[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 50 (Thursday, March 19, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1314-S1355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFEGUARD AMERICAN VOTER ELIGIBILITY ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the House message with respect to S. 1383,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
House message to accompany S. 1383, a bill to establish the
Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
bill.
Thune motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
bill, with Thune (for Schmitt) amendment No. 4420 (to the
House amendment to the bill), in the nature of a substitute.
Thune (for Tuberville/Blackburn) amendment No. 4421 (to
amendment No. 4420), to protect women and girls in athletics.
Thune motion to refer the message of the House on the bill
to the Committee on Rules and Administration, with
instructions, Thune amendment No. 4422, to change the
enactment date.
Thune amendment No. 4423 (to the instructions (amendment
No. 4422), of a perfecting nature.
Thune amendment No. 4424 (to amendment No. 4423), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
S. 1383
Mr. DURBIN. 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
[[Page S1315]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Kentucky.
Tribute to Paul Grove
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as Republican leader, I always enjoyed
calling our colleagues' attention to longtime Senate staff as they
notched milestones of service in our institution, but today, I would
like to reflect for a few moments on a longtime advisor who is an
institution in his own right.
There have been any number of occasions over the past several decades
when it would have been right and fitting to praise the talents and
service of Paul Grove. There has certainly been no shortage of
situations where, except for the efforts of this one man, the Senate
might have missed opportunities to advance America's influence on the
world stage.
The longtime Republican clerk at the Appropriations Subcommittee on
State and Foreign Operations is quite literally that good, but Paul,
like so many of the brightest unelected members of the Senate family,
is also good at dodging credit for his extraordinary service to the
Senate and to our country.
Well, not this time. Tomorrow will mark a cumulative 30 years of
Senate service for Paul--25 of them consecutively. He has more Senate
experience than 96 of our elected colleagues, and as his first Senate
boss, I am invoking my right to say a few words about it.
Long before Paul Grove was the Senate's resident expert on the levers
of American soft power and our trusted emissary to the furthest corners
of Southeast Asia and even beyond, he was a junior legislative aide to
a freshman Senator. And if memory serves, I initially paid him to
advise me on, believe it or not, healthcare policy.
In that sense, Paul's career resembles many Capitol Hill success
stories: Show up with intelligence, a good work ethic, and let the rest
of it sort itself out. But with due respect to the many thousands of
smart and hard-working
[[Page S1316]]
staff who walked these halls, Paul Grove's engine runs on even rarer
fuel--a deep, sincere, and abiding belief that the task before him was
good and worthy of his best.
My fellow appropriators understand that when folks complain about
``how the sausage is made'' here in Washington, they are referring to
us and the complex ways that we try to keep the lights on around here.
But if you are ever tempted to think it is all a bunch of grizzled
paper-pushers and number-crunchers, untethered to the real world, I
would encourage you to spend some time with Paul Grove.
My good friend Robin Cleveland, who preceded Paul at the
subcommittee, described him as a ``true believer.'' That is dead right.
He is a true believer in the dividends of American leadership, the
power of our influence, and the prospects of democracy--even in places
where it seems to be on the ropes. Perhaps that is why the only thing
that ever pulled Paul away from the Senate and our important role in
shaping American foreign policy was a chance to go even closer to the
frontlines.
By the time Paul returned from several years in Cambodia, where he
supported fledgling democracy movements across Southeast Asia, he was
the obvious choice to help me lead the subcommittee. And while no one
could fill Robin's shoes, Paul brought his own, and they fit perfectly.
His approach is certainly less profane but no less fortunate and
formidable. Ask anyone in the State Department who has dealt with Paul
whether it is worth trying to dodge his pointed inquiries.
During my time as chairman, Paul and I crisscrossed the world
together, and I learned the hard way that Paul's approach to trip
planning could have made even our late friend the intrepid John McCain
think twice.
On my first codel to Iraq and Afghanistan with Paul, he had us wake
up in Pakistan, attend briefings and lunch in Afghanistan, refuel in
Oman, and have dinner in Turkiye. Paul may have been the only one still
awake during that dinner, and I tried to institute a maximum ``two
countries per day'' rule after that.
In capitals and far-flung outposts alike, Paul's devotion to our
mission made me smarter and more effective, and I am sure my successors
as SFOPS chair, Judd Gregg and now-Chairman Lindsey Graham, know the
feeling--no doubt, so did full committee leaders like Ted Stevens, Thad
Cochran, Richard Shelby, and now Susan Collins.
When I look back on this chapter of our work together, I am
particularly grateful for Paul's focus on a cause that has come to mean
a great deal to both of us: the pro-democracy movement in Burma. As the
old saying goes, success has 1,000 fathers. Needless to say, Washington
hasn't exactly jumped to claim credit for the modest progress of
Burma's brave champions of democracy like our dear friend Aung San Suu
Kyi, who sits today in house arrest under the thumb of a military
junta. And yet, for friends of the people of Burma, Paul Grove has been
a constant presence--scrutinizing every development, pressing
successive administrations toward sensible United States policy that
counters PRC influence and holds a military junta to account--and
tending the embers of hope for a people who has faced far more than
their fair share of hardship.
Paul has been to the bottom of seemingly intractable challenges
across the globe but has never lost sight of America's interest in
resolving them.
He became a master of using the power of the purse to compel
transparency, extract justice for Americans, reward dedicated partners,
and oil--or sometimes replace--the squeaky gears in the machine of soft
power.
Frankly, to the extent that America has had more responsible friends
and capable allies in the fight against terrorism or communism or
authoritarianism, it has been in no small part due to Paul's dogged
efforts.
I have been fortunate to get to hire and to have had the opportunity
to hire a lot of very smart and dedicated young patriots during my time
here in the Senate. Very rarely have I managed to draw on their talents
for as long as I have been able to lean on Paul Grove.
So, today, with 30 years under his belt, it is a good time to say
thank you, Paul.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
S. 1383
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at a time when our country faces
unprecedented crises, the U.S. Senate has spent an entire week debating
a problem that essentially does not exist.
The goal of the SAVE Act, which is on the floor right now, is to make
certain that noncitizens do not vote in American elections. I don't
know that anyone disagrees with that. The good news is that noncitizens
do not vote in American elections. Study after study has shown that the
number of undocumented immigrants voting in American elections is
virtually nonexistent. We are debating a problem that does not exist.
The conservative Heritage Foundation found that over a recent 24-year
period--24 years--there have been a grand total of 77 confirmed
instances of undocumented immigrants voting in the United States--24
years with 77 undocumented immigrants voting. Hundreds of millions of
people voted in a 24-year period, and there were 77 instances of
noncitizens voting. That is according to the conservative Heritage
Foundation.
What about individual States that have looked at this issue? What
have they found?
Well, the State of Utah found that, of the State's 2.1 million
registered voters, in 2025 and in 2026, a grand total--all right, here
we go--a grand total of 1 noncitizen registered to vote in that State,
and that individual never cast a ballot--2.1 million registered voters
in Utah and 1 noncitizen registered to vote.
In 2024, Idaho reviewed its 1 million registered voters and found 36
possible noncitizens registered to vote.
In 2024, Georgia--the State of Georgia--audited its 8.2 million
registered voters and found 20 noncitizens registered to vote.
Overall, not only are there a tiny number of people undocumented who
are registered to vote, but most of those citizens have never even
voted. They just registered to vote for whatever reason and were
properly removed from the voter rolls.
Let us be clear: Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from
voting in Federal elections, and no State--not one of our 50 States--
allows noncitizens to vote in State elections; but if this legislation
were to be passed, it would create a whole lot more problems than it
would solve.
Under this bill, every American would be required to have a passport
or a birth certificate in order to register to vote. Now, what is wrong
with that? Well, as many as 69 million married women have last names
that do not match their birth certificates and would need to provide
additional documentation proving their name changes in order to
register to vote. Further, an estimated 4 million Americans have had
their birth certificates or other necessary documents stolen or
destroyed.
If you are watching this out there, just think: Do you have a birth
certificate? How are you going to get a birth certificate? How many
weeks or months will it take? How much does it cost? You will have to
go through all of the bureaucracy to get your birth certificate.
Even worse, do you have a passport? Well, half of Americans--146
million people--don't have a valid passport. Those who would need a
passport to vote under this bill would have to spend $130 to renew a
passport or $165 for a new one. By the way, you are going to have to
wait up to 6 weeks to get it.
So make no mistake about it, this legislation is nothing more than a
modern-day poll tax that would deprive millions of low-income and
working-class Americans from being able to vote.
So what is this bill really about? Well, the good news is President
Trump has told us what it is about. Trump has said that, if this
legislation were signed into law, Republicans would ``never lose a race
. . . For 50 years, we won't lose a race.''
Well, my understanding of election reform would be to make sure that
the United States makes it possible for more people to participate in
the political process and makes sure that we have one of the highest
levels of voter participation rather than one of the lower rates of
voter turnout in the
[[Page S1317]]
world. In other words, we want to strengthen our democracy, not throw
millions of people off the voting rolls so, to quote President Trump,
Republicans would never lose a race.
Instead of spending a week on a nonexistent problem, maybe it is time
we started to focus on some of the enormous crises facing our country,
and let me just take a moment to mention a few.
Trump Administration
Mr. President, never before in American history have so few
individuals had so much wealth and so much power. During the Gilded Age
in this country, with Rockefeller and Carnegie, you had a handful of
people who had enormous wealth and enormous power--nothing--nothing--
compared to what exists today. Today, we have more income and wealth
inequality than we have ever had in the history of this country.
Do you think that might be an issue that we should be talking about?
Do you think we might be suggesting that there is something wrong when
the top 1 percent in America now owns more wealth than the bottom 93
percent? Do you think we might be talking about making some changes in
an economic system in which 60 percent of our people today are living
paycheck to paycheck and families are struggling to feed their kids? to
pay for healthcare? to pay for rent? to pay for childcare? to pay for
the basic necessities of life?
There are 60 percent of our people who are living paycheck to
paycheck, and one guy--Elon Musk--owns more wealth than the bottom 53
percent of American households. Do you think maybe that might be an
issue that we should be talking about?
But one of the reasons we don't talk about that issue and many other
vital issues that impact working families is the reality that Congress
today is much more concerned about protecting the needs of its campaign
contributors--the billionaires who are putting an unprecedented amount
of money into the political process--rather than representing the needs
of working families throughout America. It is no great secret. As a
result of this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the
billionaires in this country--Democrats but more Republicans--are
putting huge amounts of money into the political process, and Congress
is quickly becoming a corporately owned entity.
Maybe we might want to talk about how we get rid of Big Money in
politics and create a democracy in which every person has one vote, not
where billionaires can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect
candidates who represent their interests.
I should tell you that one way I believe that we begin to tackle the
massive level of income and wealth inequality that exists is by
imposing a wealth tax on the 938 billionaires in America who are worth
some $8.2 trillion. Legislation that I have proposed--the wealth tax on
billionaires--would not impact anybody in America who is not a
billionaire, but over a 10-year period, this legislation would raise
$4.4 trillion strictly from the people on top--the one-tenth of 1
percent minuscule number of people who are doing unbelievably well.
And what would we use that $4.4 trillion for? Well, let me just
briefly tell you.
For a start, in the first year, at a time when working-class families
are struggling to put food on the table and pay their rent, this
legislation would provide every man, woman, and child in the country in
a household making $150,000 or less a $3,000 direct payment, $12,000
for a family of four.
So at a time when the billionaires have never had it so good, when
many of them are paying virtually nothing in taxes, we are going to
demand that they start paying their fair share so that working-class,
low-income families can get some help--$3,000 for every man, woman, and
child in families of less than $150,000.
This legislation would end homelessness in America and address the
affordable housing crisis by building 7 million units of low-income and
affordable homes and apartments. Twenty million households in America
should not be forced to spend half of their limited incomes on housing.
We should not have 800,000 people sleeping out on the streets. Instead
of giving tax breaks to billionaires, we should be building low-income
and affordable housing.
This bill would expand Medicare. In Vermont and all over this
country, you have got elderly people who can't afford dental care,
can't afford hearing aids, can't afford vision care. This legislation
would expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
In the last poll that I saw on that, only 90 percent of the American
people supported it. Maybe, we may want to pass it.
This legislation would provide universal childcare in America and
make sure that no one in our country pays more than 7 percent of their
limited income on childcare.
At a time when school districts in Vermont and around the country are
having a hard time attracting good teachers because the pay scale is
much too low, we would make sure that no teacher in America earns less
than $60,000 a year.
This legislation would also make sure that seniors and people with
disabilities receive the home healthcare they need through Medicaid.
And, by the way, this legislation would prevent 15 million Americans
from losing healthcare by repealing Trump's $1.1 trillion cut to
Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
And we do all of that just by asking the very wealthiest people in
this country, the fewer than 1,000 billionaires, to pay 5 percent of
their wealth in taxes.
And you know, after that, I know people--editorial writers--all over
America are very worried about what happens to poor Mr. Musk and Mr.
Bezos and Mr. Zuckerberg. The good news is they will still have enough
money with their hundreds of billions of dollars left to feed their
families. I don't want anybody to think that the Musk family or the
Bezos family will go hungry. We leave them with hundreds of billions of
dollars.
AI
Mr. President, the other thing that we have got to do, instead of
dealing with nonexistent problems like the SAVE Act, we have got to
address the threat of artificial intelligence and robotics. And
surprise, surprise, our very same friends--Mr. Musk, Mr. Bezos, Mr.
Zuckerberg, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Thiel, and others--are pouring huge
amounts of money into AI and robotics.
Left unchecked, these technologies will bring about a massive
transformation of American economic, political, and social life. That
is what we are talking about. And that transformation of American
life--economic, political, social--is being pushed by a handful of
multi-multibillionaires, and it is time for the U.S. Congress to say:
Slow it down.
And it is not only what it will do to throwing millions of workers
off of their jobs, hooking children to artificial intelligence. I have
talked to a number of scientists who believe that we are not talking
about science fiction anymore in the sense that if AI continues to
develop and become smarter than humans, the truth is AI may become
independent of human control and threaten the very existence of
humanity.
Now, I know that the future of humanity and the existence of whether
or not we survive is not quite as important as legislation dealing with
a nonexistent problem like undocumented people voting. But maybe, just
maybe, we might want to spend a few minutes determining whether or not
we should slow down AI so that humanity survives, so that tens of
millions of people do not lose their jobs, so that kids do not lose
their mental health by becoming addicted to AI, et cetera.
So the bottom line is, there are enormous issues facing this country.
It is no great secret that the American people increasingly understand
that the work of this Congress, right now, is to protect the 1 percent
and wealthy campaign contributors, and maybe it is time we started
worrying about working families and ordinary families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I would like to continue exactly the
themes my colleague from Vermont brought up, except I think, before we
talk about artificial intelligence, we should talk about natural
intelligence. It absolutely goes against natural intelligence for us to
sit here in this Chamber knowing that we have 260,000 working
[[Page S1318]]
American families, who work for our government, who are doing their job
and not getting paid. That, to me, is the crisis we should be talking
about.
And, yes, I agree with my colleague from Vermont. We should not be
worried about Mr. Musk or any of the other billionaires going hungry. I
worry about our TSA agents going hungry. I worry about our Coast Guard
people going hungry. I worry about the people at FEMA going hungry.
And yet, with total disregard for over a quarter of a million
families, we sit in this Chamber, and we are getting paid. Everybody
here is getting paid, and yet they are not.
And I applaud my colleague from Vermont, who is walking out of the
floor, for caring about working Americans.
Why don't we care about them? Why don't we fund DHS now? Why don't we
worry about those families who, by the way, according to the last
Secretary of Homeland Security--the last one said--and I am going to
quote here:
The average [TSA agent] lives paycheck-to-paycheck.
We have taken away three paychecks. Three paychecks we have taken
away from them.
If there was ever a time we needed to fund [DHS], it's . .
. now.
This is not a Republican Secretary saying that. It is a Democrat
Secretary of Homeland Security saying that.
I don't understand how, in a leadership role--which is what we are
here in the U.S. Senate--we would allow the suffering of 260,000
families to go with this much contempt and, instead, fund DHS in its
entirety. Allow those families to get paid.
Mr. President, you were a business guy like I was. Could you ever
look at yourself in the mirror when you owned your businesses and know,
because of your actions, the people who worked for you weren't getting
paid and were suffering? It is impossible.
I remember when I started my first business. I felt the weight of
success because I had to take care of my family. But for those early
families, for that first business that I bought, every day I walked in,
I felt this incredible responsibility. Man, if I made bad decisions, if
I make a bad decision today, people will go hungry who work for me. And
that drove me to succeed.
We are totally disconnected. We sit here in this Chamber. It doesn't
even touch any of us, and I think that is a disgrace. I think we
should, very simply, do what has always been done before we became this
hyperpartisan Chamber: We fund the government responsibly. And then, if
we have policy disagreements, we can sit down.
By the way, right now, just down this hallway--just down this
hallway--there are Democrat colleagues and Republican colleagues of
good faith sitting down to negotiate differences to get the Department
of Homeland Security funded.
We have American citizens that are paying taxes to fund the
government to work that is not working.
I know that sometimes pleading with my colleagues to have some level
of humanity is ineffective because, quite frankly, maybe this place
takes a little humanity away from you. Maybe you don't see how these
decisions affect many, many people.
So with that, Mr. President, I am going to ask a very, very, very
simple request--very simple.
I am going to ask unanimous consent that this body, the U.S. Senate,
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553;
I further ask that the substitute amendment at the desk be considered
and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third
time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table.
What this means in English, to the person who may be watching, is
this funds the entire Department of Homeland Security for 2 weeks.
Everybody gets paid up to date. We get the Department open, and then
let the work that is being done now proceed. I ask that that happen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. President, I object, and I think--look, all of us
here understand, because we travel twice a week, what TSA is going
through. That is why we should immediately, today, fully fund TSA. If
you care about paying TSA, let's pay TSA today.
So I object. If we want to actually pay TSA, let's do it right now.
My colleague from Ohio, we both know what it is like to go back and
forth to the Midwest every single week. Want to fund TSA? Want to have
humanity for the people who are securing us? Let's fully fund them
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, I am not sure what I just heard because I
just offered to fund TSA. I just offered to fund the Coast Guard, FEMA,
Customs and Border Patrol, Secret Service, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Centers, USCIS, Homeland Security Investigations. Let's do it
for 2 weeks. Let's do that for 2 weeks.
Down the hall--down the hall--there are Senators of good faith that
are getting together to end this political charade.
So, to my colleague, I will yield the floor for a simple question:
Why would you want to fund just TSA and not the Coast Guard? Not, for
example, in your State, the American Immigration Council, which deals
with 102,700 undocumented immigrants in Michigan--why wouldn't you want
enforcement around that? Why wouldn't you want to fund the Department
that allows people like me, who, when I was 18 years old, applied for
citizenship? Why wouldn't we want to fund 3,300 employees--some of them
in your State--that actually process legal immigrants? Why wouldn't we
fund that? Why wouldn't we fund 7,000 special agents that are there to
stop transnational criminals? Why wouldn't we fund 200 employees that
fund--and you were a CIA agent--that fund biological and nuclear threat
prevention? Why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't we fund 60,000
employees at Customs?
You care a lot about the bridge that was hopefully due to be opened
from Canada. You need Border Patrol agents there. You need Customs
there. Why wouldn't we fund that?
Why wouldn't we do that for 2 weeks--2 weeks--and then we can get
together. Why wouldn't we do that?
Why just fund one narrow slice of the Department of Homeland
Security? I am just curious why you would do that.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. It is not hard to notice that, right now, our country is
going through a pretty fundamental conversation about the role of ICE
and law enforcement in our city streets. We know that it is a cultural
conversation in the United States of America because the previous
head--the previous Secretary--of Homeland Security got fired because of
the disaster that went on in Minneapolis.
I sat, as you did, in the hearing with Markwayne Mullin yesterday
because we need a new Secretary of Homeland Security. Every American in
the world, Democrat and Republican, understands that is because ICE so
deeply contradicted American values in our American cities.
So we are having a full-on cultural conversation about the role of
law enforcement in our streets.
In the meantime, you and I can agree every day of the week on the
role of Border Patrol; CBP; FEMA, which we desperately need; the Coast
Guard, which no one has more Coast Guard, pretty much, than Michigan.
So I am ready to fund those things now, but I don't think we can ignore
the fact that ICE is, right now, an unsettled issue in the United
States of America.
We are not settled. People are negotiating because we are not
settled. And even this week, the President of the United States sent a
letter down here to talk about the reforms he acknowledges we need in
some form or fashion.
Now, some of those reforms, to me, are basic and don't go far
enough--like we won't deport American citizens. But even the President
acknowledges we have a problem with ICE. So let's excise that one part
that we are having an American conversation on and then fully fund the
other stuff here and now today. That is what I am proposing.
Mr. MORENO. Will you yield for a question?
Ms. SLOTKIN. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Look, I appreciate--and I know you are a person of good
[[Page S1319]]
character, by the way. I genuinely believe that. But that is not what
you are asking for. You are asking to fund just TSA, meaning the
question is this: Why would we use 260,000 people and their families as
pawns in a negotiation? Why wouldn't we pay all those people?
So will you consider adding a bill that I have put together that says
that as long as we haven't fully funded the government, we get money
taken out of our paychecks--not held in suspension, but we actually
would lose compensation, about $500 a day, every day that goes by where
we haven't fully funded the government. Would you consider adding that
to your resolution?
Ms. SLOTKIN. Will you yield?
Mr. MORENO. You have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. I am proposing today just the UC on TSA, but my
colleagues, one after another, have proposed funding the Coast Guard,
Border Patrol, FEMA. So whichever way we want to do the package--
individually or all but ICE--I am here for it.
I will do you one better on your proposal. I 100 percent agree.
When I first came to the Congress in 2019, we were in a government
shutdown, in the first Trump administration, right? President Trump had
a shutdown. That is how I came to the Congress. My very first bill as a
Congressperson--bipartisan, by the way; the Problem Solvers Caucus; a
bunch of us did it--was that if the government isn't fully funded, then
Congresspeople, A, do not get paid, and B--I will go one further--are
not allowed to have government pay for their travel back home, meaning
they have to sit their butts down in Washington and negotiate and get
it done then and there, without taking taxpayer dollars to go back
home. So whether you want to add a $500 fee, whatever it is--this body
is for appropriating money, so I am here for whatever you want to
propose.
But I think you have to acknowledge and even the President
acknowledges at this point that the American public--Democrat,
Independent, and Republican--does not like American citizens being
killed in our streets. They do not like going into a human being's home
without a judicial warrant. They don't like children being taken and
tear-gassed and caught in the crossfire; non-well-trained officers
pulling people out of cars and getting into dangerous situations;
people being targeted.
You should hate this. When you are walking into Target, they had ICE
officers pulling people aside because they looked like they were
immigrants and checking their papers. Do you know what that does to a
Jew? Do you know what that means, to just check people's papers because
of how they look? You should hate that.
So for me, whether we agree or disagree--and I would hope we would
agree on the use of force in America--set that aside. Fund everything
else today, now, here. Penalize Members of the Senate who want to go
home and ignore the problem--I am with you on that.
But you are holding all of those Agencies hostage because of ICE. You
are defending them and not allowing them to get their paychecks. You
are holding them back from those three paychecks, not Democrats. We are
here ready to pay. You are so protective of ICE, so protective of this
President that you will not fund the other parts of DHS, and that is
our homeland security. I know about that. That is my entire life. You
know. You care about that. I know you do, Senator.
So, please, just excise the thing we are not agreeing on, fund the
rest of it, let's get on with it, and understand that the American
public has made their voice clear on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. So Homeland Investigations is part of ICE. There are
7,000 special agents that work for ICE that stop transnational
criminals. You are not suggesting that we not fund them, are you?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. I am suggesting that we get everybody in a room on the
ICE issue. Lock them in a room here in the Capitol--our negotiators. I
need the President to send his envoy so we can actually make some
decisions. It has been hard to negotiate with Senate Republicans on
this issue because they need the blessing of the White House. Get all
the players in a room. We will sit down. I will do it. I will be here
all day and all night and all weekend.
But I have to tell you, you can't use one group of people as a shield
to not fund all the other border missions, all the other funding, FEMA.
You can't do it.
Mr. MORENO. One more question, with your permission.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. So nobody on your side has agreed to fund USCIS. You have
not suggested that. USCIS is an independent part of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Ms. SLOTKIN. I am in.
Mr. MORENO. That has not been suggested by any Democrat.
I appreciate that you are.
Nobody has agreed to fund the bioweapons of mass destruction Agency--
not been suggested.
You have specifically--not you personally--the Democrat Senators have
specifically said they do not want to fund Customs, which you
understand really well--really well--what Customs means--and Border
Protection.
These Agencies that are listed on this board--there has been no
movement among Democrats to fund these, and this is why my point is the
same.
I am not suggesting to my colleague from Michigan at all that we
permanently fund this forever. What I am saying is 2 weeks. Let's
reopen the Department of Homeland Security for 2 weeks. Let's let
people of good faith--you and I--look, we agree on what you said. Let's
take our paychecks away. Let's prevent us from flying home. Let's make
us--I will use your words--keep our butts here until we get this done,
if that means today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday. We could play
pickleball in between; that would be fantastic, OK? But we don't leave.
If that means right through Easter, by the way, we do not leave this
Chamber, and we lose pay every day that goes by until we have funded
the whole thing, because we can work it out. We can work this out.
But I look at some of your colleagues who said they are serene as to
where we are on this. I don't think there are 260,000 families that are
serene about this, and I don't think you are either.
So, again, I would just ask that you amend your resolution to say
let's fund the entire Department for 2 weeks. We don't want to defund
ICE. I am not hearing you say that. I hear some of your other
colleagues say that. But we are not looking to defund ICE, and we are
certainly not going to stop Homeland Investigations.
Let's fund the whole thing for 2 weeks. Let's get the American people
to understand we can get things done. Let's absolutely not leave--
forget DC; let's not leave this Chamber, the Capitol, until we get this
done.
That is my ask. That is my plea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 362, S. 4127; that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MORENO. Reserving my right to object, just to be clear on what
was just proposed, what was just proposed is to fund just TSA, nothing
else.
Mr. SCHATZ. What is wrong with that?
Mr. MORENO. Nothing else.
And what is wrong with that--in case you didn't hear the peanut
gallery, what is wrong with that is that there are hundreds of
thousands of other government employees who, through no fault of their
own--they did nothing wrong. They didn't have anything to do with what
happened in Minneapolis, had no role in that whatsoever. They go to
work every day, doing the best they can to keep us safe.
Yesterday, for the first time in my life, I attended a dignified
transfer ceremony in Dover. And I am thinking to myself, these three
Ohioans--what did they die for? They died to preserve freedom for us.
They didn't ask any
[[Page S1320]]
questions. They went willingly. They volunteered.
Can we honor their sacrifice by saying: Do the right thing. Fund the
Department of Homeland Security for 2 weeks. Senators stay here without
pay--not held pay, docked pay--because we haven't done our job. Article
I--we are the power of the purse.
So I would ask one last time before concluding this, can I get my
colleague from Michigan, who is a good person, to agree to amend her
proposal to fund the entire Department of Homeland Security for 2 weeks
and then force every Senator--and I think that she has the influence to
convince her colleagues--to stay here without pay until this gets done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request?
I repeat: Is there an objection to the request?
Mr. SCHATZ. Is that a request?
Mr. MORENO. Yes.
Mr. SCHATZ. I object.
Ms. SLOTKIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request?
Mr. MORENO. I, with a broken heart, object. And we did not do the
right thing for the American people today, and it is a shame. Politics
got in the way of helping working Americans. It is a disgrace.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Colorado.
S. 1383
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I am going to switch gears a little
bit here. I want to talk a little bit about the SAVE Act.
Despite its name, the SAVE Act is not going to help you or anyone in
America save on anything. It won't help you save on your gas bill, your
medicine, your rent. It won't help you save on student loans or
childcare or what you pay for utilities. This bill has nothing to do
with money at all, and it certainly isn't about helping Americans.
We are going to fight against this bill with everything we have got,
and it will fail because it is bad for the country. That is right--the
Republicans know the bill will fail, and they are intent on dragging
this out for hours, for days that could be spent addressing the real
issues that Americans face.
The cost of gas is rising every day, week after week. In parts of
Colorado, the price of gasoline has almost doubled in the last several
weeks. That is money taken straight out of your pockets. Grocery prices
are going up. Doctor's visits are going up. Housing costs are going up
as well.
Right now, one in three American households spends more than 30
percent of their income on housing--one-third. And when they are not
shelling out for rent, they are shelling out more for healthcare.
Despite living in the wealthiest country in the world, Americans pay
the highest costs for healthcare globally and in many cases get worse
results.
But we don't have to tell all of America this. We don't have to tell
all of you this; you already know it. You are living it every single
day--at the checkout line, in the pharmacy, at the doctor's office,
when you pay your electric or water bill.
