overstayed a visa into the United States, period.

So she came and appeared before us, and we have said repeatedly on our side, we want to work with the administration to change the standards for ICE so that they are basically the same standards that apply to your State troopers and your hometown police, basic standards of law enforcement that professionals follow. ICE is a far cry from that today, but what we are looking for are changes that makes them comply with the law and the Constitution.

There is a question of funding the Department of Homeland Security. Two weeks ago, the Democrats said: Here is our position. We will fund everything in the Department of Homeland Security, all of it, including TSA, except for ICE, and we are negotiating with the White House. Let's get it done.

Nine times we have come to the floor. Nine times Democrats have come to the floor and said we will fund the entire department, including TSA, including FEMA, including the Coast Guard. ICE, let's resolve by negotiation. We are in the middle of that right now.

Nine times the Republicans objected to that proposal from the Democrats. So to come to the floor now and blame the Democrats because people in TSA are not being paid doesn't reflect the reality and what happened on the floor.

Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act

Madam President, now there is also a matter pending on the floor. I will see if I still have a copy of it here. This is the matter that is before us on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is entitled ``SAVE America Act.'' What this proposes to do is a dramatic change in registering to vote in America.

Let me be specific. With this proposal, the proof that you have to present of your identity when you register to vote changes dramatically.

When you look at the second page of this, they start listing what you have to bring in to prove that you are eligible to vote. The first suggestion is a passport. Well, half of the people in America, roughly half, own a passport and half do not. So if you decide you want to get a passport to make sure that you or your son or daughter who has turned 18 get a chance to vote, how do you get a passport?

Well, there is an Agency of the government, the State Department, and you come and pay a filing fee of $165. You can get an expedited approval in a matter of days and weeks for an additional $60, but it is basically $165 for a passport. Let me remind you, half of the people in the United States do not have a passport.

Creating this as a standard of the election in November, can you imagine what is going to happen at the passport office? How many Americans register to vote each year? About 50 million--50 million.

How many passports are currently being issued by the Department of State without this law passing? Twenty-five million. So you are going to triple the workload at the Department of State for people who want to be registered to vote in time for November. How is that going to work? No explanation.

The second opportunity you have to prove you are really an American is to present your birth certificate. Problem: Turns out a substantial number of Americans don't have a birth certificate; they have to obtain one. And, secondly, there is a problem when the birth certificate reflects a maiden name of a woman before she was married or in a hyphenated relationship. And so there has to be a change made there.

In each State there is a cost and a time involved in that process. So this is supposed to make it easier to vote? No, not at all.

What is it that has changed in America that makes us want to dramatically change the laws on registering to vote? Well, voter fraud, according to the other side of the aisle--people who are ineligible; they don't even profess to be Americans; and they are going to try to vote.

And you say to yourself: Well, that must be a terrible problem. They say millions and millions and millions of people are involved in that. So let's take a look at the record.

From 1999 until 2023, 24 years, do you have any idea how many people who didn't have American citizenship were prepared to violate the law and try to vote? Well, each year we are talking about some 50 million people registering, 24-year period of time, the number must be huge. Seven million? No. Seven hundred thousand? No. Seventy thousand? No. Seven hundred? No.

The number is 77 people in 24 years attempted to register to vote in the United States and weren't legally American citizens. Seventy-seven of the millions that were trying to register during that period of time.

So the Republicans are proposing changing the law for everyone, no matter where you are from, no matter what your political affiliation may be for a new standard of proof. It is not necessary. In fact, to charge $165 for a passport so I can prove I can vote is in the nature of a poll tax.

What does the Supreme Court have to say about poll taxes? In the case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that any poll tax was unconstitutional.

The Nation had already ratified the 24th Amendment, which declared citizens' rights to vote in Federal elections ``shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

The Harper case involved a poll tax in the State of Virginia. The Supreme Court threw it out. Do you know how much the poll tax was in Virginia when this case was decided? One dollar and fifty cents.

Now, compare that to going out to have a passport issued to you and paying $165. That is a lot of gasoline, $165.

In striking this fee down, Justice William Douglas said, ``the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be . . . conditioned'' on whether somebody has $1.50 in their pocket.

Yet the Republicans are trying to make this the basic standard, a passport, the most acceptable standard under their rhetoric.

Iran

Madam President, let me conclude by saying a word about the situation in Iran. We kept asking the administration what their goals were with the invasion of Iran. Do you remember the public hearings, the congressional hearings where they sent in the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, they were interrogated by Senators and Congressmen from both political parties and asked to explain why we invaded Iran?

