[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 115 (Thursday, July 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4538-S4541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8281

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, one citizen, one vote--today, this 
foundational principle is under attack. It is under attack because 
President Biden refuses to enforce the law. Now we face a direct threat 
to our entire electoral system.
  Consider this: Since President Biden's inauguration on January 20, 
2021, over 10 million illegal immigrants have entered the United 
States. This figure exceeds the populations of 36 States, creating a 
crisis that has been met with troubling silence and inaction from far 
too many on the other side of the aisle.
  With millions of unauthorized people now on U.S. soil, living here in 
the United States, the potential for election fraud through ineligible 
voting is not just a hypothetical risk--no; it is a looming reality.
  With the influx of noncitizens under this administration, even if 
just a fraction--let's just say something like 1 in 100--were to vote, 
this could translate to hundreds of thousands of votes, enough to sway 
our tightly contested elections and potentially alter their outcomes.
  This is deeply concerning considering that a recent study showed that 
noncitizens have ample openings to vote illegally. It found that 
anywhere from 10 to 27 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote 
and 5 to 13 percent of noncitizens do actually vote in Presidential 
elections, no less.
  Across the Nation, instances abound where States have inadvertently 
facilitated this very crisis. From unsolicited voter registration forms 
being mailed out to noncitizens to driver's licenses issued without 
adequate checks, practices relying merely on the honesty of illegal 
aliens have opened up the floodgates to voter fraud.
  While it is true that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote 
in Federal elections, there are no effective systems in place to verify 
the citizenship of voters. A mere check on a box is all it takes, with 
little risk of being caught. In short, you are on the honor system with 
those forms.
  Federal law even prohibits States from requiring proof of citizenship 
when registering voters via Federal forms. So it is not just that the 
States aren't doing an adequate job of verifying citizenship as a 
condition precedent to registering to vote in a Federal election; they 
are prohibited by law from doing so.
  An increasing number of localities permit noncitizens to votes in 
local elections, and this makes it even worse. It further blurs the 
distinctions that are there that have historically been meant to 
protect the integrity of our elections.
  Prominent Democrats have openly discussed these tactics, in many 
instances as beneficial to their agenda, as likely to help their 
political ambitions. Only months ago, every Senate Democrat voted to 
count illegal aliens in the census to help them shore up more seats in 
Congress and consequently more votes in the electoral college.
  This cannot continue. It is our responsibility, our imperative, to 
close these gates. My bill, the SAVE Act, would ensure that this stops. 
It would be a vital step in securing the electoral process, ensuring 
that every vote cast is legitimate and every voter is duly recognized 
and registered and properly brought into the system so that they can 
vote.
  The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act--the same act 
that was interpreted a few years ago by the Supreme Court as 
prohibiting the States from requesting any positive proof of 
citizenship--so that States can

[[Page S4539]]

ensure that only U.S. citizens may participate in Federal elections. It 
fixes the NVRA. If the NVRA was interpreted that way, this would close 
that loophole.
  The SAVE Act requires States to obtain concrete documentary proof of 
citizenship at the time of voter registration. It specifies acceptable 
documentation and requires States to establish alternative verification 
processes for those rare instances in which standard documents might be 
unavailable. Furthermore, the SAVE Act compels States to proactively 
remove noncitizens from voter rolls and introduces severe Federal 
penalties for those who intentionally register noncitizens.
  This bill echoes the sentiments of the American people from coast to 
coast. It transcends political affiliations, with an overwhelming 
bipartisan supermajority of Americans supporting it, and it speaks 
directly to the core of what makes our country great: fair, free, and 
secure elections operating within our constitutional Republic.
  This is about protecting our elections from foreign interference--
something my Democratic colleagues claim to care about and long have. 
If we truly want our elections to be free of foreign interference, then 
by all means pass the SAVE ACT. Let's pass it today. Let's pass it 
right now.
  So for those of my colleagues who are opposed to this, why aren't 
they concerned about the ability of tens of millions of foreign 
nationals--noncitizens--in the United States to vote in America? Why 
should we allow tens of millions of foreign nationals who are not 
citizens of the United States to vote in U.S. elections?
  Now, if the Biden administration insists on keeping America's border 
open as, to my great dismay, it has for the entirety of the 3\1/2\ 
years or so that Biden has been in office--if they are going to insist 
on keeping the borders open, by all means, they must at least, at a 
bare minimum, ensure that none of those noncitizens are interfering in 
our elections. Every single day that we delay, the foundation of our 
electoral process erodes a little more.
  We cannot wait for this administration to enforce the law, to enforce 
the border, which they haven't done. They continue to refuse to do it. 
More people continue to enter, but in the meantime, they have let in 10 
million illegal aliens. Add to that those who were already here, and an 
estimated 30 million noncitizens currently reside in the United States.
  But this administration just keeps right on trucking, not doing 
anything about this problem. In fact, this administration strongly 
opposes this legislation. Now, let's run through the reasoning. The 
reasoning is really telling. There are several arguments raised by the 
White House in the statement they issued just earlier this week.
  First, the White House protests:

       It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal 
     elections--it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and 
     fines.