And here is what makes it worse. You are doing everything right. You
are working longer hours, picking up second jobs. You are cutting back
in every way you can to make ends meet. You are skipping vacations. You
are delaying buying a home. You are putting off starting a family. Some
folks today are even skipping doses of medication just to stretch their
prescription a few more days. This is not because you want to but
because you have no choice, you see no other way.
A year ago, at his inauguration, our President promised lower prices
and no more foreign wars. This administration has already spent 20
billion of your dollars waging war on Iran, and the war has gotten
bigger, bloodier, and more expensive every day since. Just today, the
Pentagon announced their plan to ask Congress for $200 billion to fund
the war in Iran--$200 billion. That is money that we don't have. Our
deficit last year was somewhere in the vicinity of $1\3/4\ trillion.
Yet Congress is going to be asked to borrow $200 billion more and add
that to the national debt.
The SAVE Act isn't going to save any of that. It is not going to save
any American any money, and it certainly isn't going to change reality.
So what is it really about? I think it is about saving this
administration's failing agenda. And how is that? It is through voter
suppression.
The President knows that costs are high. He knows that you are angry.
He knows that the majority of Americans disapprove of the war, are
unhappy that their costs keep rising. But instead of actually lowering
prices, he is backing a bill that is going to make it harder for most
people to vote, especially for Americans whom he doesn't trust will
vote for him.
The SAVE America Act creates mountains of redtape for voters and will
ultimately remove millions of Americans from the voting rolls--
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It requires every voter to
dig through their basement, go up into their attic, and try to find
their birth certificate--right--find their passport, just so they can
register to vote, something most of them have been doing year after
year for decades.
But there are problems--real problems--with this plan. More than 21
million American citizens don't have their original birth certificate
handy or they don't have a passport, they don't have either one of
these types of identification; and 69 million married women have birth
certificates that don't have their correct last name. They changed
their name when they got married.
Taken together, the SAVE America Act would make it more difficult for
tens of millions of people to vote. It would also dismantle vote-by-
mail as we know it. Now, about one in three Americans voted by mail in
2024, an election that President Trump won. During the 2024 election,
the voters most likely to vote by mail were those over the age of 65.
It is the single best way for folks with limited mobility to exercise
their constitutional right.
Just look at Colorado. Almost 99 percent of Republican voters in
Colorado voted by mail in 2025. Now, way back in 2013, when I was still
the Governor, we passed a set of laws that established our State as the
gold standard for secure and accessible elections. We started by making
voting as accessible as possible. We established one of the first
universal vote-by-mail systems in the country. Now, you can still vote
in person, but every single Coloradan gets a ballot mailed to them.
Now, these reforms were largely created by Republican county clerks
working with our Republican secretary of state.
Vote-by-mail has proven to be less expensive, more secure, and people
love it. The turnout just goes up. It is perhaps the single most
effective way to increase voter turnout. Today, as I said, every single
registered voter gets a ballot in the mail. Every ballot that they
receive in the mail is printed on paper, meaning that we have a
physical record across the entire voting system that can be easily
audited at even the faintest hint of fraud. And we go beyond that.
It is basic common sense. The ballot arrives weeks before the
election, which gives Coloradans plenty of time to research the
candidates, talk around the kitchen table about whom they think is
going to do the best job, and submit their ballot by mail or go drop it
off at a ballot box. And even if voters wait until the last minute,
they can still register to vote and vote on election day.
Now, Colorado Republicans were behind this initiative literally every
step of the way because this was about making voting, the act of
voting, easier for everyone. Coloradans--Democrats, Republicans,
Independents--we have almost a third--actually, we have more than a
third Independents now--everybody loves this system. During the 2025
election, 98 percent of all the Coloradans who voted, voted by mail.
They submitted mail-in ballots. They dropped it off or they put it in
the mail.
And Coloradans didn't just make voting accessible; we made it secure.
We created a multilayer system of checks and balances. Every single
drop box that receives ballots is under 24-hour video surveillance from
the time the box opens for ballot return until the end of an election--
day and night. We made sure Coloradans could track their ballot the
same way you would use FedEX or UPS to track a package so voters could
trust that their ballot had been counted.
[[Page S1321]]
And in 2017, under the leadership of the Republican secretary of
state Wayne Williams, Colorado took election security to the next
level. We became the first State in the Nation to conduct a bipartisan
statewide audit after every election. The results from these audits
over the 6 years show that Colorado's vote-counting systems were more
than 99.99 percent accurate. We put the burden on a team of Democratic
and Republican leaders to use the State's resources--in other words,
the State pays for this--to ensure that every person who votes is
eligible and every vote counted matches the ballot.
Now, the SAVE Act would completely reverse this progress. It would
bog down the voter in endless mountains of new redtape, and in the end,
millions of Americans wouldn't cast a ballot at all. Now, think about
it and ask yourself who this really impacts: seniors who no longer
drive, rural Americans who live hours from a government office. These
are likely Republican voters, but it is going to impact them
negatively. It will impact working parents who can't take time off to
track down paperwork or take work off to vote in person. It would
impact women whose last names have changed, as I mentioned. At the end
of the day, none of it helps you, the voter.
It is all a distraction--a rather large distraction. Every hour that
we are spending in the debate about the SAVE America Act is an hour we
are not spending bringing down the cost of groceries or housing,
healthcare.
While Americans are worried about costs and they are worried about
their families and their future, the administration is relitigating the
2020 election and waging a war most Americans don't want. All of this
chaos--from Colorado to Venezuela to Iran to Minnesota--is one big
distraction from this administration's failure to lower costs for
Americans.
The bill was never about saving Americans money. They call it the
SAVE Act. It creates a misrepresentation. But what we should be here
today to accomplish is to figure out how to save money for the American
people, for all of you.
If your agenda is working and you are delivering on promises, you
don't have to make it harder for people to vote. I would argue that
agenda might not be working. I think the results, if your agenda
is working--and the people--speak for themselves.
So let me spell it out. Americans want lower costs--not wars abroad,
not violence in the streets. Americans are looking literally for any
sign that this administration still sees them, still sees the rising
grocery costs, the gas prices, the huge bill increases from doctors'
offices.
This administration refuses to acknowledge these problems exist, and
there is so much infighting within the President's ranks that they
can't decide whether this war will go on for 2 weeks or 5 weeks or a
year. Are American troops going to be deployed? The jury is still out
on that as well. It is a lot of noise and not a lot of substance. So
far, there is no evidence of a comprehensive plan and certainly no--and
by that I mean zero--accountability to the American people.
Let's remember, the Pentagon just announced their plan to ask
Congress for $200 billion to fund the war in Iran. They want the
American taxpayers to sign off on borrowing--because we don't have the
cash--$200 billion more money--$200 billion more. With that kind of
money, we could fund universal pre-K in every State in this country, we
could get to universal healthcare coverage, we could have free school
meals for every child and free community college for every American for
a full year.
So when they shout out the importance of the SAVE Act, remember this
one thing: It will not help you save a penny on your rent, your
groceries, the cost of your healthcare. The only thing it is saving, I
would argue, is their political skin.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am back again to address the SAVE
America Act, and what I can't really get my brain around is the fact
that in a recent poll, 71 percent of Americans support the SAVE America
Act.
Now, it is no secret that our Nation is politically polarized, but
when 71 percent of Americans think that this is a good idea and we
can't get it done, it is pretty hard to explain. So let me try.
So why would you say that we oppose only American citizens being able
to vote? Why would you say that? Why would you oppose the proposition
that only American citizens can vote? And why would you oppose the
proposition that in order to cast a ballot, that you need to produce an
ID, a picture ID?
Well, maybe there are other explanations that I haven't thought of,
but the explanation that occurs to me is because you think that illegal
aliens should be able to vote. Maybe you think that people should not
have to produce a photo ID so they can pretend to be somebody they are
not and cast a ballot on their behalf.
I wish our Democratic colleagues would just come out and fess up and
admit that that is their motivation: letting illegal aliens vote and
letting people commit voter fraud by pretending to be somebody they are
not because they are not required to produce a photo ID.
Well, I can think of maybe one other explanation. You remember back
when the President spoke at the State of the Union, he asked for all
the members of the audience there assembled before him in front of the
whole country to stand if you support law enforcement and public safety
and not illegal immigrants? All Republicans stood; all Democrats sat on
their hands.
I found it particularly telling when some of the TV cameras zoomed in
on some of the Democrats who were very--if I am interpreting their body
language correctly--they were very uncomfortable because they knew that
what they were doing was wrong, but they felt like for some reason they
had to do it.
And then there is the decision of the President to eliminate the
nuclear weapons program of the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime is
the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism. They have had
American blood on their hands for 47 years, since the Iranian
Revolution, produced these explosively foreign penetrators that killed
or maimed the servicemembers of the United States over many years,
their proxies, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Iranian--the Shia
militias. They have American blood on their hands, and the Biden
administration and previous administrations knew that they aspired to
have a nuclear weapon.
Now, I cannot imagine anything worse than the No. 1 state sponsor of
terrorism getting a nuclear weapon. They are committed to the death of
Israel. They want to wipe Israel off the map, but they also chant
``Death to America.''
What is it about that, that we don't understand and believe? And
thank goodness President Trump had the courage--political and
otherwise, and the confidence in the United States military--to do what
needed to be done in order to protect our own troops in the Middle East
and help prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
What do our Democratic colleagues do? They said: Well, Trump started
the war, and there is no identifiable end state, so we oppose what
President Trump is doing.
So Trump derangement syndrome causes people to do really strange
things, to take the side of the No. 1 state sponsor of international
terrorism that wants a nuclear weapon, to cause Members of Congress to
sit on their hands rather than to support and applaud our law
enforcement personnel that keep our communities safe.
And now, we see this happening at our airports across the country
where, because of Democratic obstruction, our TSA agents--the people
who are maintaining the security at the airports--they have been
working. They have now missed two paychecks--and for what good reason
could that be?
Well, I think it is Trump derangement syndrome. They know that
President Trump wants the Department of Homeland Security funded, which
means they automatically reflexively
[[Page S1322]]
don't want it funded and they frankly don't care who they hurt.
It is shameful. It ought to be embarrassing, but some people can't be
embarrassed. So Democrats are now forced into a strange posture on this
SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship to vote and proof
of identification in order to cast a ballot.
Democrats are forced into the awkward position of saying we should
block--they should block this legislation that so many of their own
constituents apparently want and agree with.
I have to say listening to some of what passes for arguments on the
other side, I find myself unpersuaded by their fearmongering. I
remember I asked in the Judiciary Committee the other day--I asked the
ranking member, the Democratic whip Senator Durbin from Illinois, I
said: What is it that the Democrats dislike about the SAVE America Act?
He said: Well, it will disenfranchise people.
Well, not if you can show you are an American citizen, not if you
have a photo ID. You are not going to be disenfranchised. So that must
mean that you are worried about disenfranchising noncitizens, illegal
immigrants. You are worried about disenfranchising the election cheat
who wouldn't be required to show photo ID but yet casts a ballot
pretending to be someone they are not.
Two days ago, Minority Leader Schumer came to the Senate floor and
said: The SAVE Act is not about election integrity. It is voter
suppression. Well, he is half right. It is illegal-voter suppression.
But his general argument that American citizens would be denied the
opportunity to vote is patently false. Thirty-eight States, including
States like Georgia and Rhode Island, currently represented by
Democrats, require voter ID. Are those States suppressing the vote? Is
the minority leader suggesting that 38 out of our 50 States are
actively engaged in voter suppression?
Well, that is preposterous on its face. Some States like my State of
Texas requires voters to show an ID with an option to sign an affidavit
alongside the secondary form of ID to establish their identity. In
other words, we make it easy.
So the idea that the SAVE America Act will disenfranchise legitimate
voters is a baldfaced--well, let me try to be generous. It is not true,
and he knows it. The Democratic leader knows that is false, but he has
the temerity to stand up here on the Senate floor and to tell people
who may not be informed about the details of this, that we are trying
to take away their right to vote.
Well, it is the Democrats who are diluting your vote if you are a
qualified voter by allowing noncitizens or people who engage in
election fraud the opportunity to vote.
They are diluting your vote, making it less valuable. So the SAVE
America Act will not disenfranchise legitimate voters. It will simply
universalize ID requirements, so that all 50 States will play by the
same rules.
Another charge that we are hearing is that, well, it is just too hard
to prove you are an American citizen because you need a passport. You
will need a passport to vote, and any requirement that you need a
passport will be too burdensome. Well, of course, anybody who has
traveled will have a passport, of course.
But, once again, this argument that you need a passport to vote is
not true. The SAVE America Act allows Americans to prove their
citizenship by a variety of documents, including, but not limited to, a
passport.
Americans can present an enhanced driver's license, a REAL ID-
compliant license, or a State ID card, all of which are sufficient
under this bill to prove you are an American citizen.
I have a REAL ID driver's license in my pocket as do most drivers. We
required licenses, post-9/11, to prevent terrorists from getting false
identities and traveling on our airplanes and blowing them out of the
sky. We required that States eventually would require a REAL ID, which
just has a radio frequency chip in it that is hard to counterfeit so
that we have assurance that people who produce a driver's license with
a REAL ID in it are who they say they are.
So you don't need a passport. You can use a military identification
card. You can use a certificate of naturalization, if you weren't born
in this country but became, by grace of God, an American citizen.
Furthermore, if an American does not have any of the above, they can
pair a photo ID with their birth certificate, a consular report of
birth abroad, or similar documents. In other words, there are a lot of
different ways that people can establish that they are qualified to
vote.
Finally, and perhaps the most outrageous charge that our Democratic
colleagues have been flinging at us is that married women--we are going
to disenfranchise married women whose birth certificate does not
reflect their current married name. They won't be able to vote.
Well, that would be foolish if that were true. As somebody who is not
only married for 46 years but the father of two adult daughters, I
promise I would be the last person on the planet to tell a woman she
has no right to vote.
So this is nothing but a scare tactic. Certainly it is easy to be
able to establish, based on a marriage license or something else, some
other qualifying document, that your birth certificate name is
different than your married name. So this is nothing more than a scare
tactic by our colleagues who want, what? Why are they objecting to
this? Let me put it less charitably. They want to make it easier for
people to cheat. That is a harsh statement, but you tell me what the
other alternatives are. They want to make it easier to cheat.
The reality is, the SAVE America Act provides a process for anyone
who changes their legal name for reasons of marriage or otherwise to
register to vote.
And anyone who is already registered to vote at the time they change
their name would just have to update their voter registration. Well, I
think women voters should be offended that somehow they are not capable
of being able to identify themselves, either with a marriage license or
a birth certificate, or that it is just too hard for them; they can't
figure it out.
That is insulting. Well, I have full confidence that American
citizens who happen to be female who go through these heroic efforts to
keep our businesses running and take care of our families, I have full
confidence they will be capable of updating their voter registration to
match their new married name.
To listen to our Democratic colleagues, you would think the American
people are incapable of thinking for themselves or are incapable of
simply locating these legal documents.
And we are not doing this for frivolous reasons. It is because,
apparently, our Democratic colleagues think that noncitizens should be
allowed to vote and that election fraudsters should be able to vote
without proving their identity.
On behalf of the 32 million Texans I represent, I find this argument
deeply offensive.
America is the greatest place on Earth. What we have here is the envy
of people around the world who want to come here because of the
opportunities that this great country provides.
But one of the most important aspects of America is that our laws are
passed by elected representatives and that our laws are legitimized by
the consent of the governed, who cast a vote on behalf of those
officeholders, those Members of Congress on their behalf. And these are
positions of trust that we hold. But the authority comes from the
voters and comes from the citizens, not illegal immigrants, not
election fraudsters.
That undermines the very foundation upon which the legitimacy of our
government rests. I think a country with citizens bright enough to put
a man on the Moon and to build the strongest, most powerful military in
the world and the greatest economy that the world has ever known, I
think those folks are smart enough and capable enough to be able to
locate their driver's license when they cast a ballot and to establish
their citizenship in order to qualify to vote.
Any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S1323]]
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Department of Homeland Security
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, you know, it is so interesting that we
are finding ourselves here on a Thursday, and one of the pressing
issues is DHS funding for Homeland Security. And I find it so
interesting that my colleagues across the aisle continue to be given to
this concept that they have grown over the last few years.
And it is that we need to defund Federal law enforcement, and we need
to abolish ICE. And, of course, we know they have made this commitment
to their leftist base that what they are going to do is find a way to
go through defunding Federal law enforcement and abolishing ICE. And to
them that is the holy grail.
So let's look at what this actually would do. I think it is important
to note that the Department of Homeland Security--that ICE is already
funded, fully funded, and will be fully funded through 2029.
Now, they can rant and rave all day long, but nothing is going to
change that. That is already there. We did that this summer, and it was
in the Big Beautiful Bill, working family tax cuts, but, of course,
they all voted no. No one on the Democrat side voted for that, even
though it was the largest tax cut in our Nation's history.
So they obviously never read the bill to find out what was in the
bill, but one would think that with this much time having passed, that
they would be aware that ICE is fully funded.
Now, what they are doing is prohibiting funding from FEMA, Secret
Service, the Coast Guard, and other components of Homeland Security.
And FEMA makes up 35 percent of the DHS budget.
And I just think it is so important to note TSA is not being paid,
and this is now day 35 that the Democrats have said to TSA and to the
American people: We are going to use you as our pawns because we want
to make certain that we are defunding Federal law enforcement and we
are abolishing ICE.
So our TSA workers are out there working without a paycheck because
of this singular focus of our friends across the aisle. I encourage
them to set this aside. We need to make certain that Homeland Security
investigations, that TSA, that FEMA, that the Coast Guard, and that the
Secret Service are all receiving appropriate funding and that we make
certain DHS--Homeland Security--has the funds to keep this Nation safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Honoring Private Luther Leru ``Dusty'' Rhodes
Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life, service, and
long-awaited homecoming of Private Luther Leru ``Dusty'' Rhodes of
Edneyville, Henderson County, NC, a U.S. marine who gave his life in
defense of our Nation during World War II.
Luther Rhodes was born in Edneyville on March 22, 1924, and raised on
his family's farm in the Blue Ridge, Appalachian Mountains alongside
nine brothers and sisters.
From an early age, Luther learned the values of hard work, devotion
to family, responsibility to others, values that shaped the man that he
would become and guided his decision to serve his country.
At just 17 years old, Luther was determined to enlist. After
receiving his father's permission, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps on
November 11, 1941--just weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbor. He
completed recruit training at Parris Island and was assigned to L
Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division at New River--
now Camp Lejeune--NC.
In late May 1942, Private Rhodes deployed to New Zealand and soon
thereafter took part in the amphibious landings on Guadalcanal on
August 7, 1942--the first major American offensive of the war in the
Pacific. His unit captured Henderson Field and then endured months of
sustained, often brutal combat, including Bloody Ridge and battles
along the Matanikau River.
During this period, Luther became known among his fellow Marines as
the Kid and by the nickname ``Dusty.'' He was young and slight, with
light blond hair and a boyish face, but he demonstrated courage and
resolve beyond his years. He earned the respect of the men with whom he
served.
On the night of October 7, 1942, during the Third Battle of the
Matanikau, Japanese forces attempted to break through marine lines. In
the darkness and confusion of that engagement, Luther Rhodes was killed
in action. He was 18 years old.
His fellow marines recovered his body the following morning. One of
them, Lawrence ``Hardrock'' Gerkin, who had taken Luther under his
wing, was informed personally of the young marine's death. When Gerkin
saw Luther's body wrapped in a poncho, he was overcome with grief. He
ordered the men carrying him to handle him with care. Decades later,
those who witnessed that moment still recalled how Luther's blond hair
appeared alongside the battlefield.
But the chaos of the war and the movement of his remains afterward
created lasting uncertainty. Luther's body was buried in a temporary
Marine cemetery on Guadalcanal, but his remains were never returned
home. In 1949, he was declared permanently nonrecoverable.
His parents wrote to the Marine Corps in 1946, pleading for
information and expressing their hope that their son could one day be
returned to the United States for his final resting place.
Their youngest son Marvin grew up never knowing his brother. Luther
died when Marvin was just 6 months old. For decades, Marvin searched
for answers. He submitted DNA. He attended briefings. He followed every
lead that he could, and eventually he lost hope that his brother would
ever be found.
Then, last year--in 2025--the phone rang. The Defense POW/MIA
Accounting Agency had identified Luther Rhodes from remains buried at
the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu. Advances in
DNA technology had finally made it possible.
After 83 years, Luther was coming home.
For the people of Henderson County, that news meant something deep.
It meant a son of the mountains who left home as a teenager to serve
his country was finally coming back to the hills that raised him.
Next weekend, Luther Rhodes will be laid to rest at Edneyville United
Methodist Church, near his parents and siblings, in the soil they
prayed he would one day return to--back in the Appalachian Mountains,
among his own people.
That identification came through persistence, careful research, and
an unwavering commitment to the principle that no American
servicemember should ever be forgotten. It came through the
extraordinary work of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency. It came
through the advocacy of the Hedrick-Rhodes VFW Post 5206 in
Hendersonville. It came through the determination of family members and
community leaders who refused to abandon the search.
To Marvin Rhodes and the entire Rhodes family, the people of North
Carolina honor your brother. We honor your sacrifice, and we are
grateful that Luther is finally coming home.
I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Private Luther Leru
``Dusty'' Rhodes, U.S. Marine Corps, and in reaffirming our commitment
to never cease our efforts to account for those who remain missing in
action.
May God bless the memory of Luther Rhodes, and may God bless the
United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Department of Homeland Security
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I had spoken a little bit earlier
about what was happening with Homeland Security funding. One of the
things that we are hearing from so many school groups and church groups
and
[[Page S1324]]
people and families who are coming up for spring break is their
disappointment with these long lines at the airports and the difficulty
in making those travel arrangements.
Again, I think it is so important to encourage our colleagues across
the aisle to accept some of the concessions and the offers that have
been made to them in order to fully fund DHS and focus on our Nation's
security, but, as I mentioned earlier, they choose not to do that
because they want to abolish ICE. That is their North Star right now.
That is their guiding principle.
They are all about abolishing ICE, so let's look at what that would
mean. One of the things that we learned from the American people is
they wanted to see our Nation's borders closed. They wanted to make
certain that we--the American people--know who is coming into our
country and why they are coming into our country. We know that we want
to be certain that people are not coming here with ill intent.
We have seen this play out. We know for a fact that there are about
18,000 known terrorists who came in during the 4 years of the Joe Biden
administration. Many of these people came in with criminal records.
We know they are on these Terrorist Watchlists. We know that they have
moved across our country and that the Department of Homeland Security
has been locating these individuals, moving to apprehend these
individuals in order to detain them and prosecute them and to get them
out of our country.
Interestingly enough, the vast majority of the American people agree
with that process. They agree that these are individuals who should be
removed from the country.
It is really quite amazing to me. In Tennessee, I have not talked to
one single person--not one--who says ``Marsha, do you know what? I hope
we get more terrorist moving into our neighborhood'' or ``Marsha, I
hope we have more gangs, more drug dealers, more drug traffickers, more
human traffickers, more sex traffickers, more pedophiles'' in their
communities. They don't want that, and there is a good reason for that.
The people in this country value public safety. They value that. They
want our Nation to be safe. They want our communities to be safe. They
want to make certain that we are going to have a safe environment in
which to live.
Public safety and defending our country--that is kind of at the top
of the to-do list when you talk with people about their expectations of
the activities we are going to take up.
S. 1383
Mr. President, there is another thing that is at the top of their to-
do list, and that has to do with the SAVE America Act that is before us
right now.
This legislation holds two provisions that the majority of the
American people agree with. Democrats give it a 71-percent thumbs-up
approval rating, Independents approve it by about 85 percent, and over
90 percent of Republicans approve of this. It is really quite simple.
It really is common sense--common sense, obviously, to Democrats all
across the country, to Independents all across the country, and to
Republicans all across the country, but to the Democrats in this
Chamber, they say: Oh, no, no, no. No, you don't.
The two provisions are these:
No. 1, if you are going to register to vote in a U.S. election, you
have to prove that you are, indeed, a U.S. citizen--very common sense.
We don't allow people who are not citizens to register to vote because
they are not a citizen.
Now, if you were to follow the illogic that is on display from many
of my colleagues across the aisle, you would hear them say: Well, we
need to allow these individuals to be a part of the community.
Do you know what? They are illegally in the country. They do not have
a right to vote, and they should not register to vote.
But we have 19 States--19 in this country--19 States--that will allow
people who are illegally in the country to get a driver's license.
Well, what does that have to do with voter registration? It is because
of the motor voter law. What they will do is get that driver's license,
and then they will check that little box that says they can register to
vote or that they want to register to vote. Then the responsibility of
getting them off that registration goes to your State registrar of
elections because they are going to have to match up their voter rolls
against the list of individuals who are in the country illegally and
make certain they are not there.
States also can clean up these rolls by making certain that what they
are doing is checking it against the IRS-Social Security death rolls.
This is how you make certain that your rolls are accurate. That,
indeed, is what needs to be done to ensure that people who are eligible
to register to vote are the only ones who are registering to vote.
Now, there is another thing that can be done to help with making
certain we are respecting citizens, respecting ``one person, one
vote,'' and making certain we are respecting that right to cast that
ballot, and that is having individuals who are going to the polls to
vote actually show their ID.
Now, in Tennessee, we do this. This is standard process for us in
Tennessee. And, by the way, we clean up and verify our rolls. We make
certain that we are doing that. We check them against the Social
Security and the DHS rolls, and we are certain that people are a
citizen.
Makes sense, doesn't it? If you are going to vote, you have got to be
a citizen. And when people go to the poll, they take that photo ID, and
they show that ID before they cast that ballot. This is an action that
shows respect. It shows respect for ``one person, one vote.'' It shows
respect for the process. It shows respect for our citizens.
The SAVE America Act and what it embodies is making certain that
people prove they are who they are when they go to that poll, that
people prove they are indeed a citizen of this great Nation--the
greatest Nation on the face of the Earth--and that they are thereby
entitled to register to vote. These are actions that certainly are
there to help protect that process, and we want to make certain that
the SAVE America Act is passed, that it makes it to President Trump's
desk, and that it is, indeed, signed into law.
And I think that all of our colleagues across the aisle, when you
look at the fact that 71 percent--71 percent--of the Democrats support
this, 85 percent of the Independents support this, 90-something percent
of the Republicans support this, so it leads you to ask the question:
What are they afraid of?
Well, one of the things that we continue to look at is, as we talk
about elections, we should make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.
And verification, clean rolls, respecting that process--yes, indeed,
that is going to make it easier to vote. It is going to make it harder
to cheat. That is something that the SAVE America Act would accomplish.
But our colleagues across the aisle are fearful of that.
I would encourage my friends to think long and hard: What are they
afraid of with the SAVE America Act? Are they concerned that it would
eliminate fraud? Are they concerned that it would clean up elections?
Are they concerned that our counties and States might verify and clean
up those voter rolls? Why would they not want to do this?
I was doing a telephone townhall with Tennesseans the other night. We
had several thousand on the phone, and a gentleman asked this question,
he said: I don't get this. What are the Democrats afraid of with the
SAVE America Act?
And I told him, I said: You know what? I don't get it either because
if we want to preserve ``one person, one vote,'' if we want to make
certain we are protecting your right to make certain your vote counts,
then these two steps would go a long way to giving individuals the
confidence that they want to know that their elections are going to be
fair.
And, in Tennessee, we have been ranked as having--we are ranked as
No. 1 in election integrity. We go through all of these steps, and it
would be a wise move for other States to begin through this process.
I would encourage these 19 States that don't require you to show
identification or either don't require you to show citizenship or don't
require documentation to register as they are going to vote, I would
require them to look very closely at this to respect the voter and to
make certain their rolls are cleared.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S1325]]
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to use a
framed photograph as an exhibit during my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I have been saying all week, colleagues,
that Democrats will be here on the floor fighting this Republican
voter-suppression bill, this so-called SAVE America Act, tooth and nail
for as long as it takes, and we are keeping that promise because
Republicans are trying to pull off this bait and switch for the
American people.
Let me be clear: This bill is anything but a voter ID bill. If you
are a married woman who chose to change her name when she got married,
you could be kept from registering to vote under this bill.
If this were to pass, vote-by-mail, that option would be gone. No-
excuse absentee voting, that too would be gone. Your driver's license,
which most people think would be sufficient under a voter ID law to
access the ballot box, not good enough anymore.
Why? It is because the American people are tired and angry about the
Donald Trump disastrous agenda, the failures of the Republican majority
to improve their lives. And instead of facing the consequences of their
actions and owning their record, they want to change the rules of our
elections to avoid consequences from the voters.
And I can't help but note the timing of this debate. Sixty-one years
ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and
addressed a joint session of Congress, delivering a powerfully
important message to his fellow Americans, a message that is still
resonating to this very day. He said:
Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or
abundance, our welfare or our security, but rather to the
values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved
Nation.