The reason you don't remember is because it never happened. We invaded this country without any congressional debate.

We are bound by the Constitution, which says in article I, section 8, it is Congress that declares war, and yet we have no explanation formally from this administration and no opportunity to ask basic questions.

I will close with this: 22 years ago there was a vote in this Chamber, a vote to invade Iraq. If you remember,

we had a fulsome debate before that happened, and the administration under President George W. Bush explained they had weapons of mass destruction which threatened our allies and friends and even the United States, and that is why we had to invade.

I was skeptical of that. I was one of 23 Senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq 22 years ago. It was 1 Republican and 22 Democrats, we voted no. It turned out to be the best vote I ever cast. When we sent our forces in there, Saddam Hussein was swept aside quickly, and then they started looking for weapons of mass destruction and found none. None.

And here we go again. A $200 billion first appropriation for this war--$200 billion. If just a portion of that money had been saved for health insurance premiums, helping people pay them in the United States, some 24 million Americans wouldn't be facing a dramatic increase that they can't afford in their health insurance premiums. Madam President, $200 billion is what President Trump is asking for. It is time for us to have that debate we didn't have before the invasion.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Klobuchar), the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, this past weekend marked 61 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered his ``We Shall Overcome'' speech to a joint session of Congress. Speaking from the House rostrum in the wake of Bloody Sunday in Selma, AL, President Johnson urged Congress to pass legislation that would secure ``the full blessings of American life'' to all, regardless of color or creed. That Congress would heed his call.

On August 6, 1965, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. That bill, nearly a century after the

ratification of the 15th Amendment, would finally, finally outlaw discriminatory practices that erected unjust barriers to voting for African Americans, like literacy tests and poll taxes. It would open the ballot box in America to everyone.

Six decades later, another President would speak from that same rostrum--this time at his State of the Union Address--and that President insisted Congress pass a bill that would make it more difficult, would make it harder for eligible citizens to vote. How far we have fallen from Lyndon B. Johnson's noble goal. We have not overcome. With the SAVE Act, we are still trapped in bigotry.

Earlier this week, at President Trump's request, the Senate began consideration of the SAVE America Act in a marathon debate session. Why? Because President Trump is throwing a temper tantrum, demanding that Congress pass his legislation and nothing else.

I have long said that in politics, there is always a good reason and a real reason. The good reason the President touts when arguing in favor of this bill? That it supposedly would put safeguards to prevent voter fraud.

Nobody wants to see voter fraud. That is a good reason, isn't it? But here is the truth: Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, and cases of noncitizens voting are extremely rare.

In 2024, the Bipartisan Policy Center decided to figure out how frequently we encounter voter fraud in American elections. The conservative Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Database found that in the period of 1999 to 2023--24 years--how many cases do you think they found of voter fraud, incidents where noncitizens successfully cast ballots? Out of the millions and millions of votes that were cast, they found exactly 77 in a 24-year period--77. That is barely more than three per election cycle.

You say to yourself, where is the voter fraud that is leading the Republicans now to create new obstacles for voters to face if they want to register to vote? What is the real reason if there are only 77 cases of voter fraud in 24 years? I will tell you. It is for MAGA Republicans to cling to power by rigging the elections in November. It was the same motive when it came to creating new congressional districts for Republicans.

This President is scared to death of what is going to happen when the American people finally get to say the last word on his policies, and so he wants to change the election rules. Hard to imagine. He is very blatant about it. They are not hiding it.

The lead sponsor of the bill, the senior Senator from Utah, said this weekend:

Republicans will lose power--likely for a long time--if we

don't get SAVE America passed.

Unless we change the rules on registering and voting, even though there is little or no evidence of fraud and abuse, this Republican Senator who is leading the charge concedes the obvious: It will hurt them in the next election if they fail to pass this bill. They don't think they can win the election fair and square, so they need to change the rules and make it harder for eligible voters.

So what is in this Republican political liferaft that is on the floor? Among the provisions is one that requires all States to obtain proof of citizenship in person--two critical words--in person for people looking to register to vote.

In their bill, a driver's license--the most common form of identification in America--and most REAL IDs would not be enough to register to vote. You need more. You have to prove your citizenship before you can register under the Republican plan. Only birth certificates, passports, or similar documentation would count. Well, let's go through those.