  Now, to be clear, that is, on its face, a correct statement of the 
law. I won't disagree with the statement on its four corners, but the 
conclusion is really messed up. As I have already stated, there is 
absolutely no functioning mechanism for enforcing the law.
  And it is worse than that. It is not just that current law doesn't 
create an adequate enforcement mechanism; it is that current law, as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court, affirmatively prohibits the States 
from doing what they would need to do in order to prevent noncitizens 
from registering to vote and subsequently voting in Federal elections, 
contrary to Federal law. Meanwhile, DOJ investigations of illegal 
voting are all but nonexistent.
  A law without enforcement cannot and will not stop illegal behavior; 
and there are many, many circumstances in which, notwithstanding the 
fact that the underlying conduct is criminally prohibited, you still 
need some sort of verification mechanism to make it enforceable.
  By the White House's own logic, it would be unnecessary and, perhaps, 
even unwise to have laws requiring a photo ID to buy beer and 
cigarettes. You know, we have got these laws on the books, after all, 
that already make it a crime to sell beer and cigarettes to children. 
So according to the White House's logic, we shouldn't need an 
additional law requiring age verification with a photo ID. Now, nobody 
would be that crazy or that insane to make that argument there. We 
shouldn't be making it here. It is the same argument, the exact same 
argument.
  Next, in second position, the administration makes the 
unsubstantiated claim that ``the justification for the SAVE Act is 
based on easily disproven falsehoods.'' But then, well, the 
administration utterly fails and defiantly refuses to offer anything to 
support that statement.
  It is ironic because that justification for opposing it on grounds 
that the justification for the SAVE Act is based on disproven 
falsehoods is its own disproven falsehood. There is nothing there. 
There is no falsehood that has been disproven. They have not disproven 
the fact that noncitizens, whether legally or illegally in this country 
at the time, can easily obtain voter registration eligibility to vote 
in Federal elections--or the physical ability to do it, rather, so long 
as they are willing to check a box and sign their name.
  They don't dispute the fact that, in all 50 States and DC, a 
noncitizen can apply for and receive a driver's license or that the 
National Voter Registration Act makes it easy, when applying for a 
driver's license, to check a box and sign your name and thereby 
register to vote in Federal elections. When you add to that the fact 
that States are affirmatively, legally prohibited, based on the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the NVRA a few years ago which said that the 
States cannot, may not, must not ask for any kind of documentation to 
verify citizenship, we have a problem.
  So for them to say that our justification for the SAVE Act is based 
on falsehoods, on easily disproven falsehoods, is itself easily 
disproven, and it is a falsehood.
  Third, the administration asserts that ``making a false claim of 
citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by 
removal from the United States and a permanent bar to admission.''
  Well, this is an interesting argument. This one is rich coming from 
this administration.
  Look, it is true that the naturalization form, as a self-reporting 
mechanism, asks the applicant if the applicant has ever voted 
illegally. Yes, that is true. As far as I can tell, even when they do 
self-report in those, I suspect, rare instances when they do, 
absolutely nothing has been done with that information under the Biden 
administration. Joe Biden isn't deporting anyone for illegally voting. 
Joe Biden has opened the floodgates and just lets people come in. So 
that is rich coming from this administration suggesting that there is 
going to be, suddenly, rigorous enforcement of laws governing our 
border security in this instance when, No. 1, they are not doing it, 
and No. 2, everywhere you look, they are doing the opposite of that.
  Fourth, the administration asserts, ``[s]tates already have effective 
safeguards in place to verify voters' eligibility and maintain the 
accuracy of voter rolls.''
  That assertion is simply flatout wrong. It is just false. It is false 
factually, and it is false legally, meaning it is not true, and it 
cannot be true by operation of law for the reasons I have just 
explained. States are legally prohibited from requiring proof of 
citizenship when registering voters for Federal elections. This, I 
fear, may well be a feature, not a bug, for the administration and a 
reason for the administration to oppose it, tragically. We will get 
back to that more in a moment.