A challenge to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our
Nation, that is a pretty good summary of what is happening this week.
President Johnson went on to say:
Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.
There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right.
There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the
duty we have to ensure that right.
President Johnson was speaking not just to Congress, but to America
in the days after Bloody Sunday, when civil rights activists, including
former Congressmember John Lewis, when they were violently attacked and
beaten crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched for the right
to vote.
Now, many of us have treasured memories with John Lewis. Mr.
President, I keep this photo in my office where it inspires me every
single day.
In the weeks that followed Bloody Sunday, our country and Congress
rose to meet the moment and, coming together, Congress passed one of
the most significant pieces in our Nation's history, the Voting Rights
Act of 1965.
Yet, here we are today, debating a bill that would turn back the
clock, that would do so much to deny so many their most fundamental
right as Americans, our right to vote.
That is shameful. In this country, the right to vote is a sacred
thing. After casting our ballots, so many people are so proud to share
with their friends, share with the public, that they have participated
in our democracy; they have done their civic duty--they wear buttons;
they wear stickers--which is why we cannot allow these efforts to
restrict voter access that are at the heart of this bill.
Now, doing so would be an enormous and dangerous step backwards.
Under, again, the so-called SAVE America Act, all 50 States would be
required to send their voter rolls--including a lot of private
information of voters--to the Department of Homeland Security. I spoke
a couple of days ago as to why the Department of Homeland Security is
the last entity you would want handling this vital information.
Now, once there, known election deniers who have been appointed by
the administration would certainly run these lists through the
Department of Homeland Security's SAVE Program--different kind of
``save'' than the name of this bill, the SAVE Program. And they would
then give back to the States lists of names of voters that should be
removed from their lists.
Now, colleagues, as you know, a substitute amendment has been filed
for the SAVE America Act that is before us that now forces further
reliance on unreliable data from the Social Security Administration.
It wasn't that long ago that we discovered that data was being
misused by DOGE with a secret agreement to share the data that they got
their hands on with outside political groups seeking to overturn
election results.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let me be abundantly
clear with this point: This is not an accusation. Trump's Department of
Justice has admitted to this in court.
And here is another admission that the administration has made ``Due
to misspellings of names, transposed numbers, or incomplete
information, the SAVE Program may produce inaccurate results.'' Again,
this is not theoretical. This is not an accusation. It is happening
right now.
Twelve States have chosen, or have been politically pressured, to
cooperate by providing the Trump administration with their voter rolls,
and there has been analysis that reveals how this demonstration is
going.
NPR reports that as of December, the information of more than 47
million voters had been run through the SAVE Program at DHS, and that
means the administration is already flagging American citizens--
eligible American voters--to be purged from the rolls. Of course, you
know what happens when a voter has been purged from the rolls: The
burden falls on the voter to undo it, to navigate bureaucracy in order
to prove their citizenship, once again, and to register to vote, once
again.
But many won't even know there is a problem until they show up on
election day, and they are turned away because even though they have
been voting there for years and years and years, all of a sudden they
are not on the list.
Texas is 1 of those 12 States. And again, the review of the activity
that is already happening by DHS and this so-called SAVE Program in
Travis County, 25 percent of the flagged names had already proven their
citizenship--one in four voters.
And in Boone County, MO--another State that is participating--more
than half of the voters that DHS told those States to remove were
citizens. So let that sink in for a moment: 25 to 50 percent of the
names were flagged in error; one in four voters--half of voters.
Can you see how this would be a huge problem? Eligible voters being
removed from the rolls and even referred to DHS for possible criminal
investigation, that is the broken system that Donald Trump wants to use
to maintain voter rolls nationwide, and that is the question being
posed to the Senate and to Congress. I know how Democrats are
responding. So the question is really, Is this what Republicans want
too?
As you look through the rest of the bill, you know that this SAVE
Program utilization is not the only problem. And we don't have to guess
as to what the strict documentation requirements would cause if imposed
on the voters.
Look no further than the State of Kansas when they tried something
very similar to this just a few years ago: 31,000 eligible citizens
blocked from registering to vote--31,000 eligible citizens blocked in
Kansas. If I were the Senator from Kansas, I would be up in arms.
Or look to New Hampshire. Hundreds of voters were turned away last
year under a recently enacted State law because they didn't have a
passport or a birth certificate on hand when they went to the polls--
the very types of requirements in the language of the bill before us.
Joshua Bogden was one of those voters. In the late afternoon on
election day, he turned up at his polling site to vote, only to be
turned away because all he had on him was his driver's license that
day. He had to race home and frantically search for his passport; then
race back to the polls before they closed. Thankfully, he was able to
vote that day, but he admitted later that if
[[Page S1326]]
there was anything that might have delayed him--having to take longer
to find the passport, maybe getting caught up in traffic--he would not
have been able to cast his vote. He would have been denied his
fundamental right to vote.
Now, I have also heard some of the sponsors of this bill say: Oh,
don't worry. If you don't have the proper paperwork in hand, there is
going to be a separate process. And they replied to me: Well, just read
the bill. Well, guess what. I have read the bill, and I will tell you
about this last-minute provision, this last-minute affidavit process
that has been inserted into the bill to try to provide cover for those
hiding behind the true intent.
The fact of the matter is that there are no clear standards for this
alternate process that they are pointing to. There is no clear
explanation as to how it would work. All we do know is that if this
bill were to pass and be signed by the President, it would go into
effect immediately.
So let's be clear about what is fundamentally happening here.
Maintaining accurate voter rolls is vital for our elections. It
requires precision, it requires transparency. Trust me, I served as
California's secretary of state prior to coming to the Senate. Nobody
understands this in this body better than I do. But I also understand
that that transparency, that precision is not in this bill.
Instead, this bill creates a system where mistakes are inevitable.
And if mistakes are inevitable, then it is inevitable that people will
be denied their fundamental right to vote.
There is a reason, colleagues, that President Johnson and civil
rights leaders came to push so hard for the passage of the Civil Rights
Act and the Voting Rights Act. It was to move our country forward, not
backward.
But this bill--this so-called SAVE America Act--would be a huge step
backward for our country.
Democrats are prepared to meet this challenge. We will continue
opposing this bill--I will say it again--today, tonight, tomorrow, for
as long as it takes. Nothing is more fundamental in our democracy than
the right to vote, and we will do everything in our power to protect
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the SAVE America Act.
Let me be clear right off the bat: I believe in protecting the
integrity of our elections. I believe our elections should be, and are,
safe and secure. And I believe we must always make sure there is no
meddling in our elections.
Every eligible American deserves to have their voice heard at the
ballot box, and they deserve to have confidence in our democratic
system.
So this is not a Democrat or Republican value. Free and fair
elections are the foundation of the United States of America, and
protecting these free and fair elections should be something every
elected official should support, but that is not what this bill is
really about. It is not what this bill is really about.
The hyperpartisan so-called SAVE America Act, it isn't about making
our elections any safer. It is not even about keeping our elections
free and fair. It is quite the opposite. This bill is about making it
harder--making it harder--for eligible Americans to vote and shrinking
the size of our electorate to benefit Republicans.
This bill would impose strict restrictions on Americans' ability to
vote--restrictions so severe that a woman who gets married and changes
her last name could be barred from voting because her last name doesn't
match her birth certificate. Think about that. You take your husband's
name. Now you can't vote because your current last name doesn't match
your birth certificate.
You know, you see Donald Trump and Washington Republicans, they are
so, so afraid of being held accountable for their actions and their
jobs and what they are doing that they are trying anything that they
can possibly do to prevent people from voting in order to increase
their odds in this year's midterm elections.
They know their actions to raise gas prices, cut your healthcare,
increase costs with illegal tariffs--groceries up, rent up, utilities
up--they are not popular with the American people, and that is why
Trump first tried to rig congressional maps in red States like Texas
and Missouri to give Republicans an advantage.
And when that didn't work, Washington Republicans--well, they decided
to push a hyperpartisan bill. You heard me right. Instead of working to
improve your lives, to improve lives of Americans by lowering costs at
the kitchen table, by expanding access to healthcare, and face the
voters on the merits of their work, they would just rather restrict the
electorate. In other words, they just want to stop people from voting
and at a time when families are struggling--they are struggling to make
ends meet--when people are being squeezed by rising prices at the
grocery store, now at the gas pump going higher and higher every day
and, well, at the doctor's office, if you still have insurance.
Washington Republicans have chosen to focus all of their efforts--
every single one of them--on preventing people from voting. Washington
Republicans are not lowering your costs. They are not helping working
families get ahead. Instead, they are making it harder for Americans to
exercise their constitutional right to vote.
So let's not kid ourselves here. Washington Republicans are using
this totally unnecessary and harmful bill, well, as a distraction, a
distraction from the fact that families are struggling to keep up with
the rising costs of their lives, a distraction from the fact that gas
prices are going up every single day, a distraction that groceries are
more expensive, and they are going up every single day, along with the
price of gas.
It is a distraction from the fact that too many Americans are just
worried about how they are going to afford their healthcare and their
medication and what tough choices they may have to make in order to
make ends meet.
These are the things that really keep people up at night, and these
are the things that the Senate should be focused on. And so Trump and
Washington Republicans have done absolutely nothing to lower the price
of your groceries or your gas and nothing to make sure that your
healthcare is more affordable. Washington Republicans simply don't care
about your monthly bills going up and up. Instead, we are debating a
bill that does absolutely nothing to make life more affordable for
anyone.
So what should we be doing? We should be working together to protect
against real threats to our elections like foreign interference, voter
intimidation, and making sure that every legal vote is counted, not
creating new obstacles for Americans who are simply trying to exercise
their constitutional right to vote.
We should be working together to address real threats and the real
challenges that American families are facing today. It is taking care
of your family, kids going to school, rent, groceries, utilities,
opportunity.
We should be working together to address those financial pressures
that families are under to come up with the good solutions, good
policies that will actually make a real difference for people in their
lives at their kitchen table, and that is really what we have been
elected to do.
And so we owe it to the voters to do that, and we also owe it to the
voters to protect their right to vote in future elections.
So, to be clear, I will not support policies that make it harder for
eligible Americans to vote. So I urge my colleagues to reject the SAVE
America Act and get back to focusing on what actually matters to the
American people: lowering everyday costs, making life more affordable
and a good future more attainable.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to read excerpts of a letter of
March 17 to Senators Collins and Britt from the border czar and the
Director of
[[Page S1327]]
Legislative Affairs for the Trump administration. I won't read the
whole thing, except to point out that there are five substantive areas
in which the administration expressed a willingness to enact reforms.
Now, that sounds kind of encouraging, but I want to read the five
points. I will summarize.
The first is, we will expand the use of body-worn cameras by DHS law
enforcement undertaking immigration enforcement operations.
Fine. Let's codify that. I think the retention of data is important.
I think the last time we talked about body-worn cameras, there was a
willingness to fund body-worn cameras. There was a willingness to
indicate that it was the policy that people should wear body-worn
cameras, but there was not yet a willingness to codify that requirement
in Federal law. But that is workable.
The second thing is, the administration will limit civil immigration
enforcement activities in certain sensitive locations, like hospitals
and schools--like hospitals and schools.
There are more sensitive locations than hospitals and schools--
churches, synagogues, mosques, polling locations. There are multiple
sensitive locations where we have just decided--until now--as a society
that that is not a good place for law enforcement, especially a roving
patrol, to be. The government should not be in a church or a synagogue
or a mosque or a temple. The government should not be in a hospital
conducting immigration enforcement. The government should not be in a
polling location or near a polling location conducting immigration
enforcement.
So the idea of limiting civil immigration enforcement activities at
certain sensitive locations is a reasonable start; however, I would
like to rule out all of the sensitive locations and not just say ``like
hospitals and schools.''
Now, here is where it gets a little--like, those are fine. That is
workable. That is negotiable.
I want to take you through the next three bullet points.
This is the third bullet point, which starts with ``The
administration will adhere to current law that affords Congress
oversight of DHS detention facilities.'' It is literally saying: We
have five concessions we are willing to make, and one of them is to
adhere to current law.
What in the hell is happening to this country where it is a
concession from one political party to the other to adhere to Federal
statutory law? That is not a concession. That is not something we have
to negotiate for. That is not a show of good faith.
It is also a concession that they were not adhering to current law
until now.
This is an offer. We offer that we are going to follow the law.
The fourth point is that the administration will enforce the use of
visible officer identification.
I think that is also referring to a current Federal statute.
By the way, the question of masks is a little sticky. There is no
question in my mind that masks are being overused, and if there is no
reason that ICE officers and ICE officers alone all have to not reveal
their face, their badge number, even what Agency they work for--the
reason people trust their local police department is because when
something happens, you see their face.
Hello, I am Officer So-and-So. How can I be useful?
There are some very narrow circumstances--an undercover operation or
if an agent has been doxed--where you may want to protect their
privacy, but that is not the norm, and it has become the norm within
ICE.
Here is the final bullet point: The administration will adhere to
existing law and practice of not deporting any U.S. citizens.
That is a concession? We are not going to deport any U.S. citizens in
violation of Federal law? That is a give to us? That is not a give to
anybody; that is the Federal law. And this was what was sent as a
``Look, we are working on it.''
So all of this is to say that we are not that close to a deal on ICE.
It is not that discussions are not ongoing. It is not they are not
people of good faith trying to figure out how to both fund this Agency
and reform this Agency. Those conversations are going on. But there is
not a serious person in this building who thinks a deal is imminent.
There is not an imminent deal.
By the way, even if we had conceptional agreement, it takes time to
draft legislative text, vet legislative text, and get House and Senate
Republicans and Democrats and the White House on board. We are not that
close.
In the meantime, TSA workers are not getting paid. In the meantime,
the Coast Guard has experienced a lapse in appropriations. In the
meantime, FEMA has a lapse in appropriations. In the meantime, CISA,
which does our cyber security in the middle of a war, has a lapse in
appropriations.
So all I am asking--all we are asking is release the hostages. These
government Agencies did nothing to deserve being defunded.
By the way, that is exactly what we did about 6 weeks ago, is we
decided: We are just not in agreement about DHS, so let's fund the rest
of the government.
Ninety-six percent of the government is now funded. We funded the
Department of Defense. We funded the State Department. We funded the
National Institutes of Health. We funded the Centers for Disease
Control. We funded the Department of Energy, the Department of the
Interior. We funded all of those Departments because they have nothing
to do with the current debate.
So what I am saying is that we are not there yet on ICE, but why in
the heck would we punish TSA? Why in the heck would we punish the Coast
Guard? Why would we do that?
So I am completely flabbergasted at the position of the Republicans,
and I respect the person who is about to object, and we are going to
engage in all of this. But let's just be really clear on what their
position is: They won't fund TSA, they won't fund Coast Guard, they
won't fund FEMA, and they won't fund Cybersecurity unless we attach ICE
to it.
Let's just be adults, continue our negotiation about ICE, and release
the hostages. These are American citizens working for the government,
working for the public without a paycheck, and we could solve this
right this moment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of the Murray bill that is at the desk; that
the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my friend
from Hawaii makes a great case in a lot of areas, and he is correct--
this has been incredibly frustrating for TSA, for the Coast Guard, and
for so many other folks that are national security professionals.
DHS has a quarter-million Federal employees--a quarter-million. ICE
has 20,000 of that quarter-million. And the argument has been about
those 20,000 somewhat, but the problem is those 20,000 also do a pretty
vital job for the country.
Let me give you an example. Homeland Security investigators are part
of ICE. Those Homeland Security investigators are the Federal agents
that actually investigate human trafficking. They are the Federal
agents that do drug smuggling across the border. Homeland Security
investigators are the investigators that actually prohibit American
arms sales going out of the country to foreign nationals. These
individuals are very important to us.
Now, a fraction of ICE is what they call ERO, which is actually doing
the arrests here, but a large portion of ICE, of those 20,000 folks,
are actually doing a lot of our drug smuggling, human trafficking, arms
trafficking--all those functions.
So to be able to say ``I am defunding ICE'' is one thing, but you are
also defunding all those Federal entities that are homeland security
entities on it as well. That is our challenge in this.
As I have said to my colleagues before, when they defund ICE, at what
point does it ever turn back on? At what point do they ever come back
to my Democratic colleagues and say: It is time to actually fund ICE.
The pressure from the hard left outside has been so focused on
defunding ICE, defunding ICE, defunding ICE that it is going to make it
very, very difficult for any of my colleagues to ever vote and say they
are going to do this.
[[Page S1328]]
Now, as far as the negotiation process, my colleague from Hawaii is
correct. There have been some letters that have been exchanged. Part of
my frustration, and I have shared it with him before, is that the offer
he was dictating was actually made, and there was no response that came
back for 18 days.
So the offer was made to say: Let's talk about this. Here is a
proposal.
Eighteen days later, there was a response. We lost 2\1/2\ weeks of
time in negotiation to be able to do it.
Now, thankfully, it has moved past just that letter. There is
actually legislative language. That language is being debated behind
closed doors now, finally, to be able to talk about it. There have been
Democratic Members that are meeting with the White House and with
Republican Members here in the Senate to be able to go more in depth to
be able to figure out what to do.
It is deescalation training. Yes, it is definitely body-worn cameras
and including how they are going to be used, to try to be able to
mandate those. It is identification for officers. It is when they step
out of their vehicle, to identify who they are, to be able to track
that. It is a lot of the aspects that have been discussed, including
the warrant issue. My Democratic colleagues have said it is really
important. We want to be able to deal with the warrant issue as well.
All those things are in current negotiation around legislative
language.
Last week, I stood here and said: Why aren't we staying through the
weekend to be able to work to solve this? Why are we leaving and going
home? We should stay at the wheel and keep working until it is actually
resolved--not just for the quarter-million folks that are in DHS but
also those 20,000 folks that also work with ICE. They have families as
well. They have mortgages as well. They also want to be able to get
paid, the same as everybody else.
So the challenge now becomes--we are not going to just defund ICE and
then never turn it back on, so ICE agents quit because they know they
are not getting paid, and it just drags on for a long time. We need to
actually resolve the differences.
My colleague and I agree on body-worn cameras. We agree on
deescalation. Now, we disagree somewhat on the mask issue because the
problem has become unique. There are now activists who have apps. They
are snapping pictures and saying: There is an ICE agent here. They are
snapping a picture of their vehicle. They are putting it together. And
other people are snapping where they are, tracking, using facial
recognition to be able to identify where their family is. ICE agents,
for the first time that I know of ever, now literally put their
families at risk from Americans. In the past, ICE agents knew there
were cartels that were pursuing them. Now it is not just cartels; it is
leftwing activists that are now trying to snap a picture of them.
So while they are in one city, you can actually have an activist show
up in their hometown, at their home address, and to be able to torment
their family there.
For the sake of the ICE agent and for their kids, why would we not
allow them to be able to protect themselves and to be able to protect
their family? They are doing a job that the Federal Government has
asked them to do, to go pick up criminals and to go pick up criminal
aliens. Let's protect our family in the process of actually doing that.
So I do object to this, but I would love to be able to offer a second
alternative to this in the days ahead.
So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, first of all, I didn't get a chance to
thank the Senator from Oklahoma for keeping the Senate the Senate last
week. There was a moment where there was an exchange of views, and
actually, the majority leader had a perfect right to kind of monopolize
the time and make it so that it would have been six Republicans in a
row and we would have been just standing there, but he is the one that
said: Look, it is the Senate, we have to have a debate, and caused us
to take turns.
That seems like a small thing, but it is not a small thing because we
ought to be hard on the issues and easy on each other. And I just
appreciate his steadfastness in being decent while being extremely
conservative at the same time.
I will just make a couple of final points. On HSI, in particular, I
think a lot of us would feel more comfortable carving that out if it
weren't for the fact that so many of these HSI people are actually
being taken off of their current assignment to help conduct immigration
enforcement.
And so people are literally being taken off of preventing child
pornography, preventing arms trafficking and drug smuggling, and they
are now in these immigration enforcement actions. Three hundred remain
in Minnesota. There is a little bit of the devil being in the details
as it relates to getting our arms around this because we don't want
whatever we do to only apply to the narrow question of the
appropriations bill.
For instance, when Members said: I have a right under the
appropriations law to go and visit this detention center, the people of
the detention center who turned away Members of Congress said: We are
not funded by the appropriations bill; we are funded by the OBBBA.
Different pot of money, different set of rules that attach.
And so whatever agreement that we achieve, if we achieve one, we
can't mess around with color of money and detailees from HSI or CBP. As
these operations manifest themselves on the ground, nobody is tracking
what the color of money is.
So all of the reforms that we are talking about have to attach to
OBBBA money, have to attach to detailees from either the FBI or HSI or
any other Federal law enforcement Agency. We are trying to actually get
this Agency under control.
But my basic problem is, this is cordial, this is constructive, but
you and I both know we are not that close, and people have to make
their rent and their mortgage now.
And so the idea that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed
to sounds good in diplomacy, but the practical effect is that our
coastguardsmen and women, our TSA, our FEMA employees, our CISA
employees are going to miss paychecks because we are still in an
argument about a very, very narrow swath of the Federal Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, my friend from Hawaii is actually
correct on the color of money issue. There shouldn't be a difference.
Those are taxpayer dollars, all of them, so the taxpayers should have
accountability in that, and there shouldn't be a limitation on that.
That is one of the areas that I have also expressed frustration with
DHS on because I am also one of those folks that have made a call, that
I want to make a quick drop-in on one of the DHS detention facilities
to be able see it, and I was also told no. That should not be so.
So I agree with my colleague from Hawaii on that, that whatever rules
that apply should apply no matter what account that it comes from
because the account is actually the American taxpayer, so that should
apply in every single spot on that.
I do agree as well that we have got to be able to finish this out. We
have tried to offer several opportunities to be able to do it, want to
continue to be able to do that as well. At the very beginning of this,
we couldn't reach an agreement, so we did what was called a continuing
resolution, saying let's pay everybody short term until we can actually
get through this. That is how we started this. That actually ended, and
now, we don't have anything on it as well.
So I would like to offer a 4-week version of that to say for the next
month, let's try to work through this. I think we are closer. That is
my opinion on this. I think we are closer to the debate and being able
to get this done. But if it is my family trying to be able to get to a
paycheck, they just want to know it is going to get done.
So I would like to offer a simple amendment, that is take DHS
funding, do a continuing resolution for the next month, and be able to
have it all funded. Let's keep debating. Let's keep working this out
but make sure that everybody gets paid.
[[Page S1329]]
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the
substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the
bill, as amended, 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. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I will be brief. I always enjoy our
exchanges, and this one, I think, was particularly constructive on
substance. I will just say, my job is to count, and the votes do not
exist for what the Senator from Oklahoma is asking for. They just don't
exist, not if I wanted it, not if Senator Schumer wanted it.
The votes are not there. I think that one of the things that I have
tried to convey to my Republican colleagues is the depth of feeling,
not because there is some group demanding that we be tough on this,
but because American citizens have been deported, American citizens
have been killed at the hands of this Agency.
It doesn't mean everybody in this Agency is not trying their best. It
does mean that this Agency is in desperate need of reform, and we do
not have the votes to extend funding for this Agency without reforms,
whether it is 1 day, 1 month, or 1 year.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. SCHATZ. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I am going to address two issues. The
first is the funding of DHS, and the second will be on the SAVE America
Act. I actually agree with the Senator from Hawaii. I don't think we
are close, and here is why.
The Democrats have made it very clear they are hell-bent on defunding
ICE. They have demonized these husbands, wives, cousins, sisters,
brothers, to the point where they have painted themselves into a corner
where there is nothing that they will accept, short of eliminating
immigration enforcement in this country.
The White House has acted in good faith with the Democrats on this,
with some reasonable measures, like more training, body cams, you know,
things like that. But here is what they really want. What they really
want is--they don't want people deported.
They don't actually believe in the sovereignty of the United States
of America. They don't think that as a country we should decide who is
here and who has to go. It is a fundamental disagreement that didn't
exist before. If you listen to a Bill Clinton speech from not that long
ago, he talked about strong borders and deporting people.
Barack Obama deported millions of people. What they want is a
dynamic. And if you listen closely, the reason why they want masked
agents--or ICE agents not to wear masks is they want them identified.
They want the ICE agents' families to be terrorized. They want the
facial recognition software that exists on Facebook and others, when
people are doxed, to be very clear and usable so that nobody wants to
join ICE anymore.
This is the exact same phenomena that happened with the ``defund the
police'' movement. What happened was because the police officers were
demonized by the left, people retired early. People stopped joining
police departments. Recruitment dived. That is what they want with ICE.
They want to muck up the process with this whole idea of judicial
warrants, knowing full well that warrants currently exist right now.
There is a full disposition for deportation through the process that
both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to over the years, including
Republican and Democrat Presidents. That is not good enough because
they want to make it harder to deport people.
So this fundamental question about whether or not we are going to get
funding for DHS is going to be very hard to solve when the Democrats on
the other side don't actually want to solve the problem.
And Chuck Schumer, he wants the chaos. I have talked to rank-and-file
Democrats who have no idea about the reasonable nature of what the
White House has offered because the minority leader doesn't want them
to know because this is what he wants.
He wants the chaos. He wants people stranded on spring break at
airports because he creates a bigger problem and he thinks that all
goes back to Trump. This is not like rocket science, but it is--it is
dirty.
And what the Republicans have said is: The White House is dealing in
good faith. These people deserve to be paid. We shouldn't be holding
all these people hostage, these TSA agents who are now going to miss
their third paycheck here pretty soon. Listen, I fly back and forth
every week. People can't afford that. Real people can't do that.
So this is where we are at. I think they want to create a dynamic
like they did with the ``defund the police'' movement that they were so
supportive of a decade ago with the defund ICE movement so that they
can't do their jobs and their jobs become so difficult and their
families are terrorized that nobody wants to be an ICE agent anymore.
And then what do you have? You have amnesty for the 15 million people
who are here illegally, de facto amnesty because they are not going to
be deported. That is the truth.
Now, they are not going to say it on the Senate floor, but that is
really what is going on. And so as far as I am concerned, we are not
going to do anything that kneecaps ICE's ability to do their jobs. The
American people--this was on the ballot--they support deportations.
They don't think that rapists and murderers who are here in this
country illegally are more important than American wives and daughters.
So that is the dynamic.
S. 1383
Mr. President, I also point out, as we talk about the SAVE America
Act, the graveyards of history are littered with the bones of once
great republics that chose to die, not because foreign armies stormed
their gates in a single dramatic assault, but because their own leaders
slowly, deliberately, and cowardly surrendered the thing that made them
nations in the first place. Rome didn't fall in a day. Constantinople
didn't collapse overnight. They died by a thousand small surrenders,
each one dressed up as compassion, progress, or decency, until there
was nothing left worth defending.
Today, this Senate stands at the same crossroads. Great republics
don't die by accident; they commit suicide. And the suicide always
begins when the ruling class loses the moral courage to defend
citizenship, truth, and the innocence of the next generation.
The SAVE America Act before us is not three unrelated titles; it is
one urgent existential question: Will America still have the will to
live or do we join the long list of civilizations that quietly chose
decline?
Yesterday, I answered the Democrats' lies with the actual text of the
bill. Today, I rise to warn the body. We are watching a nation decide
whether or not it chooses to exist.
It won't happen overnight, but over time, this is what happens. First
comes the surrender of citizenship itself, and that is title I of the
substitute that I have offered, SAVE American Voters.
We just endured 4 years of the wildest open border in American
history. Millions and millions and millions and millions of military-
aged men from 160 different countries flooded into this Nation while
Democrats cheered diversity and equity.
Now, those same Democrats have the audacity to claim that simply
asking people to prove that they are American citizens before they
register to vote is somehow voter suppression.
Let me translate what they are really saying. They want those people
who came here illegally to vote for them to suppress the vote of actual
Americans. They fear actual American citizens voting more than they
fear the fraud.
American elections are for Americans, and we need safeguards. When I
was Missouri's attorney general, I stood in court and fought the left's
dark money lawyers to defend these very safeguards. Missouri fought
back. We didn't settle. We fought back, and we won. The American people
deserve that same victory here because, when citizenship becomes
optional at the
[[Page S1330]]
ballot box, the Republic itself becomes optional.
Next comes the surrender of truth--title II of the SAVE American
Sports provision of this underlying substitute.
A civilization that lies about something as basic as the difference
between men and women has already begun a death spiral. Title II simply
says what every normal American already knows: Women's and girls'
sports are for women and girls. Biological males cannot declare
themselves women and steal scholarships, records, locker rooms, and
safety from actual females.
We have watched this fraud unfold in realtime--boys with superior
strength and bone density dominating girls' competitions while the
ruling class calls it inclusion.
Isn't this wonderful? Isn't this progress while they sip champagne at
their cocktail parties?
That is theft. That is cruelty. It is the law conscripted into
service of a lie.