How many Americans actually know where their original birth certificate can be found? And how about those who have a birth certificate with a maiden name--a woman who is married--or are in a hyphenated relationship? What do you do with those documents?

Do you know how many Americans don't have a passport? Almost half of the people living in America have no passport, half of the population. You say to yourself, well, go get a passport; there can't be much to it. Have you tried lately? Do you know what it costs? A hundred and sixty-five dollars. So before you get to vote, you have to write a check for a passport for $165. That applies to 146 million Americans. And how long does it take? Well, I can tell you, people work hard to get out the millions of passports each year, but we are talking about 3 to 4 weeks, in some cases months. If you put an extra 60 bucks on it and make it $225, they will expedite it. That is your poll tax.

Do you want to vote? Do you want to register? Do you have a passport? If you don't, get ready to fork over $165 to over $200 for a passport.

When you consider how long you have to wait, how long you have to wait for the opportunity to have this passport, maybe you are not doing it in time for this election.

That is the Republican plan--make it more bureaucratic and more cumbersome and more confusing despite the fact there is little or no evidence of voter fraud in the United States.

What this amounts to is a modern-day poll tax for a passport.

This bill would also unfairly impact married women who have taken their spouses' names. They would either have to amend their original proof-of-citizenship documents or go through paperwork and bureaucracy to register to vote.

You are going to hear from my Republican colleagues about how this bill has been updated to accommodate people who don't have the required documentation, but the fact remains that unnecessary barriers have been put in place to block access to the ballot for no apparent reason.

Mr. President, 77 cases of voter fraud in 24 years--is that a national scandal? Is that a national crisis? Of course not.

Here is the good news: At this moment, my Republican colleagues in the Senate don't have the votes to pass the bill, so now the question is, Will the majority leader throw out the Senate rules and bend to the President's pressure? I certainly hope not.

If we truly believe, as President Johnson said, that we must not refuse to protect the right of every American to vote in every election that we participate in, then we must reject this terrible legislation which will deny the right to vote to eligible voters across the United States.

The SAVE America Act is an affront to the fundamental right to vote, and I will be voting no.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, did you hear what the President said about this piece of legislation that is entitled the SAVE America Act--how important it is to him? Earlier this week on social media, President Trump said:

Only sick, demented, or deranged people in the House or

Senate could vote against THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.

And then he threatened to sink any Republican who doesn't fall in line. Here is what he said ``I WILL NEVER (EVER!) ENDORSE ANYONE WHO VOTES AGAINST'' this legislation.

What is going on here? What is it about this bill that the President is so

aggressive about? Why is he saying these outrageous and exaggerated things? I will tell you: Because this legislation is the crown jewel in a grand scheme to rig the results of the upcoming midterm election.

Some of my Republican colleagues have come to the floor to defend it, saying it is necessary to safeguard our elections. So let's just look at the facts.

Let's pick a period of time. How about from 1999 to 2023--24 years in American history. Every 2 years, we have an election cycle, and 80 to 100,000,000 people are going to register to vote in each of those 2- year cycles.

So in the period of time between 1999 and 2023--24 years--12 different election cycles and millions of people registering to vote in the United States, how many were discovered to be falsifying their country of origin and to be illegal and unqualified to vote? Take a guess. Seven million, right? No. Well, 700,000. No. How about 700? No. Seventy-seven people were found to have tried to falsify where they were from to vote in a 24-year period of time--77 in 24 years.

You say to yourself: And so this bill is a death by legislation for us? Take it or leave it?

I don't buy it. There is something more to the story.

When I got involved in politics, the fellow who used to counsel me said: Durbin, when you get in politics, there is always a good reason and a real reason.

The good reason is voter fraud. But 77 in 24 years? We have the cleanest and most accurate elections in the world. We ought to be proud of it. There is only one man who disagrees with that. He happens to be the President. He still has this Big Lie concept that he won in 2020. He will go to his grave believing he won in 2020, but he didn't. He lost fair and square. He just can't accept defeat. It is beyond him.

So you say to yourself: What does this bill do? Well, what this bill does is establish a standard for registering to vote in America. The current standards generated 77 violations in 24 years. They want to change them all. And you go through the first few pages, and the way they approach it is amazing.

One, if you want to register to vote, present your passport. Well, guess what. More than half of Americans don't have a passport.

You say: Well, go buy a passport then.