  But, look, this loophole that I am describing based on the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the NVRA--telling the States they may not and 
must not ask for any kind of evidence of citizenship--is a gaping 
loophole that we must fix.
  Lastly, the administration claims that, instead of safeguarding our 
elections, this bill, with its incredibly generous list of ways to 
demonstrate citizenship, would make it harder for Americans to vote.
  Well, look, the reality is that there is an expansive list of ways to 
demonstrate citizenship even if you lack the documentation 
traditionally involved in proving it.
  Keep in mind it is not unusual for Americans to be asked for proof of 
citizenship. Every single time an American citizen starts new 
employment, starts a new job, they fill out an I-9.

[[Page S4540]]

They have got to provide proof of citizenship. If you are not a 
citizen, you have to show evidence of your visa and your eligibility to 
work in the United States under that visa. If you can't do that, you 
can't start a job. This happens all the time.
  It is not as if the ability to prove citizenship and a requirement 
that one do so is foreign to us nor is it the case under this bill that 
would be exceptionally difficult, because even if you are one of those 
rare individuals who, for whatever reason, doesn't have or have access 
to a birth certificate or something else that can prove it, we have got 
a long list of other ways you can do it even if you lack the 
traditionally utilized documentation.
  This bill allows all American citizens to vote. More importantly, if 
enacted, it would mean that no American vote could be canceled out by a 
vote cast illegally by a noncitizen. This bill would make it harder to 
cheat in elections and ensure the integrity of every ballot lawfully 
cast.
  There is no valid argument against the SAVE Act--none. The only 
reason to oppose this bill would exist if you needed illegal votes to 
win elections--full stop. That is it.
  By passing the SAVE Act, we would send a clear message that in the 
United States of America, voting is not just a privilege of citizenship 
but a cherished and protected right. As debates about election 
integrity rage, the SAVE Act stands out by guaranteeing that only 
American citizens can have a say in our elections. American elections 
must be decided by American voters--full stop.
  So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 8281, which is at 
the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Is there an objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I ask 
you this: How many times do we have to go through this?
  Less than 2 months ago, I came down to the floor of the Senate to 
object to this very same bill--expressing concerns, answering 
questions--and here we are again, and nothing has changed. So it 
doesn't matter how many times this bill comes to the floor. It doesn't 
matter how many times our Republican colleagues feign outrage over 
noncitizens unlawfully voting--without a shred of evidence--it doesn't 
change the fact that, as good as the proponents may make this bill 
sound or try to make this bill sound, it is nothing other than a 
solution in search of a problem.
  Now, I speak both as a Senator representing California but also as a 
former chief elections officer of California, where I--as the 
secretaries of State across the country, by the way--worked alongside 
tireless election clerks and administrators across the political 
spectrum at the State and local levels. Given that experience, I can 
tell you this: There is no credible evidence of a meaningful number of 
noncitizens voting in our elections. In 2016, audits showed that 
noncitizens accounted for 0.0001 percent of the vote.
  Even the conservative Cato Institute has said:

       Noncitizens don't illegally vote in detectable numbers.