I have two daughters in Missouri who love sports. They should never
ever be forced to surrender fairness, privacy, or physical safety so
that Washington elites can pretend their biology is a mere suggestion
and feel good about themselves at cocktail parties. A nation that tells
its own daughters they must accept boys in their locker rooms has
already lost the will to tell the truth about anything.
Finally, we reach the most unforgivable surrender of all--the
betrayal of our children, title III of SAVE American Children.
This title draws on a clear moral line against the genital mutilation
and chemical castration of minors. It says that confused children do
not need scalpels, cross-sex hormones, or lifelong medical dependency.
They need protection. They need patience, truth, and love.
What the other side calls ``gender-affirming care'' is nothing less
than a profit-driven scandal, and Big Pharma and activist doctors turn
childhood confusion into permanent patients and permanent revenue
streams.
Children are not ideological property. They are not raw material for
adult experiments or corporate greed. A decent civilization does not
answer a child's distress with irreversible harm. The final sign of a
dying civilization is when it sacrifices its own sons and daughters on
the altar of adult delusion.
I look around this Chamber right now. Watch the Democrats on this
floor today, melting down, screaming about Elon Musk, challenging and
changing the subject on everything except the actual text of the bill
before us. Democrats are not debating this legislation because they
cannot defend what this bill exposes--open borders and open season on
America's daughters and children. They prefer managed decline so long
as they are in power.
This Senate was not sent here to manage decline. Enough with the
slow-motion suicide of this Republic. The American people did not send
us here to preside over the death of a country. They sent us here to
fight for its life and for renewal.
Working families in Missouri and across this Nation are done--done
with citizenship being treated like a suggestion, done with their
daughters being erased in the name of inclusion, done with their
children being targeted by an ideology that profits from permanent
harm. This is the moment of truth.
To my Democratic colleagues, stand up right now. Defend what you
really believe. Tell the American people on the record--on the record--
that citizenship should mean nothing at the ballot box; that boys
belong in girls' sports; and that children should be chemically
castrated and surgically mutilated in the name of ``care.'' Tell us
that. Tell it to the American people. Tell it to your voters who don't
support that. Say it plainly. Own it.
To every Republican in this Chamber, this is why the people gave us
the majority. This is the reason we exist in this moment--no more
excuses, no more polite theater, no more managed decline. Pass the SAVE
America Act. Restore the ballot to American citizens. Defend our
daughters from fraud. Shield our children from harm. Prove, once and
for all, that America still has the will to live. The age of excuses is
over. The time to fight for the life of this Republic has arrived.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the merits of
this bill, per my colleague's request.
I rise to speak out against President Trump's un-American efforts to
keep millions of eligible voters from the ballot box. The President is
more focused on preventing Americans from voting than in lowering
prices for working families who are suffering right now because of his
economy and because of Trump's tariffs.
Make no mistake, the SAVE America Act is not about preventing voter
fraud. It is a voter suppression bill designed to silence American
voters. This legislation would virtually eliminate voter registration
methods that 90 percent of Americans rely on. That includes mail-in
registration, online registration, voter registration drives, and
automatic registration at the DMV.
It would also require citizens to present documents like a passport
or a birth certificate in person while registering to vote--and not
just when they register for the first time. Every time someone moves or
if a woman changes her name when she gets married or if a person wants
to update their political party affiliation, they have to go back to
the election office in person to reregister with those specific
documents.
Up to half of all active registered voters--that is 100 million
Americans--register or reregister to vote every Federal election cycle.
While coming up with these documents may sound easy, the reality is
that more than 140 million American citizens, including over 5 million
New Yorkers, do not have a valid passport, and getting one for the
first time costs $165 and takes several weeks, if not months. On top of
that, nearly 70 million women who have taken their spouses' names do
not have birth certificates that match their new legal married names.
The newest version of this bill also ends mail-in and absentee
voting, with very limited exceptions, putting up a massive barrier to
people's ability to vote if they work during the day or otherwise can't
make it to the polls in person. That means, in practice, this
legislation would disenfranchise millions of American voters.
It wouldn't just make it harder for new voters to register or for
registered voters to change their information or for people to actually
vote. The SAVE America Act would also force States to submit voter data
to the Department of Homeland Security under the guise of verifying
voter citizenship status. But here is the catch: Registered voters who
are flagged by DHS, which has a history of misidentifying U.S. citizens
as ineligible to vote, would then have to prove their citizenship or be
removed from the voter rolls. That means that registered voters could
be purged from the rolls, then face the additional burden of confirming
their citizenship in person with an accurate passport or birth
certificate. That is an extraordinary burden to put on working
Americans who are just trying to exercise their right to vote. It is
unacceptable.
Let me just put a finer point on this. If you take out your wallet
and find your identification, it is going to be a driver's license. It
is going to be an insurance card. It is going to be your military ID.
None of those pieces of identification are valid. So the process that
we have today for showing who you are is not valid under this bill.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is the
purist expression of what it means to be an American. From the founding
of this Nation to the hard-won struggles of the civil rights movement,
generations of Americans have fought, marched, and died to guarantee
that every citizen has a voice in their government. That sacred promise
should never be weakened, suppressed, or denied, but that is exactly
what is happening right now.
So, as we prepare to vote for this legislation, I ask you all to
consider what this means for your constituents.
Think about the servicemembers who have to move every few years when
they get a new base assignment and would have to go through this
onerous process of reregistering in person over and over again.
Think about those in the rural communities in your State, where it
might take hours to get to the location where
[[Page S1331]]
they can appear in person to confirm their citizenship to maintain
their registration.
Think about the seniors and the people with disabilities who are
homebound and who rely on mail-in and online registration to make their
voices heard.
Think about the nearly 70 million women, like me, who have taken
their husbands' last names. The SAVE America Act would effectively
block us from voting if you don't have a passport or didn't go to get a
new birth certificate with your married name on it.
All of these American citizens would be disenfranchised by the SAVE
America Act.
Make no mistake, this bill is not about preventing election fraud. If
it were, I would be for it. It is already illegal for noncitizens to
vote in our elections, and numerous studies have confirmed that voting
by noncitizens is extremely rare. Instead, this bill is a poorly
concealed effort by President Trump to consolidate his own power and
strip Americans of their constitutional rights.
The President himself said that, by passing the SAVE America Act, the
GOP will ``never lose a race for 50 years.''
What do you think President Trump meant by that?
It is a blatant admission that this legislation is designed to
subvert the will of the American people to keep President Trump's
allies in power. We will not let them get away with that.
Whether you live in a rural town or in a major city, whether you vote
red or whether you vote blue, whether you are old or whether you are
young, whether you are rich or whether you are poor, your vote is your
voice, and your voice deserves to be heard.
Here in Congress, we have a duty to protect and strengthen the right
to vote for all Americans. This legislation does the opposite. I urge
my colleagues to vote no on the SAVE America Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
SAVE America Act.
The principle at the heart of this legislation could not be simpler.
It is not confusing, and it could not be more important. American
elections are for American citizens. The fact that we are even here
debating this tells you everything you need to know about how far some
in this great country have drifted from common sense.
I have been fighting for the integrity of our elections for a long
time. As a senator in the Mississippi State Legislature, I voted
multiple times on the record to establish voter ID requirements--
something Mississippi voters eventually approved as part of a citizen-
led initiative.
Photo IDs have been required at the polls in Mississippi since 2014.
And let me tell you something, the Civil Rights Division of the Obama
Department of Justice reviewed Mississippi's voter ID law, deemed it
lawful, and never took a single legal action against it--because it is
lawful, it is fair, and it works.
Despite naysayers' argument that a photo ID requirement would place
undue burdens on the elderly, the poor, and the minorities, it
continues to work with voters able to show or acquire a legally
recognized photo ID. Did voting rights in Mississippi collapse? No. Did
democracy in my State end? No.
Mississippians vote, and our elections are decided by American
citizens who have greater public confidence in the integrity of our
electoral system. That is the issue before the U.S. Senate today.
For years now, we have heard Members of this body, pundits, and
politicians lecture the American people about the very real threat
posed by foreign interference in our elections, and they were right to
be concerned. Foreign interference in American elections is a serious
matter.
So let's talk about foreign interference. Foreign interference in our
elections is more than misleading or false posts and news stories
planted online or in the media by foreign adversaries. Foreign
interference has another form. If you are a citizen of another country
and you participate in an American election, you are interfering in
that election on behalf of a foreign nation. It is as simple as that.
Right now, today, noncitizens are taking advantage of loopholes to
register and vote in American elections without ever proving they are a
legal citizen of this country--no documentation, no verification.
And it is happening all over this country: in Oregon, in
Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Virginia, New Jersey, the District of
Columbia--the list goes on. Illegal aliens can obtain a driver's
license in 19 different States. And in many of those same States, that
driver's license can be used to register to vote--no proof of
citizenship required.
The American people are not naive. They see what is happening, and
they have been asking us--demanding of us--that we do something about
it, and they are right. It is happening, and it is past time to do
something about it.
The SAVE America Act does something about it. It requires proof of
citizenship to register and vote in Federal elections.
That is not radical. That is not voter suppression. That is a basic,
commonsense safeguard that a big majority of Americans support because
we all know that we all have to show a legal photo ID to do most
anything in this country.
The bottom line is that every single vote cast by noncitizens dilutes
the vote of a real law-abiding American citizen. That is not rhetoric;
it is math.
We can debate a lot of things in this Chamber, but we should not be
debating whether American elections should be decided by Americans. The
answer is yes.
For a dozen years, Mississippi voters have produced photo IDs before
they vote, and they do so with the knowledge that this simple act helps
to ensure the integrity of their vote.
This is the same goal at the heart of the SAVE America Act. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation. Let's defend the ballot box and
restore confidence in our elections.
The right to vote in this great Nation belongs to the citizens of
this great Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Nomination of Markwayne Mullin
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of our colleague
and my dear friend, a U.S. Senator from the great State of Oklahoma and
President Donald J. Trump's nominee to be the next Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security Senator Markwayne Mullin.
Many in this Chamber have had the opportunity to get to know
Markwayne, and that is both a privilege and something that doesn't take
long because with Markwayne, what you see is what you get. He is
authentic in every interaction, and he has never met a stranger.
Markwayne and I became not only fast friends as freshman Members of
the Senate, but, importantly, we became real friends. Over the past few
years, my husband Wesley and I have cherished getting to share memories
and that same level of friendship with his wonderful wife and much
better half Christie and their six children.
Both personally and professionally, Markwayne Mullin is the real
deal. He is a man of faith and deep conviction, a devoted husband and
father. Whether it is coaching his children at their wrestling matches,
being home when his girls get picked up for their homecoming dance,
making doctor's appointments across the country, or leaving our
freshman dinners early enough to get home to do FaceTime devotions with
his boys, Markwayne makes sure that his family always comes first.
He is honest, loyal, selfless, and principled--all of the qualities
of a true leader and public servant.
But to really understand the kind of leader that Markwayne is, you
need to start from his roots. Throughout his life, he and his beautiful
family have poured so much of their time, energy, and efforts into
serving their community, State, and our great Nation. Oklahomans first
sent Markwayne to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012,
and nearly a decade after that, sent him here to the U.S. Senate. His
constituents recognized that he was uniquely positioned to represent
them because his story is similar to theirs.
He is a true son of Oklahoma. Growing up in Westville, he began his
education on a wrestling scholarship to
[[Page S1332]]
Missouri Valley. But when his father got sick, he left his scholarship
immediately and went home to run his family business.
He didn't hesitate. He knew it was the right thing to do. And he and
Christie, who has been part of his success since day one, took a
struggling business and turned it around over the next 20 years, making
it the largest provider company in the region. They built that family
business into an incredible success.
His grit is absolutely unmatched, and he never backs down from a
cause, person, or a principle that he believes in. Markwayne is driven
by purpose, and there is no challenge, no matter how great, that he is
afraid of.
Markwayne has already stepped up twice to serve the United States
both in Congress and here in the Senate, and now he has answered the
call again by accepting the incredible responsibility of running the
Department of Homeland Security as its Secretary.
As chair of the Senate DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I can say
from personal experience that navigating the Department of Homeland
Security is no small task. It is one of the largest and most complex
Federal Agencies in our government, and the responsibilities span from
our border to interior enforcement, to disaster response, to
counterterrorism, cyber security, to the protection of our Nation's
leaders, and more.
Leading this Department at this point in our country's history will
require a leader willing and able to solve the issues facing our
Nation, and that is why I am here today to tell you that Markwayne is
not only qualified, but that I know without a shadow of a doubt that he
is the right person at the right time to lead this Department.
It is worth noting that as I speak today, the Department of Homeland
Security is shut down. Markwayne is no stranger to tackling challenges,
and he has repeatedly demonstrated incredible skill in the way that he
approaches them here in this Chamber.
Over the past several years here in the Senate, he hasn't just served
his constituency back home, he has also served as a liaison between
this body, the House, and the White House, trying to figure out what
was possible and find a pathway forward.
His ability to build relationships on both sides of the aisle and
having the tenacity to figure out what to do and how to do it is why
Leader Thune tapped him to serve on his leadership team and why Whip
Barrasso has him as a deputy whip.
Markwayne doesn't just talk about problems or issues that we are
facing, he puts in the work and the time to find real solutions. It is
a rare breed in this town and something we undoubtedly need more of.
With strong relationships on both sides of the aisle, he is willing
to sit down with anyone, anywhere, and figure out a pathway forward.
His strong character, love for our country, and determination is
exactly what this Nation deserves in our leaders.
President Trump was elected to a second term with a clear mandate,
and that was to secure our border, and to protect us from threats here
in our interior and abroad. I have absolute confidence in Markwayne's
ability to carry out that mission at the Department of Homeland
Security.
He believes in our laws. He believes in enforcing them. He knows the
way you do it matters, and Markwayne is committed to doing it the right
way.
From our ICE and CBP officers to our Coast Guard servicemembers, to
the men and women at FEMA, to our cyber security personnel at CISA, to
our hard-working Secret Service agents, to our TSA officers, and so
many more, Markwayne will never back down from supporting you, the men
and women who serve this Department, the men and women who stepped up
to say: We want to be a part of the mission of securing our border and
protecting our homeland.
He will never back down from the responsibility of ensuring the
safety and security of our American citizens. He will never back down
from the mission of protecting our most valuable asset: our people. He
is not going to back down from protecting his family, and I can promise
you, he will not back down from protecting yours.
I believe he is going to be the best and most consequential Secretary
the Department of Homeland Security has ever seen. I look forward to
seeing his leadership and the success he is going to bring to our
Nation, and I look forward to supporting his nomination in the coming
days here on this floor. And I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I want to thank President Trump for nominating such a tremendous man
and leader, and I look forward to brighter days ahead because of
Markwayne's leadership.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Alabama.
Withhold Member Pay During Shutdown Act
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I think that if we are going to go and sit
here for--how many days is it? I don't know.
The Senator from West Virginia, maybe, what, 48 days, 30-something,
people without paychecks?
I really think we should think long and hard about Senator Kennedy's
bill. I fully support it. I hope that we can get every one of our
colleagues down here to do the same because what Senator Kennedy's bill
says is that if there are people who have stepped up to serve our
government in any capacity that are not getting a paycheck as a result
of this body not doing its job, then we shouldn't get one either.
I think that is pretty common sense. I can promise you that if the
staff in this building, if the men and women in this building, if
Members of Congress--House, or Senate--weren't getting a paycheck right
now, they would be much more eager to come to the table and to have a
conversation and to figure out a pathway forward. And I just think we
should take a long and hard look at it. I fully support it. If there
are men and women who have stepped up to serve, in this instance the
Department of Homeland Security, which the very mission of that is to
keep our homeland safe--to keep American citizens safe--many of them
taking an oath to do just that, and they are not getting a paycheck. If
they are not getting one, we shouldn't be either.
Look, people are sick of different rules for different people. And I
can think of no better example of that than this right here. So let's
put Senator Kennedy's bill on the floor. Let's do it. And let's see
where everybody falls on this. I can guarantee you if this body and
that body don't get paychecks, they will be much more eager to make
sure that other people get theirs.
So I urge this body to take a look at Senator Kennedy's legislation.
I fully support it and hope we will vote on that in the days to come.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I first would like to say to my friend
Senator Britt from Alabama that her introduction of our colleague
Senator Mullin was terrific. I would say high fives to everything that
you have said about our friend Markwayne, and I know that he will lead
that organization in a stellar way. I look forward to his leadership.
S. 1383
Mr. President, so this week, the Senate officially begins debate on a
package of commonsense--commonsense--I am probably going to say it
about ten times--commonsense measures that should unite all Americans.
Americans deserve to have confidence that every vote that is cast and
counted comes from an American citizen and that the system itself is
fair, secure, and transparent from start to finish.
That confidence is not automatic. It must be earned. It must be
maintained and reinforced through clear, consistent standards that
people understand.
It sounds pretty simple. The bill we are considering on the floor
right now is something that we should all agree on. Specifically, here
is what it does. It requires all voters show a photo ID. Think of all
the times that we show photo IDs. This is not an onerous or a
discriminating task. It requires all voters provide proof of
citizenship when registering to vote, and it ends the abuses of the
absentee voting system that we have seen in several States.
In addition to these simple, straightforward policies on voting, the
bill has two more commonsense measures. It doesn't allow men in women's
sports, and I have long championed this issue of such importance to our
girls in West Virginia and across the Nation. And it does not allow
transgender mutilation surgery for children.
[[Page S1333]]
So common sense. So let's discuss the substance of this when it comes
to elections. The SAVE America Act reflects the basic expectation that
America's elections need to be safe and secure. It does not reinvent
the wheel. It simply reinforces standards that most Americans already
are abiding by.
Think about it. In everyday life, as I said, we are routinely asked
to verify who we are, whether it is to board a plane, check into a
hotel, start a new job, drive, or even visit the doctor's office. No
one views these steps as extraordinary. Maybe 10, 15, 20 years ago--
maybe--but no longer. No one sees them as controversial. Applying
similar standards to our elections is not radical. It is just common
sense.
The SAVE America Act ensures that those who are registered to vote
are actually those who are eligible to vote. It ensures that the person
who shows up to cast a vote--a ballot--is, in fact, who they say they
are. These are not extreme ideas. They are very practical, reasonable
steps that align with how we secure other important aspects of our
society. In fact, more than 80 percent of Americans support ID
requirements, including a strong majority of Americans. And the
majority of States--including my State of West Virginia--already
require some form of ID to vote, and we have for years.
Let me turn to the other core principle of this bill and one that I
believe most Americans consider simply fundamental. Only American
citizens should be able to vote in our Federal elections. It is not a
partisan statement. It is a basic premise of what it means to have a
sovereign democracy. Voting is one of the most important rights that we
gain as citizens, whether you are a born citizen, a naturalized
citizen--it is a precious right, and with that right comes the
responsibility to ensure that it is reserved only for those who are
legally eligible.
The SAVE America Act makes that expectation explicit by requiring
proof of citizenship at the point of registration--again, not
complicated. It is not controversial. It is basic. It is common sense.
It is about ensuring the integrity of our Federal elections. It is not
just protected on election day, but it is protected at the front end of
the voting process.
As I said, it seems commonsense because it is. And you might wonder
why we would need a policy to enforce this, but in 19 States--in 19
States--individuals who entered our country illegally are able to
obtain a driver's license. It is a pathway in many States to the
ability to vote. It provides them an opportunity to register and vote
without a proof of citizenship.
The SAVE America Act closes this illegal voting loophole by requiring
photo ID to vote, proof of citizenship to register, and requiring
States to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. Americans do not
want illegals to vote. In fact, 62 percent of Americans support proof
of citizenship in order to register to vote.
The bill also addresses an issue that has generated a lot of
discussion in recent years, which is absentee or mail-in voting. Let me
be clear: This legislation does not eliminate absentee voting or mail-
in voting. There are legitimate reasons why people vote like this. It
could be an illness, disability, military service, being away from home
for business or pleasure, or other hardships that prevent someone from
voting in person. These voters absolutely need to continue to have
access to the ballot.
But what the bill does is draw a clear line between access and abuse.
In some States, we have seen practices that go well beyond traditional
absentee voting. That includes mass, unsolicited mailing of ballots to
individuals who did not request them. Let's say you had a family of
five. Let's say the kids have left--all three of them are still
registered. You get five ballots. You could send them in. That is
fraud. Or it includes also automatically enrolling voters in advance in
absentee voting simply because they had used it once before. These
kinds of policies raise serious concerns about ballot security and
ultimately public confidence, most importantly, in the outcome.
The SAVE America Act vote puts guardrails in place to prevent those
abuses while still preserving absentee voting for those who truly need
it.
And I will note this issue is not an issue in West Virginia. It has
not created major challenges for us. In the 2024 general election, only
2.9 percent of our West Virginia ballots cast mail-in ballots.
We have early voting. Over 40 percent of our electorate votes on
early vote. Our system has a more traditional, secure approach, and it
is one that has helped maintain confidence in our elections. That is
the balance that this bill is trying to strike: Protecting access while
ensuring integrity. It is just common sense.
Ultimately, this is about preserving confidence in our democratic
process. When people trust the system, our participation grows,
outcomes are respected, and our institutions are strengthened. This is
something every American, regardless of party, should agree on, and
that is why this effort matters. That is why these commonsense
protections deserve serious consideration.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. President, I also must address a separate matter that grows more
serious with each passing day, and that is the Democrat-led shutdown of
DHS. Today marks day 34--34 days of political brinksmanship. Thirty-
four days where partisan posturing has taken precedence over the safety
and security of the American people.
Enough is enough--especially now. Last week, we saw two terror-
related incidents play out in Virginia and in Michigan. These are not
distant threats or hypothetical scenarios. They were real events that
underscore the very real dangers we face every day; and yet, at this
very moment, the Department charged with helping to prevent, detect,
and respond to such threats remains hamstrung by a lapse of funding. I
really find it deeply troubling and frankly unacceptable that my
Democrat colleagues have chosen to let disagreements over policy
escalate into a full-scale funding lapse for our critical national
security operations.
This is not an abstract debate, and these are real people that are
missing their paychecks. This has real immediate consequences. Because
of this shutdown, vital resources for our airports and TSA are
strained. They are beginning to not show up in larger numbers. In fact,
I just met with the folks from my local airport this week, and they
told me they are starting to see this with a small cadre of TSA agents.
The men and women who ensure the safety of millions of travelers every
day are being asked to do their jobs with uncertainty hanging over
their head. We are heading into a holiday season here where a lot of
families are traveling. This is only going to escalate.
We have got FEMA, the Coast Guard, and thousands of law enforcement
officers operating during a time when Americans expect and deserve
effective emergency response. Let's be clear what is at stake here.
This shutdown weakens America's border security. It undermines maritime
security. It erodes our readiness to respond to emergencies.
We should not be playing politics with our national security, and we
should not be gambling with the safety of our own citizens. The
Americans expect us to lead here. They expect us to govern--that means
get things done. And they expect us to come together, especially when
the security of our homeland is on the line.
It is imperative that we fund DHS immediately--not tomorrow, not
after another round of negotiations or shadow negotiations. So let's
just set aside the politics. Let's fulfill our most basic
responsibility to protect the American people.
I urge my colleagues to end this shutdown, restore stability, and put
the safety of our Nation first.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recognize the Democrat whip.
Mr. DURBIN. 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
[[Page S1334]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called SAVE America Act. What it should be called is the ``Save Trump
Act.'' This bill is not about protecting elections; it is about making
it harder for eligible Americans to vote, and Republicans know it.
Right now, my Republican colleagues are trying to hide the ball. They
talk about voter ID at the polls as if that is all this bill requires.
But that is not the case. That is not the truth. The truth is that this
bill requires every American--every American, millions of Americans--to
provide documentary proof of citizenship, like passports or birth
certificates, in person, just to register to vote, OK?
Right now, we have a situation where millions of Americans are
voting, but suddenly that is not going to be OK. This bill will require
every American to reregister, register, and show proof of citizenship.
So Republicans are hoping that Americans won't know the difference
between having to show a photo ID when voting and the requirement to
prove citizenship in order to even register to vote.
Let me be clear. This bill is not just about showing a picture ID
when voting; this bill is about having to prove citizenship in person
before you can even register to vote.
The SAVE Act will make it harder, more expensive, and certainly less
convenient to register to vote. Republicans know this. This is the part
that the Republicans are not talking about as they continue to sell the
SAVE Act as a voter ID bill. It is the part that Republicans are hoping
people will not notice or understand until it is too late, until they
are told: Wait a minute. You can't even go to the polls or you can't
even vote unless, ahead of time, you register by proving your
citizenship.
So once Americans do understand what this bill does, it becomes
clear: This bill is not about securing our elections; it is about
controlling which Americans get to participate in them through imposing
onerous voter registration requirements.
Let's be very clear about something else. Noncitizen voting in
Federal elections is already illegal. It is a Federal crime. If a
noncitizen illegally votes in a Federal election, they could be
prosecuted and even sentenced up to 5
[[Page S1335]]
years in prison. Who is going to commit this kind of fraud knowing that
they could be imprisoned for 5 years? And as my colleague just
mentioned, my colleague from Illinois, there have been so few of these
kinds of so-called fraud in the years that millions and millions of
people have been voting.
So Republicans would like the American people to believe that
noncitizens are voting in our elections in the thousands, and the truth
is that noncitizen voting is extremely rare, to be practically
nonexistent.
The Cato Institute found that voting by noncitizens in the United
States is virtually nonexistent. The Heritage Foundation found fewer
than 70 instances of it over a 40-year period. Think about it. Millions
of people vote every year, and the Heritage Foundation found only 70
instances in over 40 years of people voting. That amounts to one ten-
thousandths of the over 1 billion votes cast during that same period.
And we all know the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are not
liberal think tanks.
In continuing their claims of mass voter fraud necessitating this
bill, Republicans are perpetuating a lie about something that is
practically nonexistent and already illegal.
So why are Republicans so obsessed with passing this bill? Why is
Donald Trump calling it ``one of the most important and consequential
pieces of legislation in the history of Congress''? Because he and the
Republicans know that their agenda--gutting Medicaid, slashing SNAP,
taxing us through illegal tariffs, and dragging us into an illegal
war--is deeply unpopular with the American people. It is so unpopular
that people will be motivated--that is the fear the Republicans have--
that people will be motivated to vote against this agenda and vote for
Democrats. Republicans know that when more people vote, they lose. So
instead of changing their policies and actually listening to what the
American people really need, which are things like lowering housing
costs and food costs, the Republicans want to change who gets to vote.
They want to cherry-pick who gets to participate in our democracy.
In every State except North Dakota, people have to register to vote
before voting. Many States, including Hawaii, have made voter
registration as simple as possible to encourage more voter
participation. But not under this bill. Under this bill, Americans
would have to prove their citizenship by producing documents like a
passport or birth certificate in person in order to register to vote.
Imagine you are living in a rural community somewhere and you have to
go somewhere in person to register to vote. Republicans know that this
is not a simple requirement that they want to impose on people who
would want to register to vote.
More than 140 million Americans--nearly half of American citizens--do
not have a passport, and my colleague just said that there are more
White Americans who have passports than there are Black Americans. So
that will already give you an idea of who the Republicans are hoping to
discourage from even registering to vote.
In addition, more than 21 million eligible voters do not have ready
access to documents proving their citizenship. In other words, for tens
of millions of Americans, producing these documents is not a simple
hurdle; it is a huge barrier. It is a barrier for young people trying
to register for the first time, for seniors who no longer have easy
access to documents, for working families who can't afford the time or
cost of navigating more government paperwork just to register to vote.
A new passport costs over $150. If this sounds like a poll tax, a
price to exercise our constitutional right to vote, that is because it
is. It is a financial burden on Americans at a time when millions are
struggling just to put food on the table and to pay rent, to put a roof
over their heads--yet another reminder of how out of touch this regime
is with the lives of average, everyday Americans.
Unsurprisingly, the burdens that this bill creates would fall
disproportionately on communities who have historically had to fight
for their right to vote, including women.
An estimated 69 million women do not have a birth certificate that
matches their current legal name, their married name, including over
300,000 women in Hawaii alone.
In fact, there was a time in Hawaii and probably other States where
if you got married, you could not keep your name. You had to take your
husband's name or your spouse's name. Hawaii got rid of that, but I
just want to mention there was a time when there were lots of
limitations on what women could do.
So 300,000 women in my State and millions more across the country
would face new barriers to voting. Talk about heading people off at the
pass.
If women can be stopped or dissuaded from registering to vote,
frankly, that is OK by Republicans. Republicans know full well the
consequences that this bill would have for women across our country in
red and blue States alike.
While women will suffer under this bill, so too will many other
communities, including our servicemembers and their families.
Don't take my word for it. Let me share with you a letter I received
from a military spouse in Hawaii. She writes--and I am going to quote
her letter because she notes some very important realities for our
servicemembers.