What does that involve? There is a $165 fee to pay for a passport in this country. If you want an expedited passport, it is another 60 bucks. So in order to vote, you have to buy a passport, you have to pay for a passport. It is kind of like a poll tax, isn't it? So 165 bucks if I want to vote in November? No, thanks. I will spend it on gasoline. I don't need to buy a passport. But that is what the bill says. It is one of the first provisions.

The second thing you can produce is your birth certificate to show you were born in the United States. Do you know where yours is? I don't know where mine is at home. It is in a box somewhere in the bedroom. I will have to go looking for it. If I find it, I am OK.

My wife has a problem with hers. It has her maiden name on it. She got married to me a few years back--happily, I hope--and she doesn't identify by her maiden name any longer. But to prove she was born here, she is going to have to do some fancy footwork with documents to prove it.

So I looked at this, and the interesting thing is what this is all about. There is a belief in the White House among the political leaders that they are going to do poorly in the November election, so they want to change the rules and they want to keep some people from voting. How do you keep people from voting? Well, you set hurdles up like this.

I will give you an example. We have more support in the African- American community than Republicans do, so if the Republicans want to enhance their chances of winning, they want to diminish the African- American vote.

Let's take a look at a few statistics. When it comes to passports, 42 percent of White Americans have a passport; 34 percent of African Americans. So if you demand a passport as proof to register to vote, it puts them at a slight disadvantage, doesn't it?

How about birth certificates? Well, 6 to 7 percent of all U.S. adults--that is 15 to 18 million--are in a situation where they have no easy access to proof by birth certificate--6 to 7 percent of all U.S. adults, 11 percent when it comes to people of color. What is the problem? Some of them were born in the South. Some were born in segregated hospitals. Some were given a birth certificate and some were not. So there is a slight bias against African Americans when it comes to birth certificates.

Well, how about government-issued photo IDs? Eight percent of White Americans don't have government-issued photo IDs--8 percent--and 25 percent of all African Americans do not.

How about low-income people, who may be inclined to vote for Democrats, perhaps? They are less likely to be able to prove their citizenship than those who are better off.

So it isn't an algorithm; it is a bias that is built into this bill that says it will be less likely that people who are going to vote Democrat are going to register to vote. That is why it is so important to the President. That is why he is threatening members of his party: If you don't vote for it, I will never support you. He feels that strongly about it.

But I don't think it is fair. It is fundamentally unfair. With only 77 cases of voter fraud in 24 years, why in the world are we doing this? Why are we changing the rules? Why are we creating obstacles? Why are we forcing people to spend hundreds of dollars to go buy a passport so they can register to vote?

If you are legally in America--and most people who vote overwhelmingly are--then you shouldn't face these obstacles. That is what this is all about, and it ought to come to an end with a big ``no'' vote on this floor.

I will be voting no. I am sorry the President won't be supporting me, but I am not running again anyway.

I yield the floor.

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 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, we recently passed a tragic milestone: the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine. I remember the morning vividly, sitting with Senator Coons, the senior Senator from Delaware, on a dark, early morning at the airport in Vilnius, Lithuania, a country that knows all too well the threat posed by Russia throughout history.

The loss of life from Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has been staggering, with nearly 2 million total casualties. Millions more Ukrainians have been displaced. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted to Russia.

President Trump bragged more times than I can remember that he would end the Ukrainian war on day one if reelected. To his credit, the United States has fostered a series of talks between Russia and Ukraine. While I strongly support American help to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself, and a diplomatic resolution is always preferable, it is devastatingly clear to everyone--except, it seems, the President-- that Putin isn't serious about reaching a peace deal in Ukraine. Putin continues to play for time, calling and manipulating President Trump at key moments, including last week, to brazenly offer help in the Middle East while simultaneously, we know, Russia is giving intelligence to the Iranians to target American forces.

Time and again, President Trump has only pressed Ukraine to reach a deal--never pressed Putin. And last week, Trump defied common sense-- defied common sense when he lifted sanctions on Russian oil because of what should have been foreseen chaos in the energy markets due to his invasion in Iran. And for reasons I simply cannot explain, this Chamber has refused to pass Russian sanctions legislation with more than 85 cosponsors.

Let me be clear, Putin only responds to strength. He is stringing along United States-led peace negotiations while relentlessly bombing Ukraine, while helping Iran target American servicemembers.

It is time for President Trump to finally learn this lesson and for the Senate to pass legislation increasing pressure on Putin to negotiate.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.