  Now, I am glad Senator Lee mentions the National Voter Registration 
Act because, as he pointed out, it was upheld by the Supreme Court of 
the United States in terms of its guidance of what States can and 
should do and what they cannot do. He also didn't mention that the 
National Voter Registration Act was adopted on an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of Congress.
  But, rather than propose legislation based on facts, this bill would 
respond to the alarming allegations that Republicans themselves have 
fabricated. It would create more barriers to exercising the right to 
vote and would restrict ballot access for even more Americans than is 
currently the case. It would make voting harder for the more than 21 
million eligible voters in America who can't easily access their proof 
of citizenship.
  I don't know about you. I am not in the habit of carrying around my 
birth certificate or even my passport. Not everybody has a passport. It 
doesn't mean you are not a citizen if you don't carry a passport. And I 
am not just talking about Democrats or Republicans; I am talking about 
Americans of both political parties. The bill would clearly, also, 
disproportionately impact voters in communities of color.
  In addition, this bill seeks to undermine faith in our elections by 
injecting fear and uncertainty, particularly in an election cycle, at a 
time when our democracy demands more calm and understanding of the 
integrity of the process.
  But Senator Lee and I agree on one thing, believe it or not. That is 
that voting is a sacred responsibility and that the right to vote, in 
and of itself, is fundamentally sacred.
  So to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you are truly 
worried about the election and our democracy, then I will ask you this: 
Join me. Join me in passing the Freedom to Vote Act and making sure 
that all eligible Americans--yes, only U.S. citizens--can make their 
voices heard at the ballot box without any unnecessary barriers or 
obstacles.
  It is the most American and the most bipartisan thing that we could 
do. But until then, let's be honest with the American people.
  So, yes, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate how the Presiding Officer always 
speaks loud enough so that everyone can hear. The Presiding Officer 
also manages the floor with great assertiveness, which I also 
appreciate.
  I am grateful to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator 
from California, and his thoughtful approach to legislation.
  There are some things that he said that I feel that I need to 
address. One of them is a reference to a belief that there is no 
credible evidence of noncitizens voting, at least no credible evidence 
of noncitizens voting in any significant numbers.
  Well, there are studies that go in exactly the opposite direction, 
studies like the one that I cited just moments ago showing that it is a 
nontrivial sum, such that if even something at the low end of the 
percentages cited in that study were correct, that could easily be 
enough to sway the outcome of some elections.
  But, regardless, what my friend is referring to has to be taken with 
a grain of salt, considering how things have changed on the ground. The 
enumerator and the denominator of that fraction have changed over the 
last few years, where we have now got about 30 million noncitizens 
living in the United States, with about 10 million who have come in who 
are illegally in the United States now, who entered this country 
unlawfully and are now living in the United States. That is not a 
nontrivial sum when that many people entered the United States that 
quickly. And when you have now got all 50 States and DC that issue 
driver's licenses to noncitizens; that, coupled with the National Voter 
Registration Act--and the way the National Voter Registration Act was 
interpreted a few years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States 
saying that the State officials who processed those Federal forms 
submitted under the NVRA so that people can register to vote in Federal 
elections while applying for their driver's license, that creates a 
toxic soup in which there is an environment just rife with 
opportunities for foreign interference in U.S. elections.
  You cannot add this many noncitizens, legal or illegal noncitizens, 
to the United States in this short of a period of time and couple it 
with that kind of voter registration framework and not anticipate that 
there will be significant numbers of people who will end up registering 
to vote--some perhaps somewhat innocently, perhaps others less 
innocently. I don't know. But it would be supremely naive and, worse 
than that, willfully--willfully--blind to what we all know is going to 
happen unless we pass this.
  Now, the House of Representatives passed this bill yesterday, which 
gets to another point made by my colleague saying that we have been 
down here over and over and over again doing this bill. I am not sure 
what he is referring to. The bill hasn't even been around that long, 
but something material changed yesterday.

[[Page S4541]]

  Yesterday, the House version of the SAVE Act, which is the version 
that I am coming to the floor today to propose, the one that I just 
tried to pass by unanimous consent moments ago before it was met with 
the objection of the Senator from California, that bill was passed 
yesterday, less than 24 hours ago, by the House of Representatives, 
with bipartisan support, I would add--not just Republicans over there, 
some Democrats who are concerned, with very good reason, joined with 
Republicans in order to get this thing passed.
  So to say that this is an area in which there is no credible evidence 
of any need to act is science fiction fantasy. It is contrary to fact. 
It is contrary to logic. It is contrary to our human understanding of 
nature, contrary to our understanding of the National Voter 
Registration Act and how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court 
of the United States and how elections work.
  As to my colleague's suggestion that this is feigned outrage--feigned 
outrage--that is animating this, nothing could be further from the 
truth. Look, I wish this could be feigned. I wish I had the luxury of 
this being something that was feigned. This is serious business.
  We lose something as Americans, certainly, anytime we allow our 
elections to be vulnerable to interference from forces outside the 
United States, including foreign nationals, non-U.S. citizens inside 
this country.
  When that happens, when the public starts to perceive that others are 
voting in this, diluting their votes, that has deleterious effects on 
the effective operation of our republican form of government that are 
very difficult to recapture once they are lost. We can't treat this 
casually.
  Look, I will be back. It is unfortunate that we weren't able to pass 
this today.
  Let me restate the point I made earlier: There is not a legitimate 
reason to oppose this bill. We make it incredibly easy under this bill 
for any American. If you are an American citizen, you can easily prove 
your citizenship and you can do it in the way this bill requires and 
you can still vote. It is not hard. It is not expensive. It need not 
require anyone to spend a dime, a nickel, or even a penny. It just 
requires you to be an American.
  There is not a legitimate reason to oppose this bill. There is not a 
logical reason to oppose this bill, unless, of course, your objective 
is different, unless, of course, you are just fine with and in fact 
excited about or reliant upon noncitizens voting. That is alarming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.