She wrote:
The SAVE Act would have disastrous impacts on military
families like mine. Most active-duty families move every two
or three years. In addition to these moves' disruption of our
established support networks, changes in our children's
education and social lives, and limits on our employment and
career paths, these moves also impact our ability to vote.
We have a 27-percent voter participation deficit compared
to civilian voters, partly due to how many logistical
challenges we already face. If passed, this bill would mean
that military servicemembers and their families could
functionally no longer register to vote from a far-away duty
station.
Additionally, if an eligible voter was born overseas like
many in our community--if an eligible voter has changed their
first or last name since birth, like many spouses do when
they get married--or if an eligible voter simply doesn't have
access to their documents because they're in the middle of a
military move--this bill could deny them the ability to
register [to vote].
The SAVE America Act would cut families like mine out of
the ability to participate in our own democracy, the very
democracy we have committed to protect.
There are more than 2 million people serving in our armed services,
more than 40,000 of whom live in Hawaii. Our servicemembers risk their
lives for our country, but this bill will make it harder for them to
participate in the very democracy they fight to defend.
And let's not pretend this bill exists in isolation or in a vacuum.
Under this regime, we have seen a relentless campaign to undermine
trust in our elections and to enact new restrictions on voting.
Under the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Department of
Justice has sued 29 States and the District of Columbia, demanding
these jurisdictions hand over their voter rolls and all the personal
data contained in these voter rolls.
Now, what are Trump and the person he considers his lawyer, Pam
Bondi, going to do with all of this information? Interfering with our
elections comes to mind. And it was just weeks ago that now outgoing
Homeland Security Secretary Noem refused to rule out stationing ICE
agents outside polling places this fall.
If that isn't intimidation or voter interference, I don't know what
is.
Taken together--making it harder to register to vote, suing States to
turn over voter rolls, refusing to pass the Voting Rights Advancement
Act, and continued false allegations of voter fraud--this regime is
obsessed with controlling the outcome of our elections and obsessed
with this bill.
Republicans know they can't win over voters with their policies so
they are trying to limit who can vote. We have seen this before, from
poll taxes to literacy tests. Southern States spent decades making it
as hard as possible for Black Americans and other communities of color
to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
We have come a long way since the days of Jim Crow, but this bill is
a chilling reminder that the battles we thought we had won don't stay
won. Eternal vigilance is required of all of us.
The SAVE Act is not some benign piece of legislation. That is why we
Senate Democrats are here speaking up
[[Page S1336]]
and fighting back. We know what is at stake, and we refuse to stand by
while Republicans undermine our democracy and our sacred right to vote
under the false pretense of security.
Here is the truth: Republicans don't give a rip about saving America.
All they care about is saving Trump's ass, deluding themselves into
believing everything Trump says.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to join my Democratic
colleagues today in opposition to the SAVE America Act, which is really
just President Trump's and Republican leadership's shameful and
disingenuous attempt to interfere with our elections and make it harder
for American citizens to vote.
Republican leadership has given two reasons why they want to pass
this bill. I have been listening to the floor debates. I have been
talking to some of my colleagues, and I want to address some of the
arguments on the other side that I have heard because they are just not
true.
The first is that illegal immigrants are voting in our elections, and
that is why we need the SAVE America Act. The second is that it is just
common sense that this is just a voter ID bill, and that is all we
need. Now, I am going to break down these two things.
I want to make it very clear from the outset, this bill is not just a
voter ID bill. This is not a voter ID bill. This is voter suppression
at its worst. I want people to keep that in mind.
Let me jump to the first argument.
I want to make something very clear: The United States of America has
the most safe and secure elections in the world. It has been proven
over and over again, including in my State in Nevada.
I know. I served as Nevada's attorney general for two terms. That is
8 years. And I helped prosecute voter fraud. In fact, I was part of an
election fraud task force in my State, with the secretary of state and
our Federal law enforcement, the FBI, every election season.
In those 8 years, I can count on two hands how many cases of voter
fraud we found, and they were all prosecuted.
Now, Democrats don't oppose this bill because it would stop
noncitizens from voting. In fact, we completely agree that noncitizens
should not be voting. That is why it is already illegal for noncitizens
to vote and why every State has a process to ensure people who register
to vote are citizens.
The bill that we are talking about today is a solution in search of a
problem that does not exist. As you have heard my colleagues say, the
conservative Heritage Foundation has a database of noncitizens voting
that shows there have only been 77 cases between the years 1999 and
2023--77 cases in 25 years of noncitizens voting.
And why do we know that? Because they were caught and prosecuted. And
for each one of those individuals, they were held accountable by the
authorities.
In Nevada--in Nevada--a local news investigation found that out of
the more than 7 million votes cast in our elections in Nevada since
2008, the number of votes cast by noncitizens was exactly 2--not 2,000,
not 200, 2.
So if you want more proof that this is a massively overblown problem,
last year President Trump's own Justice Department opened an
investigation over alleged voter fraud in Nevada during the 2020
Presidential election. President Trump lost the State of Nevada in that
election by more than 33,000 votes that year. But what did President
Trump's Department of Justice find?
Well, the investigation closed this January without a single charge
of voter fraud. Now, I personally find it curious that there was no
investigation in my State into fraud during the 2024 Presidential
election, where President Trump won--only the election that he lost--
but so be it.
I am here to tell you we have the most safe and secure elections in
the world, and noncitizens are not voting wholesale in them and out
there running rampant. We know the data. And not only do we know the
data, but we have it because they have been successfully investigated
and prosecuted when, in the extremely rare cases, they are caught.
So that is the first argument that my colleagues are saying: There
are so many noncitizens voting, and we need to solve it.
That is not true.
Here is the second argument. Republican leadership is saying that we
need to pass the SAVE America Act because it is just a voter ID bill.
It is just a voter ID bill, and everybody shows ID no matter what they
do. You have to show ID to drive. This is the same thing.
Well, let me just tell you, this could not be further from the truth.
The reason this bill is so outrageous is because it goes far beyond
showing just a driver's license or voter ID when you vote. It is about
voter suppression.
Here is how the SAVE America Act hurts our elections. One, it
mandates that the Department of Homeland Security, a Federal
Department, collect voters' personal information and store it in a
Federal database that has a history of deleting eligible voters from
the voter rolls for no reason. Two, this legislation makes U.S.
citizens jump through unnecessary, burdensome, and sometimes impossible
hoops when registering to vote. And three, it effectively ends widely
popular methods of registering to vote to discourage Americans from
making their voices heard in our elections, which is a constitutional
right.
So let me break those down for you. First, the SAVE America Act would
force States to turn over all their voter data to the Department of
Homeland Security SAVE Program. This is a notoriously unreliable
program designed to identify problem voters and then kick them off the
voter rolls.
This program is not accurate. It is not effective, and it has already
disenfranchised hundreds of perfectly eligible voters.
What does that mean? It means that Americans who have already been
determined by their States to be citizens and who have potentially been
voting in their States for years or even decades without an issue--
without an issue--could be removed by the Department of Homeland
Security, flagged by the Department of Homeland Security for removal
from their State's list of eligible voters. And when they show up to
vote, on the day, where they have voted for so many years, at the same
location where they have always gone, they will be turned away for no
reason.
We are already seeing this happen. There are States that have entered
into agreements with the Department of Homeland Security to give them
access to their voters' private information. Nevada is not one. And we
have evidence of American citizen voters being misidentified as
noncitizens in those States.
If this bill goes into effect, who knows how many Americans are going
to be kicked off the list of eligible voters of their State, only to
show up on election day and be told they need to reregister and produce
numerous documents proving they are citizens.
Let me take it one step further. The SAVE America Act mandates that
States need to remove eligible voters off their list if they have not
presented the documents mandated under the bill, under this
legislation, to prove they are U.S. citizens.
Now, keep this in mind. I am going to walk you through this. You have
been voting in your State for the last 30 years, 25 years, same
location, your library, wherever you go, you are voting. All of a
sudden you are being told by your State: Sorry, you were flagged by the
Department of Homeland Security. You can't vote on the day of an
election.
And now you say to yourself: OK. I don't understand this, but how do
I reregister? What do I have to do? You now have to either have a
passport or a birth certificate--a passport or a birth certificate--and
you have to go in person now to reregister to vote.
Literally--literally--anybody because of the Department of Homeland
Security having this data can be kicked off the voter rolls. It is a
problem, and that is the first step for inhibiting and putting a
barrier in front of people for their right to vote.
I am here to tell you this is the challenge of this bill and why
Donald Trump and the Republicans are here. They are putting barriers in
front of people to make it harder for them to vote. Why? Why?
[[Page S1337]]
It shouldn't be that way. This bill requires Americans registering or
reregistering to vote to provide documents to prove you are a citizen,
documents that thousands of Americans just don't have access to. If you
are a victim of DHS's erroneous voter roll purge and need to reregister
to vote or if you simply want to register to vote for the first time,
this bill would require a document that confirms that you were born in
the United States or that you are a naturalized citizen.
Does a driver's license alone do that? No. Neither does the REAL ID
from my State and most States. That is not enough. Even presenting your
birth certificate wouldn't be enough to prove citizenship. Americans
would be required to present their birth certificate and a valid
government-issued photo ID card, like a driver's license.
Now, a passport would be enough to prove citizenship, but half of
Americans don't have a passport--half--and that is true in Nevada too.
Roughly, 56 percent of Nevadans--56 percent of Nevadans--have a
passport. That means nearly half of the people in my State would have
to have their birth certificate or other documentary proof of
citizenship on hand.
And if they wanted to get a passport, it would cost $165. That is not
an amount most Nevadans can shell out, especially with prices so high
these days.
I hope, if you are one of the 146 million Americans who doesn't have
an up-to-date passport, that you have your birth certificate and
another government-issued photo ID readily available.
But if you are among the 21 million Americans who don't, maybe
because they don't drive or they simply don't have a birth certificate,
then Republicans who support this bill want to tell you that you can't
register to vote.
Now, let's dive into this part of the bill a little bit more. The
documentary proof of citizenship required under this bill is just
simply nonsensical. For example, let's say you are a Native American;
you show up to an election office ready to register to vote. They have
their Tribal ID in tow. That wouldn't be enough for them. That Tribal
ID would have to be an enhanced version issued by the Department of
Homeland Security, which most Tribal members don't have or, if their
Tribal ID was issued by their Tribe, it would have to display that they
were born in the United States, which many don't.
Let me give you another example. Say you are a servicemember in our
military and you take your military identification card to register to
vote, but under this bill, unless you have also presented your U.S.
military record of service showing you were born in the United States
or your birth certificate, you don't have the proper documentation.
These restrictive portions of the bill would create barriers for all
kinds of eligible Americans looking to follow the rules and just to
register to vote so they can exercise their constitutional right.
Keep in mind, this is not just for new voters registering for the
first time. If you have to update your registration and your name
doesn't match the documents that you present, this bill would make you
take additional steps to prove your citizenship.
For example, if you are 1 of the 69 million married women who has
changed your last name, but you don't have an up-to-date passport and
you are updating your registration to vote because you moved, you might
have to go through this onerous process just to prove who you are. If
your name doesn't match in all of the documentation you provided, you
would have to provide more documents or sign an affidavit just to vote.
If you can't get all that done, sorry, you don't get to vote. That is
what President Trump and Republican leadership want. Americans' right
to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution. We should not be making it
harder for Americans to participate in our elections. It is bad enough
that this bill has an unnecessary documentary proof of citizenship
requirement, what is even worse is that if you want to register to
vote, you have to present that proof of citizenship in person.
That means nobody would be able to register to vote online or by
mail. Think about the implications of this. Voter registration drives
that encourage Americans to participate in our elections would grind to
a halt. That would impact Black and Latino voters the most as well as
those who didn't graduate from high school. Those groups are most
likely to rely on third-party voter registration.
Many citizens in Nevada register to vote at our DMV. If you think the
lines are long at the DMV now, just think of the chaos and confusion
that this legislation would require.
And if you live in a rural area, like many Nevadans, and your nearest
county clerk's office is hours away, you have to figure out how to get
there in order to register to vote.
Nevada only has two urban counties, Clark, where Las Vegas is, and
Washoe County, where Reno is. There are 15 counties in Nevada that are
entirely rural, and they have about 240,000 active registered voters in
them.
If you are a rural Nevadan and you have to register to vote or update
your registration, Republicans who support this bill want you to spend
a day off of work trying to do it. It is just cruel.
Let me give you an example. In Nye County, NV, someone who lives on
or near Duckwater Reservation would have to travel roughly 270 miles
round trip to show an election official at the Nye County clerk's
office their proof of citizenship.
Now, that is one of the longest roundtrip journeys across the country
to register to vote, and this is in one State. It is no wonder that in
2022, only 5.9 percent of Americans registered to vote in person.
Why? Because it is inconvenient. It is unnecessary when we have
already proven, effective safeguards in place to ensure you are who you
are, when you say you are, when you get there to register to vote.
But this bill would force all Americans to take that burden on if
they want to exercise their constitutional right to vote, and it is
just absurd. Not to mention, if it were to pass, this legislation, the
bill, would go into effect immediately--immediately--without giving
States any additional resources to implement these complex provisions.
Most bills that significantly alter our systems give plenty of time
to ensure smooth transition into the new system but not this bill.
President Trump and the Republican leadership want to make sure it is
done in time for the upcoming midterms because they are afraid of what
American voters, using their voices to speak out against them, would
say and how they would vote.
We all know why Republican leadership wants to pass this bill. They
want to pass it badly because they think that they will lose this
election in this midterm because their current policies are extremely
unpopular with Americans.
Raising costs in this country instead of lowering them, kicking
millions of Americans off their healthcare, and starting an
unauthorized war with no exit strategy, that is an awful record for
Donald Trump's Republican Party. And through our elections, Americans
have a chance to make their opposition to his policies heard at the
ballot box. Trump's Republican Party is trying to prevent them from
voting, trying to choke off American votes in a desperate bid to stay
in power.
This bill goes beyond bad faith; it is just vile. Instead of trying
to make Americans' lives better and passing legislation people actually
want, instead of supporting our democracy, our Constitution, President
Trump's Republican Party and followers now want to pass this bill and
make it extremely difficult for millions of Americans to exercise their
right to vote.
Why? Because President Trump is afraid of being held accountable by
the American people.
The SAVE America Act would require States to turn over voter
information to the Department of Homeland Security. It would kick
millions of eligible voters off the rolls. It would make it infinitely
harder for Americans to register to vote, and it would cause chaos in
our States.
It wouldn't solve a single problem, especially not the ones President
Trump and the Republican leaders pretend exist, just the opposite. It
would create huge problems for our elections in every State across the
country, resulting in voter suppression.
Nevadans and all Americans deserve better than this cowardly bill
from Republicans trying to run from the issues they created for
themselves.
[[Page S1338]]
That is why my Democratic colleagues and I will not let it pass.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion that my friend and
colleague the distinguished Senator from the State of Nevada puts into
her job, into scrutinizing legislation. I appreciate the concerns she
has expressed.
Now, if I believed all of the things that she said, well, just about
any of the things that she said, I would be concerned too. Fortunately,
for all of us, the things that she is saying about this bill are
either, in some instances, incomplete, leaving out material information
to complete the picture, resulting in a much different impact than has
been suggested or, in other cases, they are completely wrong.
Go back to a few first principles about what the bill actually does.
There are two basic precepts in the bill, and the fundamental purpose
of them is to make it easy to vote and harder to cheat.
We do that through two principled mechanisms in the bill: One
requires proof of citizenship upon voter registration, and the other
requires voter ID at the time and place of voting.
Now, as to the citizenship component, contrary to what was being
suggested briefly for a moment, you know, I would almost like to
believe from some of her remarks that this would require Americans en
masse to go and immediately reregister.
Perhaps I misunderstood her on that part, if I did, my apologies, but
just so that there is no ambiguity at all, so that we are very clear on
what it is that it does and what it is that it does not do, it doesn't
require mass reregistration. If you have already registered to vote,
there is nothing about that that is going to invalidate your voter
registration.
If you move to another State or otherwise have to register to vote as
you would if you have to move, for example, from one State to another,
then you will have to register at that point. But there is nothing
about your existing registration that is going to be nullified just
because this bill becomes law.
And on the point of the proof of citizenship, there has been a lot of
misunderstanding, some of it in good faith. Although the bill itself
has just been characterized by my friend and colleague from Nevada as
``beyond bad faith'' and ``vile,'' those are pretty sweeping
accusations, and I don't ever make those lightly on any piece of
legislation. If I do, I am prepared to back them up. Those can't be
backed up here.
There is nothing about this that is in bad faith. There is nothing
about this that is vile. This is dealing with a very commonsense
problem, a problem that has been many decades in the making--decades in
the making ever since, in some ways, Congress passed the National Voter
Registration Act, NVRA, in 1993, the motor voter law.
At the time, it was understood that we could allow participating
States--which nearly all States participate--to set up a process
whereby voters could, while applying for a driver's license at the
local DMV, also register to vote. After all, it involves some of the
same information to establish who you are, whether you apply for a
driver's license and also when you register to vote.
There are some things that have happened since then that have changed
the landscape.
One of them has been that 20 years after the enactment of the NVRA,
the Supreme Court, in a case called Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of
Arizona, concluded that the NVRA preempts out the States ability to
even request any type of documentation or other proof of citizenship.
Even if they are aware of circumstances suggesting that some would-be
voters are, in fact, not citizens, they are prohibited from doing so.
Remember, all you have to do under the NVRA form is sign your name
after checking a box, saying: Yes, I would like simultaneously to
register to vote. So, if the States are then prohibited from even
inquiring into citizenship--attempting to document it, to prove it, or
otherwise--then there is no way to make this happen. As a result of
that, it leaves open this open, gaping wound. We now have an estimated
30 million-plus noncitizens residing in this country.
That leads to another development that is relevant to this.
Over the years, there were differences of opinion between the States
as to whether, to what extent, and in what circumstances to offer
driver's licenses to noncitizens. In some cases, they would issue them
to noncitizens as long as they were lawfully here. In other cases, they
wouldn't issue them to any. Over the years, it has evolved to the point
where, in nearly every State, you can get a driver's license as a
noncitizen; and in 19 States, plus the District of Columbia, you can
get a driver's license even if you are in the United States unlawfully.
So, in light of that fact and in light of the Supreme Court ruling in
2013 saying that the States, even if they have reason to believe some
voters are not eligible because they are not citizens--and they can't
look into it further because the NVRA, supposedly, preempted them out.
As wrong as I think that ruling was as a matter of statutory
interpretation, it is conclusive, and it stands to this day. Then you
add to that the fact that we had an estimated 10 to 15 million people
enter the country unlawfully between 2021 and 2025.
When you add all that up together--and it becomes even more
startling--you realize that, in several States, they made a decision to
allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections. In those cases,
there is still voter registration that goes into that, and those
States, along with the most blue States in America, have refused to
enter into any kind of memorandum of understanding or otherwise
cooperate or enter into a cooperative agreement with Federal Agencies
to ascertain whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances
there might be noncitizens registered to vote in their States, nor have
they been willing to cooperate with the Federal authorities who manage
the so-called SAVE database within the Department of Homeland Security.
They haven't been willing to show them any methodology or any
techniques that they use in those particular States that allow some
noncitizen voting to occur in local elections. They have done nothing
to show how it is that they separate out those voter registration files
from the voter registration files of those who are eligible to vote in
Federal elections. This creates a genuine vulnerability, one that we
couldn't, in good faith, just overlook and pretend doesn't exist.
Let me just say that, insofar as people find concerns with the
methods that we have allowed you to use when establishing your
citizenship at the time of voter registration, if we have left out some
form of documentation that should have been included to make this
easier, let us know. I would love to consider that. But the truth is,
we were very inclusive with it.
One important thing to keep in mind is that this is not the only
circumstance in which Americans are routinely required to establish
their citizenship. Perhaps the most familiar one on the books currently
exists in the context of labor and employment.
Every time any American starts a new job with a new employer inside
the United States, he or she is required to fill out a form called the
I-9. When you fill out the I-9, if you are an American, then you have
to prove that you are a citizen. It is a pretty rigid, fairly
inflexible standard. One technique involves showing a U.S. passport
establishing citizenship. Another involves a combination of a birth
certificate, a photo ID, a Social Security card, et cetera, but that is
about it. That is about as far as the options go.
There are additional options that we have worked into the SAVE
America Act, including, for example, that subset of Real ID driver's
licenses. Not all Real ID driver's licenses establish citizenship. Some
of them do; some of them don't. If you happen to have one of those that
establishes that, you can accept that. Certain Tribal membership cards
are also eligible because they establish citizenship. Not all of them
do. We try to identify those that do.
But most importantly--and this is the part that often goes
overlooked--when we hear comments from the other side of the aisle in
this Chamber, it is that there is a catchall provision dealing with all
of these circumstances and any deficit that we may have left out.
It also deals with the problem of those who maybe can't find some
other documentation. Let's say, if you are
[[Page S1339]]
someone who has gotten married and you have changed your name after
getting married and you have got the rest of your documents but you
can't find your marriage certificate, we have got you taken care of.
The same provision in the same part of the bill also deals with
individuals who may have lost all of their documentation either because
it was eaten by their dog or maybe their house burned down yesterday
and all of their documents are missing or because they never had them
to begin with or their crazy Aunt Madge, for no reason at all, scooped
up all the documents, took them to the landfill, disposed of them, and
nobody can find them--or maybe you just never had them to begin with
for whatever reason. These things happen.
This bill doesn't cast any judgment about these people. This bill
doesn't desire, in any way, shape, or form, to disenfranchise those
people or to make them ineligible to register to vote. In fact, it
makes it incredibly easy.
The provision to which I am referring to often goes overlooked. More
or less, universally, it goes overlooked from across the aisle. It
starts on page 12 of the House-passed SAVE America Act, which we are
debating right now. The bill on the table, at page 12, line 22, and
following through the text going on to the next page, makes clear that,
even if you are missing some of your documentation or even all of it--
regardless of the reason--and you want to register to vote, you can
still do so by writing out an affidavit. It establishes a process
whereby a stock affidavit structure could be recommended by a committee
that has long existed to help facilitate some of these election issues.
Each State would then fine-tune the process that they would utilize in
their State whereby the would-be voter writes out a sworn statement,
under penalty of perjury, outlining the circumstances that give them
citizenship--meaning, if they were born in the United States or are
otherwise natural born citizens of the United States--perhaps if they
were born outside but to U.S. citizen parents residing abroad at the
moment--and were at the moment of their birth, by virtue of the
circumstances of their birth, entitled to birthright citizenship as of
the moment of their birth, then they are natural born citizens. They
can establish those basic facts.
Then the burden falls upon the State to confirm or refute the
truthfulness of those things. States have access to databases by which
they can compare and contrast what the voter says in the affidavit,
saying: Yes, I don't have my documents, but I am a citizen, and here is
why and here are the relevant dates or date ranges to consider. It
becomes the State's burden. No American citizen need shell out a single
dollar.
This is one of the other arguments that I frequently hear raised:
that not every American has a passport.
Well, yes, that is true.
They also go on to say: Well, a passport costs money--about 200
bucks.
That is also true.
Nobody should have to go out and get a passport just to vote. If they
have got one, great--it makes it easy to establish citizenship--but you
don't need to have one. You don't have to shell out a single dime to
register to vote under this bill, nor do you have to go out and get
duplicate documents or be left out in the cold because you can't find
your documents or they never existed or you never had them or your
house burned down. Whatever the case, this is taken care of; but this,
too, was ignored by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator
from Nevada.
This question is startling because we hear over and over again how
people are going to be left out in the cold. Yet every American who has
ever had a job as an employee with an American company in the United
States of America has had to establish their citizenship under
standards using documents that are far less forgiving, far more rigid,
far less flexible than what we allow here.
Now, look, it is theoretically possible--not likely but theoretically
possible--that there are other ways of establishing citizenship not yet
contemplated in this bill that would still do the job. If so, bring
those ideas forward. Help us improve the bill. We would be happy to do
it. I think we have made it as easy as we possibly could have. I would
love to hear those ideas, but that is not what we are hearing. They
are, instead, wanting to engage in scaremongering tactics in order to
make people fear that they are suddenly going to be disenfranchised;
that they are suddenly going to face what some are really
disingenuously calling a poll tax and dishonestly suggesting that this
will cost anyone money. There is not a reason for anyone to shell out a
single dime, a single nickel, a single penny--or fraction thereof--in
order to register to vote.
So, when we look at the proof of citizenship, it is simply not fair
to point to any one of these documents in isolation and explain the
reasons that some people might not have them, might never have had
them, might have lost them, and why it is such a travesty that people
will be disenfranchised without them unless they either spend money or
spend days or weeks hunting down all the relevant documentation because
there are other, easier ways to establish that. If you have got ways of
making it even easier, while satisfying this demand that we make sure
that only those who are citizens are voting, let's bring them forward.
It is curious, moreover, in getting back to the States--not just the
States in which they currently allow lawful votes to be cast in some
local elections by known admitted noncitizens. But beyond that, there
is a wide range of States, mostly with Democrat Governors and/or
Democrat legislatures, that are refusing to cooperate at all with
Federal authorities to share anything about their voter registration
files, to share the information to make sure that those voting in
Federal elections are, in fact, U.S. citizens.
Now, look, this is part of the cooperative federalism model that is
built into the Constitution itself. There are certain responsibilities
that belong to the U.S. Government, and it is as equally important to
respect those powers that are distinctively, unavoidably, necessarily,
and by the text and structure of the Constitution, Federal. It is
important to keep those in Federal hands just as it is important to
reserve to the States the powers that are reserved to the States, not
under Federal and not prohibited to the States by the Constitution.
Both are equally important to federalism, and bad things happen when we
disrespect either.
Under article I of the Constitution, we have the power--it is our
authority, and I believe it is our duty--to set basic terms and
conditions relevant specifically to these Federal elections--elections
for the U.S. House of Representatives and elections to the U.S. Senate.
Those are, after all, Federal races.
And which government is it--the State or local level?--that
ascertains and has records sufficient to establish, confirm, or refute
citizenship?
Well, it is this government.
In fact, one of the very first provisions of article I, section 8 of
the Constitution--outlining Federal power by outlining the powers
granted to Congress--involves laws dealing with, you know, immigration,
naturalization, and citizenship. It is this government that is the only
Government of the United States--no one State has the capacity to do
that--to establish or refute the existence of citizenship.
So why are so many States that happen to be run by the Democratic
Party refusing entirely to cooperate--to enter into memoranda of
understanding or otherwise cooperate--with Federal Agencies whose job
it is to go through and figure out who is and who is not a citizen for
the purpose of voting in Federal elections?
That, too, is another reason we need the SAVE America Act. It is
because this is chaos if we don't do that. If we don't do that, then
our laws are dead letter. Our law is saying that only U.S. citizens may
vote, and if a non-U.S. citizen votes in a Federal election, he or she
has committed a serious felony offense.
People often will point to the dearth, the paucity, the rarity of
instances in which voter fraud--particularly voter fraud based on
noncitizen voting--has been detected, charged, fully prosecuted, and
resulted in a conviction. Yes, these are few. These are very, very few
overall that have happened, and there are reasons it is very few. When
you have a system of laws in place, it makes it very easy to register
to vote even for those who might not be citizens, and it makes it
impossible for a
[[Page S1340]]
State to even inquire, even where actual doubts exist, as to someone's
citizenship. You make it almost impossible to detect and very, very
difficult to prosecute.
Voting is, moreover, something that happens in a finite time and
place. Most of the time, by the time it all happens, the matter is
moot, and so it can be difficult to move on.
This is why sometimes I will compare this to when people say that we
don't need to put these procedures in place because it is already
against the law for noncitizens to vote and therefore they don't vote
and that is why it is so rare.
That is a little bit like saying we don't need laws that require
liquor stores to make people show ID before they buy alcohol because we
already have laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to
children. If we didn't have ID laws or record keeping requirements in
place for such things, that, too, would be very, very difficult--close
to impossible--to detect and enforce and prosecute and result in
convictions.
So, look, this debate will continue. I look forward to hearing any
contributions, any suggestions as to how we could make it better, more
inclusive. But the status quo in which we simply pretend that this does
not happen is untenable.
We already know, based on the handful of States that have started
their own investigations, that there are thousands just in the last
year or two alone. We learned of thousands of voter registration files
that have existed that have involved noncitizens.
With as many noncitizens as have entered this country recently and
the development of our laws, it would be folly, it would be morally
irresponsible for us to assume this does not happen.
But let's keep our debate focused on truth, on facts, on what the
bill actually says and not on what it doesn't say.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. President, I rise today against the so-called SAVE
America Act.
I believe that our elections are the foundation of our democracy.
Most Americans do. It is how we protect our country from tyranny and
dictatorship. It is how we remain the greatest country in the world.
But the SAVE Act does not safeguard our elections; it does the
opposite.
My Republican colleagues like to repeat over and over that this is
about voter ID at the polls, that showing ID at the polls is something
we have to do, and that is what this bill is about.
That already happens. Most Americans--99.999 percent of Americans do
what everyone else does: They walk into the polls on election day. They
bring their ID. The volunteers and the clerks check your ID, they check
it to the voter rolls, and they say: Come on in and go ahead and vote.
That already happens across the country and certainly in the State of
Michigan.
This bill is not about voter ID, which hopefully all Americans are in
agreement about; it is about making it harder to vote so that more
Americans are excluded from voting.
It requires that Americans have proof of citizenship in order to
vote. Just by example, I brought my Michigan license, OK? Michigan
license--it is the official State version. There is no proof of
citizenship. It says my address. It says my eye color. It says all
these things, but it does not have my citizenship. It is just not on
the license. For most Americans, it is not on the license.
So how would I prove my citizenship? Well, I can do it, I guess, in
two ways. You can either bring a passport with you or you can bring an
original birth certificate in the name you want to vote with.
Passports--60 percent of Michiganders have no passport. They have
never applied for one. They don't need one. They are not interested in
one.
If you want to get a passport, it is nearly $200. So now we are
charging a fee for people to do what I hope most people believe is a
God-given right as an American--to vote. If not, you have to have an
original copy of your birth certificate in the name you want to vote
in. Well, as you can imagine, for millions and millions of women who
took their married name, took their husband's name, their birth
certificate doesn't show the name they plan to vote with. So it puts an
unbelievably onerous requirement on those married women.
This bill also truly constrains mail-in voting. This is going to hurt
senior citizens, military, folks in nursing homes, college students who
don't live at home. This is intended simply to make it harder to vote.
I want to double-tap this because Michiganders weighed in on the
ballot on this very issue. In 2018, Michiganders voted in a law that
said that anyone could vote absentee for any reason, and it passed with
67 percent of the vote. And I will remind you that Donald Trump has won
my State twice. In the years since, voter participation has gone up. I
would hope that would be seen as a good thing.
Mail-in voting is safe, it is secure, it is the law in Michigan, and
undoing it is simply to satisfy President Trump's very specific goals
of making sure ``only the right people vote.''
As a nation, we have made a lot of strides in the past 50 years in
getting more people to vote. The SAVE Act undoes that, and it
represents a significant change--it gives the Federal Government
enormous power over voting. That is exactly what the Founding Fathers
wanted to avoid. They specifically wrote into the Constitution that the
administration of elections is to be done by the States. In the
commentary on it, they said that was because we never want a President
and his supporters to have overwhelming power over the organs of
democracy, over the foundation of our elections. So they give that
administrative power to the States.
President Trump and my colleagues across the aisle have railed
against Federal involvement in our elections. They have signed amicus
briefs and talked about overreach by the Federal Government in our
elections--when they thought it was going to hurt them. Now they have
done a complete 180.
If you want to understand where my colleagues really stand on this
issue, just look at their comments and President Trump's Statement of
Administration Policy when the House in 2019 passed the John Lewis
Voting Rights Act--literally in many ways a codification of the Voting
Rights Act of the late sixties.
Many of my colleagues were happy to criticize the Federal Government
telling States how to run their elections. They gave speeches about it.
They went on the media about it and talked all about Democratic
overreach.
But this is how you know they have lost the plot--because when it is
their team that is in power, when it is their team that is in the White
House, when it is their team that is giving them their orders, they are
happy to federalize things.
Everybody knows that the Republican Party was always the party of
smaller government and States' rights. That is like the brand.
So now here we are. Donald Trump says in the State of the Union that
if his team doesn't win in November, the elections are rigged, and he
only wants ``the right people voting.''
So here we have this bill that they don't have the votes for, and
they are talking about what they are going to do to help ``save
America.''
In Michigan, just to put the issue in perspective, because my
colleagues like facts, we have about 6 million voters out of 10 million
in our State. In 2024, in an election won by Donald Trump--wasn't
contested by anyone on the other side of the aisle--15 individual
voters were flagged as potentially being noncitizens--15 out of 6
million. Even one noncitizen voting is a bad thing, and they should be
held accountable, and they were to the highest and utmost of the law in
Michigan, including spending some time in jail for one guy. But 15 out
of 6 million is 0.00025 percent. These 15 were flagged and even
confirmed quickly as noncitizens.
This bill is like using a bazooka to go after a housefly. It is not
smart. And in the process, it makes it harder for millions of
Americans--particularly women--to vote in these elections. And make no
mistake, that is the point.
We are only debating this bill because of one fact: Donald Trump
doesn't like to lose elections, and his team wants to shield him from
another embarrassing loss this coming fall. That is it.
[[Page S1341]]
He has shown us from the beginning how he feels about fraud. Seven
months before the 2020 election, he got up in front of the United
States and said: If I don't win in 2020, the election is rigged.
You know, people in this body wrote strongly worded letters. They
pooh-poohed it. They said there is no way an American President will
actually try to refute the results of a democratic election where
clerks, Democrat and Republican, across the country are just doing
their jobs.
Fast-forward to January 6, and people in this body are hightailing it
off this floor, barricading themselves in their offices--as I did on
the House side--looking for a weapon to protect themselves, as a mob
instigated by the President crashed into this very floor. It sounds
familiar to me.
In the State of the Union just a month ago, the President said:
The only way the Democrats can get elected is if they
cheat.
Is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe? Do
you believe that the only way that I am here is because I cheated?
Donald Trump won on the top of my ballot. Did I cheat to get here?
Did he win his last election or no?
Passing the SAVE Act will ``guarantee the midterms'' for
Republicans--another thing he said.
We are only here because you are doing his bidding and trying to pass
a bill that he says will help him guarantee the election.
He said:
We will never lose a race. . . . For 50 years [if this
passes], we won't lose a race.
Does that sound like someone who actually gives a flying fig about
actual democracy or does that sound like someone who is asking his boys
to rig elections for him in November?
Now, I was polite the last time the President of the United States
did this. In 2020, I was one of those people who said: You know what,
the President can't really mean this. Let's send letters. Let's talk
about it politely on camera.
I spoke up at hearings. We asked the military what they were going to
do if the President tried to steal the election.
Frankly, I and a lot of us on this floor had a failure of imagination
for what this President would do, but I am not going to make that
mistake again.
I will close with this: The President of the United States has laid
out what he believes for everyone to see. We have to believe the words
he is telling us.
That same President is now grinding the Senate to a halt by trying to
pass a bill that doesn't do a single thing for your pocketbook, your
house, your kids, your healthcare, or anything else he ran on. He is
busy taking weeks at a time on this floor--time we could otherwise be
working in a bipartisan manner to pass things that would help people
with their cost of living--but he wants to do this because he wants to
make sure he is not embarrassed in the fall.
All of those promises he said he was going to fulfill, that he has
left open--he doesn't want the chickens to come home to roost for him
in November.
So as Michiganders are waiting in line at the gas pumps right now, as
the price of gas jumps 60 cents per day in some cases, as middle-class
Americans are unable to buy a home, we are talking about making it
harder for women and old people and the military to vote.
Instead of addressing the fundamental issues of Americans, we are
doing the bidding of the President of the United States because he told
us all that if he doesn't win, it is rigged, so we better cover down
for him.
This is not what we should be spending our time on. Focus on the
issues that the American public is calling all of us--asking us to
address. It is not what we need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. President, I rise today not only as a
Senator but as an American and as a descendant of enslaved men and
women like those who built this Chamber and fought hard for the right
to vote.
I rise today with a deep concern that we are balancing on a knife's
edge and that if the SAVE America Act becomes law, we will undercut one
of the most fundamental things that make America America--the right to
vote.
We are literally in the midst of elections right now, and it is my
understanding that this bill would actually take effect immediately.
We have Americans who are concerned about the cost of living,
everything from their rent now to their energy costs. We are in the
midst of war. And we know as a country we have the most safe and secure
elections in the world.
So to my colleagues, I ask the question: What are you saving us
from--being able to participate in our democracy? We have been down
this road before. Behind me is a copy of a document that my sister Thea
found when researching our family roots. We turned this into a scarf
that I carried with me on the day that I was sworn in at the U.S. House
of Representatives, in 2017, because it was a historic moment, and I
wanted to carry history with me. And, again, I carried it with me when
I was sworn into this august body--the U.S. Senate.
This document is a window into our Nation's and my family's history.
It captures the moment when my great, great, great grandfather--a
formerly enslaved man--gained the right to vote. He couldn't read or
write; so he signed his ``Returns of Qualified Voters and
Reconstruction Oath'' with an ``x.''
I have been reflecting on this document and how it relates to the
moment that we are in as a nation--how it is a physical manifestation
of our democracy's ability to expand and contract, how we can bring
people together, and how we can separate them.
It is a part of the American experiment. Yet 159 years after my
great, great, great grandfather signed this document and gained his
right to vote, and 61 years after President Johnson signed the Voting
Rights Act into law, protecting that fundamental right and expanding it
for Black women, we in the Senate are debating the possibility of
placing burdens and barriers on voting for millions of Americans--a
contraction of our democracy.
We are just a few months from marking our Nation's 250th year, months
away from acknowledging how far we have come as a country, but it is my
belief that our democracy is under attack, that there is a coordinated
effort to undermine voting rights in America from right here in
Congress to the Judiciary, to the Executive.
Let's start with the reason that we are here today--the SAVE America
Act. This bill is as dangerous as it is unethical. It is a thinly
veiled attempt to make it harder for some--some--Americans to
participate in our democracy.
So here is what it does: It enables this administration to
supercharge their voter roll purges by forcing States to share their
voter lists with the Federal Government. It would end proven and safe
voter registration systems, including online and mail registration. It
would impose new costs on Americans who want to vote, creating a
modern-day poll tax. It would undermine voting by mail, and it would
criminalize election workers, and more.
Our distinguished minority leader called this bill Jim Crow 2.0. I am
calling it Jim Crow 2.No.
Here it is by the numbers: 146 million, 165, 69, and 4.5. So 146
million is the number of Americans who don't have passports at this
moment. So unless they can prove their citizenship with their birth
certificate or social security card, those millions of Americans will
not be able to vote.
And 165 is the base price for getting a brandnew passport. If you
have a passport and it is expiring, it will cost you $130 to renew. So
if you can't find your birth certificate or social security card, there
is now a pricetag on your access to the ballot.
And 69 million is the number of women who have changed their names.
Not only will they have to provide proof of citizenship, but under this
bill, they also would have to bring their marriage certificate to a
voting booth, or maybe a signed affidavit from a judge proving their
name change.
Four and a half--4.5 hours is the average amount of time a rural
voter would have to drive round trip to prove they are a citizen and
ensure that they can vote in the next election.
My colleagues will have you believe that we don't believe IDs are
important. That is not the case. It is just not
[[Page S1342]]
true. Many States are already--across the country, we have to use our
IDs to vote. I took my driver's license with me when I voted recently
in a local election. That is not the point of this bill.
The point of this bill is trying to solve a problem that is not
there, and in doing so, it moves the goalposts for people who want to
vote. It will squeeze people out of the democratic process by finding
ways to cost you money and cost you time if you want to vote.
Bottom line: If this bill passes, a driver's license, REAL ID, travel
ID, college IDs for students, or military IDs will no longer be enough.
If this bill passes, you would have to mail in a photocopy of your
proof of citizenship with your ballot, making it exponentially harder
for Americans to vote by mail, not to mention undermining privacy.
If you are married, if you are in a rural community, if you are a
student on a college campus, if you are a person with a disability, if
you are a senior, or if you have changed your name at any point in your
life, like so many of us have, including myself--I was married, I was
divorced, and I was widowed--this bill won't save you. It will hurt
you. But this is just one aspect of the current attack on voting
rights.
The second comes from across the street, where the Supreme Court has
been chipping and chipping and chipping away at voting rights. The
systematic weakening of our voter protections started decades ago when
the Supreme Court undermined the preclearance provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, the VRA.
Preclearance required jurisdictions with a historical record of
racial discrimination in voting to clear any changes to their voting
laws with the Federal Government. This was a backstop that protected
access to the ballot box for many voters of color.
Once it was struck down, some States began to take advantage, passing
restricted voting ID laws, restricting voter registration timeframes,
reducing early voting, and more.
In 2021, the Supreme Court made it harder to prove racially
discriminatory voting practices under the VRA. And later this year,
they will hear a case that would make it even harder for minority
communities to sue States for discriminatory congressional maps.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the threat to our
democracy that comes from the executive branch. Let me start from the
beginning.
Since January of 2025, the Trump administration has used DOGE to
steal our personal information and data. They pulled information from
the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.
Why? Maybe to track the American people.
Now the administration has turned their attention toward establishing
an unsanctioned, nationwide voter database.
They also raided a Georgia voting center under false pretenses,
undermined access to mail-in ballots by changing the rules around how
mail is postmarked, and sued and threatened States like Minnesota over
access to their voter files--all of this from a President that wants to
``take over the voting'' so that the GOP ``will never lose a race for
50 years.''
This is a coordinated and un-American campaign against the very core
of who we are as a nation. It is not something that I say lightly, but
it is something that I believe must be said, especially as we approach
the 250th anniversary of our country.
In those 250 years, we have seen our democracy expand and contract
multiple times. Our democracy expanded when my great, great, great
grandfather signed his name with that ``x'' and gained the right to
vote. His descendant now stands in the Senate, a living reminder that
our democracy has the ability to grow and change.
But our democracy has contracted too, and we need to learn from that
past if we are going to prevent further contraction in the future.
I fear we are on the cusp of falling into a trap our ancestors sprung
100 years ago. You see, my great, great, great grandfather earned the
right to vote in Georgia with his signature. But it is unlikely that he
was able to really exercise that newly won right for very long because,
from 1877 to 1901, while some Americans were enjoying the Gilded Age,
Black Americans were living through a period known as the Great Nadir.
If apex is the highest, then nadir is the lowest--voter suppression,
political violence--things that you see and feel even now.
Many of the rights enumerated in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments--
including the right to vote--were being eroded, washed away by partisan
gerrymandering, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Jim Crow laws, and
even Supreme Court decisions. For decades, civil rights leaders fought,
not just to achieve new rights but to reinstate the ones lost.
Our democracy has expanded and contracted. The first Black Senator,
Hiram Revels, was elected to Congress in 1870, and then Blanche Bruce.
But it was 86 years between those two Senators and 1967, when we had
the next Black Senator--86 years. Right now, there are five of us, and
this is the first time in our history where there are two Black women
at the same time.
If the SAVE America Act passes, we are on the verge of another
contraction. The parallels with the Great Nadir are as stark as they
are many.
Once again, laws are being proposed to strip us of the access to the
ballot box. Once again, the Supreme Court is postured to send us
backward, rather than protecting the path forward. And once again,
voting rights are under attack by the Federal Government.
I look around this room, and I know that we have a choice to make:
whether we will allow partisan divides to enable the backsliding of our
democracy, or if we are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder to
protect the bedrock of our Nation--the right to vote.
So what can we do? First, we must block the SAVE America Act from
advancing any further. As Senators, we have a responsibility to call it
as we see it and to conduct oversight and expose executive overreach.
And that is what this bill is--executive overreach that would undermine
our right to vote across this country.
As Democratic Senators, we plan to stand in its path, and I hope that
some of my Republican colleagues will join us.
And to all of those watching at home, I want you to know there is
strength in numbers; that your power lies in being educated and
informed and organized and mobilizing.
And in this moment, I stand here and say no to Jim Crow 2.0.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion and the remarks
provided by my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from
Delaware.
I do feel the need to respond to a couple of things, and a couple of
things that were said previous to that by the Senator from Michigan.
With regard to the Senator from Delaware, there are a number of
claims made that are very serious; and because they are very serious,
they need to be responded to immediately.
She used terms like ``poll tax,'' ``Jim Crow 2.0,'' talking about
adding costs as if we are charging someone to be able to have ballot
access to be able to vote, which would be a poll tax. We ended that
some 60 years ago by a constitutional amendment. This is not that.
Not only are we not charging someone to vote, but we are not charging
someone to register to vote; nor are the documentary requirements in
place anything that would cost any individual any money at all. It
would not cost them a single penny because even if you don't have every
document that you need in order to establish citizenship, something
that is already required by a whole host of other laws--familiar to
most Americans would be in the labor and employment context, where
every time you start a new job as an American citizen, in the United
States as an employee, you have to fill out an I-9 form, and you have
to provide a very specific set of documents to establish
citizenship. You may do so with a U.S. passport establishing
citizenship. If you don't have a U.S. passport, you may do so with a
birth certificate, together with a photo ID. A Social Security card can
also come into play, but it is a fairly limited set.
What we have established in this bill is far more flexible than that.
We have added a bunch of other documents. We tried to be as expansive
and as inclusive as humanly possible in order to do
[[Page S1343]]
that. And then we provided a failsafe--a failsafe that I have yet to
hear any of my colleagues across the aisle refer to when making these
very aggressive accusations that this is a poll tax, that this is Jim
Crow 2.0, or that this is going to disenfranchise women or people of
particular racial minorities. It is just not true.
They are ignoring the existence of the provision that begins on line
22, page 12, of the bill and continues onto the next page, which says
that if for any reason or no reason at all you don't have the necessary
documents--any of them or all of them; you have none of them--you can
still handle this by an affidavit that you can write out, thus putting
the burden on the State to confirm or refute the underlying facts
establishing your citizenship, whether citizenship through natural born
citizen status, by virtue of the circumstances at your birth, at the
time of your birth, making you a citizen or the circumstances that led
to your naturalization; you were a naturalized citizen. That does not
cost anyone a single dollar, and it puts the burden on the State to
track down the necessary background so that the State can certify you.
So these arguments are not only missing the point; they become
aggressively wrong to the point of just being flatout false,
demonstrably false.
So we can hear this over and over and over again, but it doesn't
change the fact that, in the bill, nobody is charged a thing to vote--
not one person. And so when we hear about this being costly, that just
isn't true.
Likewise, another comment was made by my colleague from Delaware
referring to a vote-by-mail provision, referring to some more sweeping
changes that are made in a separate amendment that are not part of this
bill right now. This bill has two principal provisions. One deals with
establishing proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration.
The other deals with photo ID at the time of voting.
This one doesn't do that. Yes, one or more amendments have been filed
that would expand that to include some significant restrictions on
mail-in balloting. That is not what is being debated on the floor right
now. I have no objection to anybody wanting to raise those now, given
that the amendments have been filed and there has been some talk of
this. But just to be clear, the bill on the floor doesn't contain
those.
I also need to respond to a couple of the more egregious points that
were made by the preceding Senator, the Senator from Michigan. Among
other things, she repeated some of the same false accusations that this
would somehow disenfranchise married women. It absolutely,
emphatically, would not. In addition to making it very easy for someone
who has all the other documentation but maybe doesn't have a marriage
certificate backing up the name change or maybe they are missing all of
them, again, you go back to page 12, line 22. Any person, whether they
have changed their name or are missing some of their documentation or
all of it, may establish it by affidavit, putting the burden back on
the State elections official.
The Senator from Michigan also made some curious claims with regard
to the Constitution, with regard to federalism and the relationship
between States and the Federal Government. Among other things, she
insisted that the Founding Fathers--those who wrote the Constitution,
those who ratified it--were emphatic about the fact that they did not
want, as she put it, the Federal Government running elections. Well,
there is some truth to that, but her ultimate conclusion is 180 degrees
opposite of what the Constitution says and what they did and what the
words say, though it is very important for us to do this to make sure
that we are talking about the same things.
So if you go to the Constitution--go to article I, section 4, clause
1. It doesn't talk about them because it doesn't need to talk about
them, the States conducting their own elections for State offices. That
goes without saying that the States are in charge of that. But it does
talk--in article I, section 4, clause 1--about the fact that the State
governments will be in charge of setting up rules and regulations
governing the conduct of elections for Federal officials. And it also
says, right after that, in the very same sentence, ``but the Congress
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,'' and that is
what we are doing here.
Because these involve Federal offices, we have the authority to set
important terms and conditions specifically for Federal offices. It is
not that we are encroaching on any constitutional power; this is our
power. It may lay dormant insofar as we choose not to exercise it. But
it is not currently dormant. In fact, we legislated on a number of
occasions; and there are at least four or five, maybe six major pieces
of existing Federal law that deal specifically with the States' conduct
of Federal elections, separate and apart from another very serious
Federal criminal penalty that makes it a felony for a noncitizen to
vote in a U.S. election.
So in all these respects, the Congress can, it may, it is expressly
authorized to legislate, and it has indeed legislated. Among other
things, it legislated with the NVRA, passed in 1993.
It is the NVRA specifically and the manner in which it has been
interpreted by the Supreme Court and implemented that necessitates
these provisions--specifically, the citizenship provisions--of the SAVE
America Act because but for the Supreme Court's ruling in Arizona v.
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona in 2013, a case decided some 20 years
after the NVRA was enacted by Congress in 1993, the Court in that case
said the States may not even inquire into someone's citizenship, may
not require proof of it even where they suspect that some voters might
be noncitizens.
Now, that interpretation was wrong. It was contrary to the text, to
the structure, to the original public meaning of that statute. It was
wrong, but it is nonetheless conclusive. It is a majority opinion of
the Supreme Court. It hasn't been overturned. And that is why this is
necessary.
So to call this a federalism problem, to call this an overreach by
the U.S. Government into the exclusive domain of the States, is
literally not true. Why? Well, because in the first place, the
Constitution itself makes it Federal, and it is necessarily Federal. I
would add to that that that is even more important here because this
bleeds into another one of the Federal Government's exclusive powers
and exclusive abilities; namely, the ability to identify and ascertain
the citizenship of any American citizen.
That is not the role of the States, nor do the States have the
comprehensive databases that the Federal Government does have. The
Federal Government has the ability, conclusively, to determine whether
or not somebody is a citizen. The States do not, and that is yet
another important reason for us to make that determination.
It is also relevant that this is where we get into trouble with a
number of these blue States--the Democrat Governors and Democrat
legislature States--that are refusing even to talk to the Federal
authorities who run the SAVE database within the Department of Homeland
Security.
Remember, it is against the law for a noncitizen to vote in a Federal
election, and that is why we have these laws and these systems and this
database, the SAVE database, already set up. Yet a number of these blue
States--a whole lot of them--are refusing even to talk to Federal
authorities, even to share with them what, if anything, that they are
doing to make sure that noncitizens are not voting in U.S. elections.
This has become a problem of especially great concern in recent years
given that, in some States--a handful of at least four or five States
and the District of Columbia--now have in place systems where, in some
local elections within their State's jurisdiction, noncitizens are
openly, by State law, allowed to vote in those elections.
Therefore, when they register to vote, they have a voter registration
file. Basic questions have been asked of them: How do you differentiate
those who are noncitizens who have registered to vote in your State,
and how do you make sure that they don't get ballots to vote in a
Federal election; for example, for a U.S. House of Representatives race
or a U.S. Senate race?
They have refused to answer the question. They have refused to
cooperate. They have hidden these details. These are important details,
details that we have constitutional authority,
[[Page S1344]]
a moral obligation, and a legal obligation to look into to make sure
that our laws are faithfully executed, and they refuse utterly to
cooperate. If that is not chilling, I don't know what is.
My friend and colleague from Michigan also implied that there is a--I
don't know--some sort of de minimus, marginal concern, in her State and
every other State, about noncitizens registering to vote.
Oh, it happens every once in a while. Somebody gets in there. We
remove them.
But let's remember--I looked up some articles on this. I have one
right here from a publication called the Michigan Bridge. One of the
ways that they found a handful of noncitizens registered to vote was in
a sort of haphazard way. They found 15 just by doing something very
simple. They compared a list of people who had gone into court after
being summoned for jury duty. Jury duty, remember, typically turns on
what they call the wheel, a random selection from among registered
voters in the jurisdiction. You are called up if you are a registered
voter, randomly, to serve on jury duty.
Periodically, in Michigan and in many other States, people will show
up for jury duty. There are all kinds of tricks that people use to try
to avoid jury duty if they don't want to. This one may or may not be a
trick in some circumstances, and in many circumstances it wasn't.
People were truthfully saying: I am not a citizen; therefore, I may
not, must not, cannot, will not serve as a juror.
So somebody came up with the idea: Let's compare a list of--I don't
know--250 or so who happened to have made that argument; then they
compared them against Michigan's voter registration database. And they
found that at least 15 of those individuals were noncitizens who had
registered to vote. That is a far cry from saying that there are only
15 noncitizens registered to vote in the State of Michigan, when you
consider the haphazard, random way in which they found this out. It
would suggest not only that there could be more but that there likely
are a lot more because most people aren't getting called in for jury
duty, and most who are aren't necessarily invoking this defense of: I
can't serve; I won't serve; I may not serve because I am not a U.S.
citizen.
Finally, with regard to the federalism point, I find it very curious
that this argument continues to surface, and it surfaces, in
particular, from our Democratic colleagues. And the reason I say that
is that, all of a sudden, they are very concerned about federalism,
about maintaining the sanctity of the distinction between that which is
State authority and that which is Federal.
That is important to me. I focus on a few things more than that. I
think the core structural provisions of the Constitution--the vertical
protection that we call federalism and the horizontal protection that
we call separation of powers--are as important as any other feature in
the Constitution. And when we deviate from those, we cause all kinds of
ripples downstream. So I am very sensitive to these issues. I want to
avoid any semblance of trampling on States' sovereign authority. This,
sir, is not that--and especially when we hear this from those who, just
a few years ago, during the Congress that ranged between January 3,
2021, and January 3, 2023, in which both Chambers of Congress were
controlled by Democrats and we had a Democratic President, President
Biden.
During that time, they supported legislation known as H.R. 1. Now, if
you want to see a Federal takeover of elections, H.R. 1 was that. It
was vast. It was sweeping. It covered all sorts of things that the
Federal Government has no business taking over in elections. Among
other things, it would have designated every single voting jurisdiction
in the entire United States of America, regardless of what part of the
country they were in, regardless of what, if any, history they may have
had with past de facto or de jure discrimination or segregation of
their State, subjected them all to preclearance; meaning, anytime they
passed any law affecting the way votes were cast, precincts were drawn
or otherwise, they would have to go to a Democratic political appointee
inside the Department of Justice to seek a ``Mother, may I,'' an
advance blessing from the Federal sovereign, before they could make
those changes.
That is a violation of federalism, and that is something that, last I
checked, every Democrat who now serves in the Senate who was here at
the time supported. So I am sorry. I am surprised that they would make
a federalism argument now in reference to a bill that focuses solely,
exclusively on powers that the Federal Government does, in fact, have.
And in fact, the only reason this bill is necessary is because of
existing Federal law--the way it has been interpreted and the way that
it is being implemented. That is the only reason we need any of this.
That is not a federalism problem; that is inappropriate exercise of
Federal power.
We do just as much violence to federalism when we deny to the Federal
sovereign the ability to exercise Federal power as we do when we do the
same to the States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Iditarod
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to
speak about the SAVE America Act. Before I do that, though, I want to
take a pause for maybe a little break in the conversation about
elections to update people on Alaska's greatest sport, and that is the
Iditarod. So just a moment here to update folks.
Yesterday, Jessie Holmes came into Nome after 9 days, 7 hours, 32
minutes, and 51 seconds on the trail. This is a 975-mile trail that he
accomplished with his extraordinary team, led by Zeus and Polar, taking
him all the way to Nome. He ended up with 12 dogs in the harness that
were happy and barking and hungry and still ready to go. Truly an
amazing feat.
Jessie--this is not his first winning the Iditarod. This is actually
his second in a row. He is actually the fifth person in Iditarod
history to win 2 years in a row.
I visited with him at the ceremonial start, and we talked about his
focus on the race and how much it meant to those in rural Alaska and
the culture of rural Alaska and how as someone originally from Alabama,
he had embraced that with an enthusiasm that is really infectious.
So I am honored to be able to acknowledge his success and that of his
team. I called him a couple times already--first to congratulate him
just after he won, and then I called him again today because I read in
the news that after this arduous 9 days on the trail, he was at the end
of the Iditarod under the Burled Arch to greet every musher who was
coming in. He has that much love for the Iditarod, that much love for
his fellow mushers, and that much admiration for the teams that are on
the road.
There are still 24 mushers that are out there on the trail. We are
wishing them the best and safety along the way. The weather there is
not good, but these are men and women and canine athletes that will
take the toughest test.
S. 1383
Mr. President, it kind of segues a little bit into some of the points
that I want to make here this evening about my State particularly. We
all come to these debates about policy with the background and the
unique circumstances from the places we call home.
I want to begin my comments this evening about the SAVE America Act
and why I have spoken out in opposition to this measure--not because I
disagree with what my colleague from Utah has shared--that it should be
a privilege allowed to U.S. citizens, this privilege of the vote. I
also would agree that asking for valid ID in order to participate in
voting is not an unreasonable thing. In fact, my State certainly
requires that, and I think most others do. But, as with so much that we
deal with, it is not just in the headline; it is not just in the top
line; it is, how would this apply in your given situation?
As a Senator that comes from a big State and some would say a very
unique State, a very complicated State--I don't think there are too
many where you have dog races that go just about 1,000 miles. And we
celebrate them. And the fact that the trail these animals and their
mushers took goes through an area where, yes, people live but is not
connected by any roads--the
[[Page S1345]]
way we get around is just a little bit different from other folks.
So recognizing and appreciating the distinctions that come to bear
when you take a measure that is good in purpose--citizens should be
allowed to vote; valid ID should be required--but you have to peel back
the cover here and see, how is this going to be implemented?
So I want to focus--I know there are multiple versions of the bill.
The Senator from Utah just pointed to that. I want to speak to the
substitute amendment to S. 1383, which we have now, and focus on the
particular challenges and the practical challenges that it creates for
a State like Alaska that is one-fifth the size of the United States,
with a population of just over 700,000 people.
So it is the challenges we have specifically with registration, with
the requirements for photo ID, and then I will speak a little bit to
the mail-in voting limitation.
One of the first places to start is you are saying: All right. If you
said, Lisa, you don't oppose the intent of this, and you come from a
big State, and there may be logistical challenges in implementing it,
when does all this come into play?
Well, that is an important consideration because, as the bill is
drafted right now, these provisions are effective upon passage of the
bill. So that means that Alaska and every other State is going to have
to comply with a new set of laws that, in my State's situation,
contradict our State laws, and we are in the midst of an election
cycle. We are less than 8 months away from our general election.
In addition to immediate implementation of the provisions under this
bill, there is no support that comes to the State. When I say support,
there are no Federal resources that come and say: All right, you need
to figure out how you can get more photo identification mobile units
out to remote areas where it is hard to do. You need resources. You
need people in order to absorb this. The numbers that you will see when
people come to your division of elections or your public assistance
office with original documents--you need more folks. Well, here is the
money.
Well, we are not helping with that, so the States would be forced to
bear the entire cost of implementation right away--just right away. So
this is a tall order. Again, you are trying to stand all of this up
while we are in the midst of an active election year.
Certainly in my State, we would be redirecting--if we had to comply
with the Federal law, we would redirect funds from elsewhere. But this
is just--OK. It is a logistical challenge. Is it insurmountable? Maybe
not. Is it going to be really hard to do in certain places? I think
that is fair to say.
So maybe I am starting with the easiest point here, which is the
implementation on the timeline that this bill outlines is pretty near
impossible in a State like Alaska right now given the lack of
infrastructure that we currently have.
So let me move to the next point, and this is with regard to the
registration to vote. Requiring proof of citizenship--OK. We can figure
this out.
I listened carefully to the Senator from Utah when he said: You know,
when you have a name change, it may be complicated to get your
documents, but ultimately you are going to figure out a way to get your
documents.
But I am going to walk you through the challenge of what it means to
meet a requirement that says you have to provide your proof of
citizenship--you have to provide your documentation in person in order
to register to vote.
Don't get confused. That is not when you are actually voting. That is
where the voter ID comes into place. What we are talking about right
now is just the registration to vote.
This would be a major, major departure from how most Alaskans
currently register to vote. Just setting the scene here, in 2024, over
80 percent of applicants registered by mail, they registered online, or
they registered through our permanent fund dividend application. This
is a process that every eligible Alaskan will go through each year at
just about this time, and so we have set up a process that allows you
to register when you are applying for your permanent fund dividend
application.
In 2023, that number in terms of the applicants who used that
process--either by mail, online, or through PFD--was more than 90
percent. So this is where people are going right now to register.
So what this would require is--you might be able to start the process
online, but the requirement to present the documentation in person is
still there.
There were about 29,000 new voter registrations in 2024, and under
the SAVE America Act, it would have effectively forced about 25,000 of
these Alaskans to go to the Alaska Division of Elections offices to
provide the documentation in order to certify their citizenship.
Now, people have said: Well, wait a minute, it is not just the
division of elections that you can go to. There are potentially other
agencies that you can take documentation to, whether it is State public
assistance agency, the department of motor vehicles, or other locations
that the State has designated as voter registration agencies.
Let me just walk you through. Again, I should have my map of Alaska
overlaid on the continental United States. But we are one-fifth the
size of the United States. These stars here are the six divisions of
elections that we have in Alaska. We have six divisions of elections.
So, again, if you had my other big map, Alaska stretches from Florida
to just about California, down from the southwest, practically up to
the Canadian border. So it would be like, you know, going from
Washington, DC, to Ohio to go--my map is probably off on that, so maybe
I shouldn't be using those States.
My point is that you have six divisions of elections that are
throughout the State--Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Nome, Wasilla, and
Kenai. So it is clear through the SAVE America Act that this is where
Alaskans can present their documentary proof of citizenship. What is
less clear is whether or not you can present that documentary proof if
you go to a division of motor vehicles, if you go to a State public
assistance office, or if you go to other locations that currently
provide voter registration services, although pretty low levels.
But, again, don't get excited to think that now we have stars all
over the map in terms of where you can go to actually present your
documentation because there are only 10 other locations around the
State that then fall into this bucket of places that have a DMV, State
public assistance offices. So what you are seeing here is a logistical
reality in terms of how you would meet the requirement for production
of your documents.
The SAVE America Act doesn't change the Federal law that mandates
that States designate public assistance and disability offices as what
they are calling voter registration agencies. That might extend voter
registration beyond, again, these six election regional offices, but
the law is not consistently enforced. So that is an issue here.
For instance, down here in the southeast, in an unstarred area, the
Sitka office is an area where public assistance is provided for, but
that office is currently limited to what they call general inquiries
only. So if that changes, it is unlikely to be feasible that you could
actually present your documentations there.
In addition, none of these offices are equipped to handle in-person
voter registration that the SAVE Act could force upon them. Again, you
are talking about the need for additional resources. Most of these
offices are places where you have one or two folks, oftentimes with
limited hours, and quite honestly, they are trying to get out SNAP
benefits, LIHEAP benefits. Now you are going to task them with not only
registering somebody to vote, but now it is this confirmation of
official documents that, again--you have a new private right of action
and criminal penalties that could be imposed if you are not doing this
right.
So States can also continue to designate other nongovernment offices
as voter registration offices, but only--so you have to agree to do
that. And, again, you have got resource challenges. OK.
But this issue that then comes with this new private right of action
to a low-level employee who may be working in a one-person office,
handling
[[Page S1346]]
State public assistance--it is a concern that you have the ability to
not only put an additional requirement to them, an additional
responsibility that comes with certain liability. Also, the State is
looking to, how are we training these folks, or are we going to hire
new folks to help facilitate at any of these Agencies?
So I show you the stars. In most other States, you would be looking
at how all these stars connect through a road. These three here are
connected by a road. This one connects to this one by a road. That is
it. That is it.
So I have got 83 percent--83 percent--of Alaska's communities. This
is 20 percent of our total population. So, again, there is not a lot of
people out here, but you know what?--these folks, these folks have been
here for a long time. Many of them Indigenous people in Native villages
that have been there for generations, millennia they say.
So getting to the practical realities of forcing Alaskans to present
documentation in order to vote, and the requirement that you have to
present in one of six regional locations, possibly another location in
the State. This is not only a logistical challenge, but it presents a
fiscal challenge.
And I heard again the argument by my colleague from Utah, that we are
not asking for fees to vote, but in order to get me to go, like, let's
start: I am 18 years old, I want to register to vote, how am I going to
do that?
I was born down here in Ketchikan. There is no star in Ketchikan. Now
there is a DMV in Ketchikan, so maybe I could start my application
there in Ketchikan, but I am still going to have to go to Juneau to go
present my documentation.
All of the southeast, there is no roads down there. There is a ferry.
It is 20 hours from Ketchikan up to Juneau there. Or I take the Alaska
Airlines jet. It is only an hour, but--I don't know--it is $420 to get
me from here to there.
If I am in Fairbanks, where I went to school, OK, I have got the
ability to present my documentation there; but if I am in any of these
North Slope communities here, this is where I have to fly to present my
original documentation.
If I happen to live here in Kotzebue, big town, I have got to fly
here to Nome to present my documentation. If I live here in this Bethel
community over here, I am going all way to Anchorage to present my
documentation.
So you are moving around. You are flying. You are flying to all these
places. So this is going to be hard. This is going to be costly on
Alaskans.
And, again, these are people who are eligible to vote. They are
citizens of our country, but if they are looking at a situation where I
am going to have to spend $1,000 to get me to where I can present my
documentation to vote, they are not going to do it. They may do it.
There will be many who will do it.
Let me say that. There will be many who will do it because these are
proud Alaskans. These are proud Americans, and they want to vote.
But this is hard. This is hard. And so I fear that they won't
register because financially they won't be able to register. And if
they are not able to register, they can't vote. And while
disenfranchisement may not be the intent of the SAVE America Act--and I
don't think that it is--I think we will see that. In fact, I fully
expect it to be an outcome of this.
So I am going to give you some specific examples. This is St.
Lawrence Island. It is a little bit closer to Russia than it is to
mainland Alaska, but there is great Alaskans that live out there. I
have been out there many times.
So if you are a 17-year-old girl who lives in Savoonga, you are
turning 18 in October. Super excited because you are going to be able
to vote for the first time ever. So what is this young person going to
have to do in order to register to vote?
She is going to have to book a flight to Nome--so it is not that far,
but it is all across water. There is no boats that take you there. But
that flight--that flight--we don't have jets out of St. Lawrence
Island, so it is a propjet. It is going to cost you $720 just to start.
The flights, if there is one a day, you are lucky; that is good. But
you are going to have to stay overnight because you can't return on the
same day.
There aren't a lot of hotels in Nome. A night at the Aurora Inn is
$310, but I would guess that since the Iditarod is going on right now
and there is a lot of excitement there, it is probably a little over
$310. Then you add in food for the day, cab fare. You are probably
looking at, at least $1,000--at least $1,000--for a quick day trip to
go to Nome to register so that you can present your documentation so
that you have the privilege to vote.
And keep in mind, in my example, I am a 17-year-old girl, super
excited about turning 18 and being able to vote, but I don't have a
$1,000. And the people in the village, fishing village of Savoogna or
in the other community of Gambell, they don't make this kind of money.
So this is probably the best case scenario for flying in and out of
Savoogna because you have got weather that hits all the time.
And, again, you are not in a jet; you are taking a prop. You can get
weathered in or out. Your trip can last several days. Storms blow in;
you are stuck there; you can't move for a week or so. This is not--this
is not uncommon.
And so it just, it adds--and I feel like these stories are important
because, well, my example of a young 17-year-old who is excited to
vote, there is no name. I haven't talked to such a person, but these
are the scenarios that people live with when your State is
geographically blessed. I was going to say challenged, but I think we
are blessed with our geography.
So you are saying: OK, Lisa, that is an extreme example because that
is a big island out in the middle of the big ocean, but other places
that are more connected, it is not that bad.
Let's go to the largest fishing community in Alaska and the fishing
community that brings in more fish per volume than any place else,
Unalaska.
So we are sitting out here. We are right--actually we are right at
the end here because, once again, we are so geographically blessed, we
can't have a map that actually shows that the Aleutians go all the way
out here. So you are in Unalaska. Say you are a fisherman or a teacher.
The flight to Anchorage--because this is where you are going to have
to go. You are going to have to go into Anchorage, 800 air miles. 800
air miles. The cost one way right now, if you can get a seat, is
somewhere between $1,100 per seat, if you can maybe get on a charter,
to possibly as much as $1,300. This is one way. This is one way to get
you from here to there.
Now, granted, this is crab season going on, and so the tickets--you
are not able to get many seats. But that is what we are talking about.
So you have got--you have got over $1,000 just to get you there.
Then you get to Anchorage, and you are not home free. It is not like
the division of elections is sitting there at the Ted Stevens
International Airport. You have a 5-mile drive to get into town. Maybe
you rent a car. You probably don't rent a car; you get a cab. But
surprise, again, there is no return flight home to Dutch Harbor,
Unalaska on the same day.
This is not a one-and-done, in-and-out. I have got to overnight. That
means I have got to get a hotel. I am probably going to need to have
something to eat. So, again, the reality that we are looking at is it
is costing thousands of dollars to just get me to the place so that I
can register to vote.
I have been spending a lot of time with the folks in the southwest
region of the State that were impacted by ex-typhoon Halong in October.
It is a thousand-mile storm that just blasted through these
communities, and the small village of Kipnuk was devastated. Homes
literally floated off of their pilings and floated as many as 3 to 5
miles away.
The homes are not--it is not possible to go back to those homes. So I
have been talking to residents from Kipnuk who have said: I lost
everything, and there is no way I can go back there.
These villagers who, no doubt that they are U.S. citizens--no doubt
that they are U.S. citizens--they no longer have the documentation to
prove their citizenship. It is lost. Now, it can be recreated, but it
is going to take time. And, again, I take it back to my first point,
which is all of this happens now when the bill is signed into law.
So another example. Lots of folks who have been in the State for a
while are elders, lived in a time, were born in
[[Page S1347]]
a time when being born in a hospital was not the norm. We didn't become
a State until 1959. So say you are an 85-year-old man from Selawik.
Selawik is right up here in the interior. He spent his entire life
there. In Selawik there is no need for a driver's license. You can't
get one in Selawik.
You were born in your parents' house. He certainly doesn't have a
passport. Getting a certified copy of your birth certificate can be
really, really difficult if you have never had one before. And we know
because these are certain examples of some of the things that we do
with casework in my office.
It is not easy. It can be done, but it is not something that you can
just say: Here is a copy of my passport. I have got a certified copy of
my birth certificate.
I have mentioned just the logistics, the sheer logistics of trying to
satisfy the requirements of the law when it comes to registration. It
is so costly to get yourself there, and it is costly to secure the
documents that you need to prove citizenship in the first place.
It has been mentioned that passports are $130; applications take 4 to
6 weeks, unless you are paying an expedite fee.
We have got pretty good statistics in Alaska when it comes to those
who actually have a passport, about 50 percent of Alaskans have one.
Getting a certified copy of your birth certificate or marriage
certificate, it is not free; that is $30.
One of the problems that we found out in Alaska right now is our
vital records department for the whole State has a notice on their
website that says that there is a processing time of 1 to 2 months.
So, for instance, if I am coming out of Ketchikan here and I want to
go to Juneau--fly to Juneau--so I can present my documentation, if I
have got a copy of my birth certificate but it is not certified, I am
either going to have to fly back to Ketchikan to see if it is possible
to get one there or I can go to vital statistics. But then I am told
you have got to wait a couple of months, perhaps. So now I have spent
$420, and I am still not registered to vote.
I have shared how challenging it is to meet the requirements with,
really, no advanced lead time to transition to allow for States to
stand these up.
It has been mentioned before the challenges that women have with name
changes. I have talked to women in domestic violence shelters who have
shared with me that one of the scary things about their situations is
knowing that the abuser in a domestic violence situation continues to
hold the papers that will allow them to move about.
So whether it is a birth certificate, whether it is a passport,
whether it is a Tribal ID card, in Alaska, we have got an estimated
155,000 female citizens, aged 15 years and older, who have names that
don't match their birth certificates due to a host of different
reasons.
It has been fascinating, with this whole discussion, the number of
conversations that I have had with women, including myself, where we
talk about how hard it was to get REAL IDs because of a name change or
there has been a hyphen, and you can't match up all of the
documentation.
Again, is it impossible? No. Is it going to be really challenging?
Absolutely, yes.
So I have talked about the registration part of that. Let's assume
now you are registered to vote. Now the SAVE Act is going to require a
new photo ID with specifics attached to it. So it is not only a photo
ID. It has to have an expiration date on it. You have got to have this
to vote.
I have said I support voter ID. Alaska requires ID to vote, as I
think they should. But I think what we have here is a very prescriptive
approach to it. Again, my fear is that it would result in
disenfranchising voters who have been voting for decades simply because
they can't produce a piece of ID with a photo on it.
There has been a lot of discussion about Tribal IDs, and don't they
qualify? They qualify for you to go through the TSA, but the act
requires that you have a photo ID that has an expiration to it. Most
Tribal IDs do not have expiration dates to them, and some of them do
not have photos. So it would be a significant challenge to so many not
only in Alaska but within the lower 48 as well.
Others are saying: Well, if what you need is just a photo ID, you can
have a State ID. You can have your driver's license. Keep in mind, in
most of these communities--the 20 percent of Alaskans who do not live
on the road system, the 83 percent of our communities that are not
connected by the road--if you are not really connected by the road,
that means we don't really have a lot of roads in a lot of these place.
So why do you need a driver's license? You don't. You might live in a
boardwalk community, where you really don't have any roads, and you
don't have the ability, again, to provide for a department of motor
vehicles in these communities.
So there is an exception, and I want to acknowledge that that
recognizes that voters would be able to provide the last four digits of
their Social Security number and an affidavit attesting that they are
unable to obtain a copy of a valid photo ID, but it says, ``after
making reasonable efforts to obtain a copy.'' So I want to know: What
does that mean? What does ``reasonable efforts'' really mean? Because I
worry that it might open the voter up to potential liability and result
in different standards around the States.
So it matters when we say: Well, you can make ``reasonable efforts.''
But what does that really mean? What do I tell that person who comes
from the boardwalk community that doesn't have a driver's license, who
doesn't have a State ID, or whose Tribal ID doesn't include an
expiration date? Does ``reasonable efforts'' mean that you have got to
fly to Anchorage in order to get that? I don't know. I don't know.
This version also goes further and sets a new default rule for
Federal elections of in-person voting. This contradicts Alaska's long-
allowed, no-excuse absentee voting by mail. In the way the amendment is
drafted, absentee ballots would only be allowed if the voter were a
member of the armed services or is stationed abroad or out of State,
unable to vote in person due to illness, infirmity, hospitalization, or
physical disability, is the primary caregiver of an individual who is
medically incapacitated, or will be absent from the State due to
verified travel. Now, there is a fifth ``hardship'' category, but we
understand that the drafters are pretty clear that this is meant to be
construed narrowly.
The bill then goes on to describe very different and specific chain-
of-custody rules for a State's handling of absentee ballots, on top of
the other changes that SAVE America would mandate be implemented
immediately.
In addition to the geography, I am going to introduce you to the
climate and to the weather because, in November, when we hold our
elections--along with everybody else in a Presidential year--the
weather is notoriously not good in Alaska. I don't care what part of
the State you are in. So what has happened is Alaskans have taken their
voting responsibility very seriously, and they are, like, I am not
going to be shut down by the weather because remember, a few years ago,
we had that bad storm, and we weren't even able to get out of the
driveway to go to town. So I am going to vote absentee.
We have allowed no-excuse voting for a long time for lots of good
reasons. Most notably, people want to make sure that they are able to
participate in the vote, and when your conditions are shut in, you
can't do it, and you might not feel safe in doing it. So you are
securing it early by being responsible.
One of the things that we have done in the State of Alaska is to make
sure that the absentee process is very secure. We have got an ability
to track your ballot once you have cast it. So we have worked this long
and hard and well to accommodate the many, many tens of thousands of
Alaskans who will vote by mail. In the 2024 general election, over
50,000 Alaskans voted by mail. So believe me, when you tell Alaskans
that you might not be able to do this, that is not something that sits
very well.
I will restate again that the goals of what we are talking about with
the SAVE America Act I support. Only
[[Page S1348]]
U.S. citizens should vote in our elections, and Federal law already--
already--makes it a crime for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections.
Voters should be required to present identification, which State law
requires, and list specific forms of ID that work to provide that
identification in the State. But as I tried to share by way of a map
and by way of some stories here, there are significant impediments that
I see in the implementation of this act in my State.
I do have additional issues with the reforms that the legislation
would impose on States, including the federalization of the election
process, as opposed to the State-driven process that is contemplated by
the Constitution. And one example is the requirement for States to run
their voter rolls through a Federal database that was not designed for
this. We have already had some legitimate issues in multiple States
with regard to that.
So I have asked: Do we see evidence for the need of these sweeping
changes, given the lack of credible evidence of noncitizens voting at a
significant level, certainly, in my State?
I have asked specifically, and we have had that review. Over a 10-
year period, there have been 70 instances that were flagged in terms of
actually following through to determine whether or not it was illegal.
But that is, basically, seven a year.
So you look at what we are trying to chase here with this and balance
it with disenfranchising so many who would be faced with almost
insurmountable challenges in order to register and/or to vote. So I
look at this, and on balance, it doesn't have weight.
I am also not happy to see some provisions tucked into the substitute
that target transgender individuals simply because there is,
apparently, an opening to do so. I don't know that that has anything to
do with voting, but these provisions add to the opposition that I have.
Really, the practical impacts on Alaskan voters are the easiest
things to express here. They have not been solved by the updated text.
I have introduced over a dozen amendments--germane amendments--to make
what, I think, would allow this bill to work better. But I think they
are just kind of the tip of the iceberg of changes that need to be
made.
Again, the SAVE America Act may be well-intended, but how its goals
are achieved matters, and the implementation matters. We cannot create
a situation that doesn't work for Alaska, where so many who should be
able to vote and who may have been voting for years--lawfully voting
for years--are suddenly unable to do so.
The States should remain in charge of their own elections. They
should set their own requirements based on what works for them because
we can't shift to a system that works for many rightful voters but not
all, and particularly so close to election day and with no funding for
the States to implement the new mandates.
I know Alaska is always a little bit unique, and you all know that
Alaska is a little bit unique because I tell you so. But I appreciate
the recognition of the distinctions that we have among our many amazing
50 States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Moody). The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
Senate amendment No. 4421.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No.
4421 to the motion to concur in the House message to
accompany S. 1383 with substitute amendment No. 4420, a bill
to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access,
and for other purposes.
John Thune, Roger Marshall, John Barrasso, Bill Hagerty,
Pete Ricketts, Bernie Moreno, John Cornyn, Rick Scott
of Florida, Lindsey Graham, Shelley Moore Capito, Jim
Banks, Jon Husted, Joni Ernst, Marsha Blackburn, Ted
Budd, Steve Daines, Tommy Tuberville.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Motion to Suspend
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, pursuant to the notice given by me on
March 16, 2026, I move to suspend paragraph (n)(1) of rule XXV.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is debatable.
Cloture Motion
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
suspend the operation of rule XXV, paragraph (n)(1), to
permit the Committee on Rules and Administration to consider
the pending motion with respect to the message to accompany
S. 1383 to fund TSA and as noticed in the Congressional
Record on March 16, 2026.
Charles E. Schumer, Alex Padilla, Brian Schatz, Chris Van
Hollen, Raphael Warnock, Tammy Baldwin, Peter Welch,
Jack Reed, Richard J. Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Adam B.
Schiff, Jacky Rosen, Christopher A. Coons, Tina Smith,
Cory A. Booker, Catherine Cortez Masto, Mark R. Warner.
Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HUSTED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. HUSTED. Madam President, I have been here for a little while this
afternoon, this evening, and have listened to a lot of the concerns of
my colleagues, and I believe I have something tonight that will provide
some common ground that, hopefully, we can all support.
I come to this conversation having been twice elected and entrusted
as the chief elections officer of the State of Ohio, as being elected
their secretary of state. I oversaw elections: presidential elections
in 2012 and 2016, as well as midterm elections in 2014 and 2018, and
many primaries, local elections, special elections, ballot initiatives,
on and on and on.
I know my election law. I know my election administration, and I
believe Ohio is the gold standard for how to run an election. I made my
mission clear in that role to make Ohio a place where it was easy to
vote and hard to cheat.
And many other States do it right; many other States do it right.
They have voter ID laws. They properly maintain the voter rolls.
However, other States do not do that.
I enforced voter roll maintenance, the voter roll maintenance
standards in all 88 counties, to make sure that no one could
nefariously or accidentally cast a ballot, and this standard was upheld
in the case before the U.S. Supreme Court of Husted v. A. Philip
Randolph Institute.
And I can tell you, it is a chore to make sure that only legally
registered citizens are on the voter rolls because there are millions
of people in this country who can get driver's licenses, who get Social
Security numbers, who are not citizens of the United States of America.
They may be here on a visa, a green card, a refugee, someone here on a
TPS--temporary protected status. They all get the things that you need
to register to vote in many States.
And when you are in a swing State, you have lots of outside groups
that just want to register everybody because they get paid more and
more and more the more people they register, even if those people are
not legally allowed to be on the voter rolls. It is an important
responsibility.
I also launched an annual voter fraud and suppression report, which
was a postmortem on each election cycle, and we found cases every
election of fraud and attempted fraud, even with all those safeguards
in place. It was rare, but it was real. It was out there.
And you may say: Well, what is the big deal? It is a few hundred
here, a few hundred there. We had 200 elections during my tenure. When
you add up the local elections that were decided by 1 vote or tied--
local elections, township trustees, political officials--every vote
counts; every vote matters.
[[Page S1349]]
Ohio then implemented a required photo ID law at the polls, and with
these reforms, there has been no evidence of voter suppression. In
fact, with all of these measures in place, in the 2024 Presidential
election, it produced the second highest turnout that we have had in
the past four Presidential elections.
And it is not surprising that people don't find it hard to produce an
ID when they come to vote because it happens in their lives every
single day. I know, for me, in the last week, I have had to provide an
ID to enter a government building, an ID to rent a car, an ID to stay
at a hotel. But many other things we commonly do in life, whether that
is someone going to the local store to buy alcohol or tobacco, you name
it, lots of reasons that people have to supply IDs. They are very
accustomed to doing it. They do it all the time.
So when they show up at the polls and ask for an ID, they already had
it with them because they probably were already asked for it once that
day.
And in Ohio--and I know other States do this and are perfectly
capable of doing it--if you don't have an ID, the State of Ohio will
get you one free of charge at the DMV.
So when we talk about the SAVE America Act, it is trying to solve a
simple problem--at least the provision I am here to talk about
tonight--that we need to make sure that we know who is coming to the
polls to cast their vote because election integrity matters. But there
are 14 States that do not have voter ID laws, even though 80 percent of
Americans think it is a good idea. This is one of those issues that,
whether you talk to Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, they say:
Yes, photo ID makes sense. It is just kind of common sense that we
would want to know who is voting when we cast a ballot to elect
Presidents and Senators and Governors.
And, like I said, I have tried to listen. I heard my Democrat
colleagues say that they don't oppose photo ID laws. I heard Senator
Schumer say our objection as Democrats is not to a photo ID. I heard
Senator Fetterman say he supports a photo ID law. And I guess if I can
quote him:
If GOP wants real reform over a show vote--put out a clean,
standalone bill, and I'm AYE.
Well, that is what I am doing tonight. The voter, under this
legislation, could present a photo ID of any of the following: a State-
issued driver's license that includes a photo and an expiration date,
State ID that has a photo of the individual and an expiration date, a
valid U.S. passport, a valid military ID, or a valid ID issued by a
Tribal government that includes a photo of the individual and an
expiration date.
Pretty simple. Not complicated. Easy to do. It is proven effective
because many States already do it. We certainly do it in Ohio.
I will add that it is also easier to administer when you have a photo
ID and you are an election official because we have our neighbors show
up every 2 or 4 years to work at the polls. They might be young
children, young adults. We know we let high school students participate
in that in Ohio. It might be a senior citizen. It could be anybody that
decides they are going to give of their day to go sit at the polls and
check in voters.
When you have a photo ID, it is simple. You just look at it or you
slide it through the card reader and the voter's information pops up
and you know which precinct they are from, which ballot they have, and
whether they are legally allowed to vote. Rather than trying to do it
the old way, the bureaucratic way of having to look through poll books
and making every poll worker who works there once every 2 or 4 years
become a signature-reading expert to try to determine whether or not
somebody is truly allowed to vote in that precinct and they are who
they say they are.
So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realize or
really do support a photo ID law because this legislation is the
simple, easy, proven way to do it.
So showing a photo ID is common sense. The American people support it
by an 80-20 margin. And as I have been saying for more than a decade
and a half, it is possible to make it both easy to vote and hard to
cheat, and we should make that a national standard with the photo ID
law that is easy to implement and is proven effective.
Passing voter ID requirements is common sense and passing this
provision that I offer tonight as part of the SAVE America Act is right
for election integrity and it is the right thing to do for voter
confidence and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
So now, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4155, 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.
And I recognize, Madam President, that I have some colleagues here
that may want to offer something.
Madam President, let me withdraw that request and allow my colleagues
to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and distinguished
colleague, the Senator from Ohio, for his observations, for his
insights on this. This is one of many true talents we have in the
Senate. He is particularly well qualified in this area, given his
experience in the State of Ohio with mastering the election laws of
that State and the Federal election laws that overlap with State
election laws.
I am not sure there is anyone in the Senate, currently or who has
ever served here, who has a greater knowledge of these laws and the
ways that they intersect.
For the same reasons articulated by the Senator from Ohio, I think
this is an exceptionally good idea. It is not every bill where it makes
sense to separate out a provision, try to pass that provision on its
own, separate from the rest of the text of the bill, but this is one of
those instances where it makes sense.
Don't get me wrong. Neither I nor the Senator from Ohio are
suggesting that we still don't need the rest of the SAVE America Act.
That is not our point.
The point is that these are separately divisible such that they could
be enacted separately, and insofar as there is a greater degree of
consensus with regard to the voter ID component of the SAVE America Act
than there are with regard to the citizenship components, it makes
sense for us to get this done now.
Let's pass it. Let's pass it right now. Let's pass it unanimous
consent. Let's make this law, and then we can proceed back to deal with
the rest of the issues within the SAVE America Act.
This is what progress looks like. This is what consensus building
looks like.
And I thank my friend from Ohio for raising this.
Look, no matter how you feel about the rest of the provisions of the
bill, it is not too much to ask somebody to show who they are when they
show up on voting day. That provision is very simple.
Let's get this passed. Let's get it done right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. HUSTED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4155, which is at the
desk; further, that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that
the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I
appreciate the information from my colleague from Ohio and my colleague
from Utah brought forward. But just minutes ago, another colleague from
Alaska was on this floor laying out the enormous difficulties that this
very proposal would create, disenfranchising a tremendous number of
people across her State.
Now, this is part of a larger bill that has the goal of stopping
citizens from voting. It is targeted directly to making it very
difficult for women to vote. It would proceed to make it very difficult
for students to vote. It would make it very difficult for Tribal
members to vote.
My colleague from Ohio mentioned the phrase: The goal is to make it
easy to vote and hard to cheat. But, in fact,
[[Page S1350]]
it is all about making it hard to vote. This broader bill is all about
creating a national voter registration database that the administration
has the ability to purge. They can then ding people, give them a little
ping, if you will, and say: We stripped your name out. Try to go
reregister. But, in fact, they can do that right before the election.
And it has already been laid out. You can't even register to vote
under this broader law with your birth certificate. No, you have to
have a birth certificate and something else.
They do say you can register to vote with just your passport, but
that brings in a very expensive enterprise, and it takes 6 months to do
that.
But let's focus on this particular piece. This measure before us
proceeds to destroy the secret ballot. In 2024, 48 million citizens
voted by mail. That includes the State of Utah that my good friend was
just speaking from and representing. It includes the State of Oregon.
Now, those 48 million folks are told: You have to tell the world how
you are voting because you have to put a copy of your birth certificate
or your driver's license in with your ballot. So when they open your
secret ballot, your name is inside there with the same document of how
you voted.
Well, that is pretty troubling, this effort to destroy the secrecy of
the ballot for 48 million Americans.
Now, my colleague from Ohio has a lot of studies and experience that
I will acknowledge, and I am not familiar with all of the studies that
he has conducted, but I am familiar with the study from the good State
of Utah, an examination of 2 million voters.
That examination, done by his State government, found that there was
1 person registered who should not have been registered out of those 2
million people, but that person had never voted. So the number for
amount of fraud was zero out of 2 million.
I am not sure if Ohio could even match that incredible level of
integrity that Utah achieved to be able to have an audit that shows
that zero people that weren't qualified to vote voted.
Oregon had a study that covered 20 years of voting--20 years. That is
a long period of time. They found cases that were, if you will,
potentially a problem in less than one out of a million. I am not sure
Ohio could match that either, because the system of voting by mail has
a lot more integrity than the system of voting at the polls.
You see, voting at the polls introduces so much opportunity for
shenanigans. The people involved who don't want a particular community
to vote--well, they move the precinct locations between elections, so
people go to the wrong place. They put the precinct election places
where there is no place to park--a deliberate effort to disenfranchise
individuals. They proceed to put in machines that don't work in order
to create long lines. Others have put out false information about the
location and false information about the date.
This is a whole series of proven strategies to corrupt elections on
election day. And that is why President Trump wants to shut down vote-
by-mail--because it is easy to manipulate and corrupt the election on
election day using these systems that have been well studied and well
practiced in many jurisdictions.
Well, I value integrity, and Utah and Oregon have shown me that type
of integrity. In fact, Utah's Lieutenant Governor--I might mention that
he shares the party that is across the aisle from me--he noted that
this bill would violate the State election law, which guarantees a
secret ballot.
An assault on the secret ballot, an effort to be able to manipulate
election day in a corrupt manner, an effort to rig the November
election--that is what we are talking about right here.
This is absolutely wrong because we should be down here defending the
high-integrity system of vote-by-mail, not trying to corrupt its
secrecy or trying to stop it altogether.
Thus, Madam President, I ask that the Senator modify his request and
take my amendment at the desk to be considered and agreed to; that the
bill, as amended, 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. Is there an objection to the modification?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. HUSTED. Reserving the right to object, I want to address some of
the points that were made by the Senator from Oregon.
There were a lot of points made about citizenship. The amendment that
I am proposing has nothing to do with citizenship; it has to do with
photo ID--five simple ways that have been proven successful in many
States to determine if the person showing up to vote is, indeed, the
person who is registered to vote. It is that simple. Five. Five forms
of identification that everyone has access to. This particular
amendment is not about citizenship; it is about photo ID.
Secondly, I want to address the issue about protecting the secrecy of
the ballot.
Let me also say that there are no birth certificate requirements in
this particular amendment I have.
Then I want to talk about the secrecy of the ballot. Let me explain
the administration of how elections officials make sure the ballot that
is being mailed in is, indeed, a legitimate vote.
There are two envelopes. The first envelope is the security envelope.
That envelope determines if the individual is eligible, in which they
could put their--inside that envelope put their copy of their photo ID
or their Social Security number on the form you would have them fill
out.
The second envelope contains the actual ballot. What happens once
that ballot is received is that two elections officials in the State of
Ohio--one Republican and one Democrat--look at it, they validate the
integrity of the envelope that was received with the ballot, and then
remove that, separate all the identification over here, and put the
secure ballot that has been validated as legal into another box, which
is then loaded in the machines and later counted on election night.
The secrecy of the vote is in no way jeopardized by that process. How
do I know? We have been using it for years. It has never been a
problem, and we have a Democrat and a Republican right there with their
eyes on it making sure that happens.
Now, to the substance of the gentleman's amendment, there are many
reasons that I could object to this, but I will take one, because this
is the Freedom to Vote by Mail Act. It is a very large amendment in
which it authorizes unsolicited mail-in ballots--let me repeat:
unsolicited mail-in ballots--meaning I didn't ask for it; you just sent
me a ballot.
Why is this wrong? I will give you a couple of examples.
In Wood County, where Bowling Green State University is in Ohio, at
one point in time, we had more registered voters than there were people
in the county.
You say: How could that happen?
Because Bowling Green State University is there, and every 4 years
when you are a swing State, people really, really try to get every
single student to register to vote on that campus. So over years,
according to the National Voting Rights Act, you cannot remove somebody
for being an inactive voter, meaning just because I didn't show up and
vote, I am on the voter rolls; you can't remove me.
Well, I want to just give you a reason why they might still be on the
rolls--because when they graduate from college, they don't think to
call the Wood County Board of Elections and remove themselves from the
rolls; they just stay on there.
According to Federal law, you just can't remove them for being
inactive for at least 6 years, and you have to go through a series of
verifications, which is what I did in Ohio and was part and parcel to
the Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a process that was
approved.
So in States that don't do that, which there are many that don't,
what you have are people that may attend the University of Oregon; they
may be from Columbus, OH; they may graduate from college and live in an
apartment on campus; and when they move back to Ohio, you wouldn't know
the difference. They are still on the rolls, and you are sending them a
ballot--and they are not even legally allowed to vote in that State--
because you can't remove them from the rolls without going through a 6-
year process. That is the Federal law.
That is why we have so many people--so many ballots in States that do
[[Page S1351]]
unsolicited absentee balloting with ballots floating around out there,
and they are not supposed to be sent. The person they are being sent to
is not legally allowed to vote because they may very well be registered
in another State, and you wouldn't even know it.
So on that basis, Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request?
Mr. MERKLEY. Yes. Reserving the right to object, I noticed my
colleague didn't answer the fact that student IDs are not one of those
five, that Tribal IDs are not one of those five, and that nobody in the
country can say any system is better than Utah's, which has zero cases
out of 2 million. And I would guess a study of Ohio would find that it
is probably not as good as Oregon and probably not as good as Utah. The
reason why is because our States take so seriously integrity in the
voting process. That is why these surveys show that the issue of fraud
is either zero or vanishingly small--so vanishingly rare, you have a
better chance of being struck by lightning.
This bill that they are presenting, this broader bill--it is not to
address fraud; it is to make it very hard for targeted groups in
America to vote and to make it impossible, in the broader bill, to vote
by mail because they want you to have to vote in a system that can be
manipulated.
I did notice he didn't address a single one of the six ways I noted
that voting at the polls is often manipulated.
For that reason and because I believe in the integrity of our voting
process and will not allow it to be degraded in this horrific fashion,
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Thank you, Madam President.
May I be recognized after Senator Merkley, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNET. Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Epstein Files
Mr. MERKLEY. Back in 2022, Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and
sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking minors as Jeffrey
Epstein's coconspirator in their horrific crimes against women and
girls. She was a key person in the grooming, the abuse, and the rape of
a vast number of young girls.
Bureau of Prison policy requires that sex offenders be housed in at
least low security prisons. To explain, there are high security, medium
security, low security, and then way down at the bottom--you know,
think hotels--there is this minimum security.
Prison policy requires that minimum security is unacceptable for
people who have been sex offenders--people like Ghislaine Maxwell--but
then, in July of 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche spent 2
days meeting with her in conversations that are completely opaque to
everyone else in America, and suddenly, after these 2 days of
conversation in which who knows what was promised, she was transferred
to a minimum facility in Bryan, TX--otherwise known as Club Fed.
Now, in this minimum security facility, there is an athletic field,
there are extracurricular activities, there is vocational training and
access to service dogs. I guess that is pretty important to me because
I love dogs, and I would love, if ever I was incarcerated, to have
access to a dog. Hopefully, I will never be incarcerated.
On top of all this was a set of special treatments that she received
after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had her transferred to
``Club Fed.'' What kinds of special treatment did she get? Well, her
meals were customized and prepared by Federal prison camp staff and
then personally delivered to her cell by Federal employees.
When she wanted to arrange a private meeting with visitors, the
warden personally arranged it for her. The warden, the head of the
prison, personally was her personal assistant. And then she provided a
special cordoned-off area for the visitors to arrive and an assortment
of snacks and refreshments for her guests. Does that sound like prison
to you? The special assistant, the head of the prison, arranges snacks
and refreshments. It sounds more like a congressional reception.
Her guests were permitted to bring computers, an unprecedented action
approved by the warden specifically for Ms. Maxwell. When Ms. Maxwell
wanted to review and edit documents quickly, she was allowed to use the
warden, Tanisha Hall, as her personal secretary and administrative
assistant. Ms. Maxwell's correspondents would email documents directly
to the warden, who would then provide them and deliver them to Ms.
Maxwell, who could then review them and edit them and provide them back
to the warden, who would then scan them and provide them back to the
original sender.
For other inmates, even at this minimum security prison, simple mail
can take weeks to arrive and is frequently lost.
An inmate who trains puppies to become service dogs was instructed to
provide one of these puppies to Ms. Maxwell so she could play with the
puppy, even though neither inmates nor staff are ordinarily allowed to
play with the dogs in training.
And when she wanted to go to the prison exercise area, she was
personally escorted there after hours--that is, after normal hours--by
prison guards so she could work out all by herself and enjoy recreation
time in the staff-only areas.
Folks, what happened in those 2 days when Deputy Attorney General
Todd Blanche went down and had all these private conversations--and, by
the way, the type of conversations that are never held in that fashion
by a Deputy Attorney General? Only him, with her. And now the head of a
prison is her personal assistant, and she gets to use the staff area
for her personal recreation. And she gets her puppy time, and she gets
her meals prepared and hand delivered.
Folks, ``Club Fed,'' for a woman who facilitated the grooming, the
abuse, and the rape of untold numbers of young women. This, my friends,
is absolutely wrong. It is a slap in the face to every victim. The
victims may not even be able to live in the way that she is living in
this minimum security prison with the warden as her personal assistant.
And so I think we can all agree on that.
So I ask for the Sex Offender Security Classification Integrity Act--
that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of the bill that is
at the desk. And it would ensure that a sex offender who under prison
policy cannot be put in a minimum security facility could not be put
into that minimum security facility the way she has.
Madam President, so I ask that the bill be considered read three
times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the
Senator brings an absolutely extraneous and unrelated measure to the
floor. What we are supposed to be discussing here is what Senator
Husted just offered, a voter ID proposal. And it is revealing to hear
my Democratic colleague try to change the subject from something that
is very popular--voter ID--to his very unpopular position, which is his
opposition to having voters present voter ID.
You need a photo ID to buy a beer, to board a plane, to cash a check.
Why not voting in elections? Why do you want to keep changing the
subject?
Senator Husted's bill is simple. It simply requires voters to show a
photo ID when they show up to vote. Senator Husted knows about
administering elections, and he knows it better than any other Member
of this body because he spent years as Ohio's secretary of state. His
job was to run elections that were fair and safe and secure, and he did
it successfully. He did this in one of the most closely watched
battleground States in America. If anyone knows what it takes to
protect the integrity of elections, it is Senator Jon Husted of Ohio.
He knows that this simple, commonsense requirement of a photo ID would
make elections more secure.
Now, here is what is astonishing. Just a few days ago, the minority
leader said that his caucus is not opposed to a photo ID when you show
up to vote. Well, I agree with that. Yet here
[[Page S1352]]
we are, just days later. The Democrats are here on the floor opposing
Senator Husted's commonsense bill to require a photo ID when you show
up to vote.
Apparently they were for it before they were against it. And here is
what is most interesting. Thirty years ago, the minority leader,
Senator Schumer, then a Member of Congress, championed photo ID
requirements to receive welfare benefits. He famously called photo ID
requirements then anti-fraud. Again, he was for it before he was
against it.
Democrats are here on the floor objecting, as we have just seen, to
commonsense photo ID requirements to vote in American elections. Photo
IDs are common sense. They are necessary. Senator Husted's bill should
pass without amendments, without delay. And therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I will just note, once again, the
failure to completely address the point that this bill is targeted at
stopping students from voting, stopping Tribal members from voting, and
that the broader bill from which it is derived is aimed at ending vote-
by-mail altogether and taking away the secrecy of the ballot for 48
million people across America.
The fact that none of those points were covered speaks for itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
S. 1383
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer for the
recognition.
I spent last weekend in Grand Junction. I am happy to be here tonight
on the floor with my colleague from Colorado John Hickenlooper. I spent
last weekend in Grand Junction, in our State, on Colorado's Western
Slope. And my conversations with young parents and with families just
starting out, I think--I would hope--would be familiar to many
colleagues that are here. We discussed the price of housing, which has
surged over 80 percent over the last 10 years in Colorado; the price of
healthcare, which is ratcheting higher and becoming impossible for
families to afford, not just in Colorado but all across our country;
the cost of childcare, which is making it harder for families to live
any semblance of a middle-class life--families that are working two
jobs just to pay the mortgage can't even afford childcare when they are
working with those two salaries--and our inability as a nation, as a
State, to prepare our kids for the dynamic and potentially hugely
unforgiving economy they are about to enter. This is a tough economy
that we are in today, and tariffs and now gas prices haven't helped.
Last week, colleagues, I met with a food bank from El Paso County,
who told me that they stay open late--listen to this, U.S. Senate. This
food bank in El Paso County said that they stay open late 1 day a week
to have teachers' night so the teachers that have worked all week
teaching children have the opportunity to come to that food bank in the
evening to get food to feed their own children at home.
I doubt very much that there is a living American who can remember a
decade in this country when we took it for granted that teachers would
have to go to a food bank to feed their own children.
Can you imagine, in the 1950s, in this Chamber, if it were known that
people teaching in America--in inner-city America or in the suburbs of
our great cities--that the pay wasn't satisfactory, so they had to go
to a food bank after work?
And that is happening to working people all over our country, people
that are in what we think of as traditional middle-class lives, because
of how savage this economy has been, because of the affordability
crisis that, I will say, has been with us for decades in this country
but the current administration, the Trump administration, has made far
worse and now is making it even worse with what they are doing to
energy prices because of their unauthorized war in the Middle East.
I wish we were working on that affordability crisis today. I wish we
were working on building an economy that worked for everybody, not just
the people at the very top.
This is a choice that is being made by President Trump and the
majority in this Senate, the Republicans, who have spent the entire
week fighting for a bill that will make it harder for family members
and for aging parents and for their cousins to vote or to register to
vote. That is what they have chosen to use the floor of the U.S. Senate
to do. It is shameful. It is shameful both because it is ignoring the
affordability crisis that our families are facing, but it is shameful
because there is no excuse for taking away the right to vote from
people all over the United States of America.
These are people who are supposed to believe in States' rights,
believe in the ability of States to be able to run their own affairs.
And Donald Trump--President Trump--and the Republican's SAVE America
Act rewrites the way we run elections in America completely. It rips up
the processes all over the United States of America at the local level
that county clerks and election officials understand. It requires the
Federal Government to have access to the voter rolls, a shocking thing
from the party that is supposed to be about States' rights.
And it creates yet another unfunded mandate for States and for local
communities. There is no money in here to fund the stuff that is in
this bill.
Most troublingly, it imposes new document requirements for voter
registration that many Americans do not have or do not have access to.
Madam President, 146 million Americans don't have a passport. Almost 70
million women do not have a birth certificate that matches their real
name. That should be self-evident to anybody in this Chamber, but it is
ignored completely by the people who wrote this legislation.
Over 8 million Americans have moved to a different State within the
last year, and an average of over 17 million will have moved counties.
Many of them--probably most--do not have the paperwork that this bill
requires. That doesn't make any sense. These people aren't trying to
evade the law. These people are availing themselves of their right as
an American citizen to move from place to place in this Nation.
This radical legislation actually requires people to register in-
person, banning common methods, as we heard from the Senator from
Alaska who is standing up for her State as she always does.
We should be supporting her. We should be supporting Alaska's way of
running their elections rather than imposing Donald Trump's corrupt way
of running his elections.
This radical legislation actually requires people to register in-
person, banning common methods of registration--online registration,
through the mail, or automatically at the DMV.
That is how 94 percent of Americans register to vote. Many of them
are seniors. Many of them live in rural communities. I would like to
see the majority party in this Chamber come to western Colorado and try
to take--rather than having this fake filibuster--try to actually take
mail-in ballots from the people of western Colorado.
I would like to see that. They would avail themselves of any means
necessary to prevent that from happening.
The SAVE America Act would set our voter registration process back
decades. If you are one of the more than 60 million Americans who live
in rural areas, you might now need to drive hundreds of miles to stand
in line at a local election agency.
If you live overseas, you will have to fly back. If you don't have a
passport, you better have your birth certificate. If you don't have
your birth certificate or you changed your name like tens of millions
of married women across this country living in the 21st century, you
will have to provide additional documents and sign affidavits.
All of this will--
Mr. LEE. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BENNET. I will not yield. I will not yield. I have waited an
hour--
Mr. LEE.--inaccuracy on the bill.
Mr. BENNET. You will have your time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah, the Senator from
Colorado has the floor.
Mr. BENNET. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President.
[[Page S1353]]
Madam President, I will yield for the one inaccuracy you think that I
have--
Mr. LEE. No. No. It is not one. It is many. I am going to focus on--
Mr. BENNET. Well, then you will have to wait. Then you will have to
wait. Then you will have to wait.
Mr. LEE. If you read the text at the beginning on page 12, line 22,
which makes clear--
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I haven't yielded the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, you did yield.
Mr. BENNET. I didn't. I said I would yield for one inaccuracy. That
is all I said.
Mr. LEE. I am asking a question, sir. Are you not willing--
Mr. BENNET. I am not willing to hear it. I am not willing to hear it.
I will hear it after--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, are you withdrawing
your yield?
Mr. BENNET. I don't believe I did yield.
Mr. LEE. You yielded.
Mr. BENNET. If I did yield--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. So you are exercising your right to withdraw
your yield?
Mr. BENNET. I will exercise my right to withdraw.
Madam President, all of this will have to be done in-person. Kansas
tried to implement its own State-level version of President Trump's
SAVE America Act in 2013 with disastrous results.
This law, which included citizenship documentation requirements,
ended up blocking the voter registration of more than 31,000 U.S.
citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote. That represented about 12
percent of all Kansas voter registrations during that period.
Even Kansas Republican secretary of state who championed the bill
when he was a State legislator has warned against the bill now before
us. He has warned against the bill now before us saying: It didn't work
out so well.
And Kansas law was blocked by a Federal court, as it should have
been.
If we pass this bill, we will have now two different election--Madam
President, can I have the floor without the interruption of my
colleague from Utah?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. You may proceed.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. If you guys are done, I would like to--Madam President, I
would like--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in order. You may proceed.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, if we pass this bill, we will now have
two different election regimes in this country--one for Federal
elections and one for local elections. That is insane in and of itself
and begs the question: Why does Donald Trump want to pass this bill?
He wants to run roughshod over our election system because he claims
there is an epidemic of voter fraud caused by undocumented people
voting. That is at the heart of his claim, and that has been the heart
of his claim throughout two Presidential elections and this Presidency.
The problem is that he is blowing up our elections, and there is no
evidence to support his claim of fraud. The fact is that even his own
Department of Homeland Security used by many States to verify voter
citizenship returned .04 percent of voter participants as noncitizens.
A bipartisan policy center analysis of the Heritage Foundation's
debate of noncitizen voting found only 77 cases in 25 years of nearly 2
billion votes cast.
And individual States tell us the same. We heard it earlier tonight.
Last year, Utah performed a citizen review of its entire voter
registration list. There was no noncompliance. After an assessment of
more than 2 million registered voters, Utah identified only 1 confirmed
instance of noncitizen registration and no instances of noncitizen
voting.
We definitely have a crisis in our democracy and in our economy and
they are related. Over the decades, we have suffered through an economy
that has reduced economic mobility and hollowed out America's middle
class.
At the same time, we have built a tax system that disproportionately
benefits those who own assets and perpetuates the inequalities that
accumulated with generational wealth, a tax system that allows Donald
Trump and Elon Musk to pass their stock portfolios onto their heirs
without paying a dollar on the gains that they have accrued.
That is a crisis. The lack of economic mobility is a crisis, and I am
sorry to say that that tax regime, that has been done in a bipartisan
manner. Republicans definitely more than Democrats have
pursued trickle-down economics, but Democrats and Republicans both
played a role creating an unfair system that reinforces our desperate
lack of economic mobility and concretizes our deep and growing economic
inequality.
At the same time, this body has failed to make important investment
in our infrastructure while saddling future generations with ever-
greater amounts of debt, debt whose service costs will now predictably
take up $1 trillion of our annual budget in interest--more than we
spend on Medicare or defense, a higher share of the economy than at any
point in American history.
We are in a dangerous moment at home and abroad. There is no doubt
about that. And at the same time as Coloradans and Americans across the
country are struggling to get by, as teachers are going to those food
banks to feed their own children, when confidence in our institutions
and in our politics is at record lows, and we have a campaign finance
system that gives inordinate power to the wealthiest.
Tonight is not the night to go through how wrongly decided Citizens
United was, how wrongly decided, how ignorant that decision was of the
way politics actually works in this country.
But let me just point out to you that in 2008, before Citizens United
was decided, the top 100 individual donors contributed a combined $80
million--$80 million in 2008. That is what the 100 donors contributed.
In 2024, the top 10 donors--the top 10 donors--contributed over $1.2
billion. Spending by outside groups has exploded from a total of $574
million in 2008 to almost $4.5 billion in that last election, an
increase of 8 times--8 times.
No one could possibly believe that the amount of money--that that
amount of money is helping our democracy. Let me tell you something:
Does the SAVE Act do anything about that corrosiveness in our politics?
Of course not. Of course not.
And let me tell you something that was a fatal flaw in the Supreme
Court's decision while I am here. Maybe the pages, when they are
Senators, will be able to fix this problem because we sure aren't going
fix it.
At the end of that--at the end of their decision, they said: By the
way, if the Congress ever passes a constitutional regulation of--in
their words--constitutional regulation of the outside spending in our
political system, we will, of course, have to give that the proper
analysis, the proper--excuse me--the required constitutional analysis.
Of course, nobody will ever pass that around here because the
billionaires that are writing checks to these elections just have to
rattle the pennies in their pockets and the change in their pockets and
threaten to run a primary against anybody in this place, and the bill
won't be brought.
And then there is a profound corruption of inaction that sets in as a
result to our legislative branch both here and in the House of
Representatives.
Does the SAVE America Act address any of this? Of course not.
Instead, Donald Trump and the Republicans have brought to the floor a
bill to make it harder for ordinary American citizens to register and
to vote.
Fundamentally, the SAVE America Act is an astonishing Federal
overreach in search of a scandal that doesn't exist and would have the
effect of undermining fraud-free elections like we have in Colorado.
Colorado was the first State in America to complete a risk-limiting
audit, the gold standard for verifying the integrity of election
results.
It entails counting and comparing a representative sample of ballots
to the reported result. To prevent hacking, none of our voting machines
are connected to the internet. We require county clerks to use two-
factor authentication to access voter databases.
Once a vote is cast, a bipartisan team of election judges in each
county
[[Page S1354]]
checks every signature against the copy in the database for any
discrepancies. All election officials and judges with access to the
tabulation process must first pass a Colorado Bureau of Investigation
background check. And Colorado has spent years--years--implementing
top-tier cyber security measures and audits to prevent hackers from
interfering in our electoral process.
We should be modeling our Federal system off the gold standard
framework we have in Colorado, a national leader in terms of voter
access, election security, and might I say, voter turnout.
Instead, the SAVE America Act would eliminate--eliminate, outlaw--
many of the practices that Colorado has adopted to keep our elections
safe and increase voter confidence.
How dare you?
It would end Colorado's mail-in and online voter registration system.
It would force Colorado to increase the security risks of our voter
data and routinely purge voter rolls. It would push experienced county
clerks and election workers out of the field. It would remove the
possibility of using a number of State IDs when going to vote. It would
create two tiers of voting for Federal and State elections and possibly
upend our mail-in ballot system itself by requiring that every
Coloradan proactively request a ballot and resubmit proof of ID
alongside their ballot request in every election.
Colorado already has ID requirements when casting a ballot. We
already have among the cleanest voter rolls in this country. We don't
need Donald Trump to corrupt our process. Even the Heritage Foundation
ranked us as second in the Nation in 2020 for clean lists--the Heritage
Foundation.
We have one of the most secure election systems of any State in our
country, and because Coloradans have trust in our elections, we have
some of the highest voter turnouts in the country.
But the SAVE America Act--the so-called SAVE America Act--does not
bring our system anywhere close to what we enjoy in Colorado. Instead
it turns into a dark but familiar pattern in American history.
And I am sorry to say, but this bill before us is just another in a
long line of legislative efforts to limit the franchise in this
country, to add new restrictions and additional obstacles.
Nobody wants voter fraud. I do not want voter fraud. I come from a
State where there is no voter fraud. We set the gold standard, in part
because of the work my colleague John Hickenlooper did when he was
Governor of Colorado.
This is a pretext. This is a pretext to invade our elections.
I know my colleague from Texas wants to speak. So I am trying to skip
ahead here.
We have had a fight over many, many, many years in this Nation to
broaden the franchise, from the very beginning, and that fight was won
by men and women who marched to demand that their vote count equally in
this country, no matter what color they were, no matter where they
lived in our Nation, no matter what education or religion their parents
had or whether their parents were immigrants to this country.
In this modern era, when one of the real fundamental risks to our
democracy is the American people's loss of confidence in our
institutions, including our voting process and elections themselves, we
now have a group of people who are trying to create political advantage
for themselves by restricting the vote in the name of addressing a
mythical voter fraud that does not exist.
The American people will not be fooled by this. They will be angry
about this, as they should. The American people have come to rely on
vote-by-mail, and registration by mail, and early voting. They believe
our system is fraud free, and where it is not, the State should address
it.
Our citizens have come to rely on having the franchise extended
through modern technology and modern practices. Nobody I know in
Colorado has said they doubt the validity or veracity of our voting
system--no matter what party they are in or whether they live in rural
Colorado or urban Colorado--or the importance of the ability to
register online, or for students and others to have the benefit of
same-day registration.
I wish everybody in this country had the benefit of that. Those are
ways of encouraging participation in our democracy. None of us want
fraud.
None of us want fraud. And there is no fraud. The good news is there
is certainly no evidence in Colorado or across the country that that
fraud exists.
And this is the most sweeping effort, make no mistake, by Donald
Trump, by the Republicans here in the Senate, to ``nationalize our
elections,'' to undermine voter confidence, and inject new chaos into a
system he is terrified will turn against him; to make life harder for
Americans that he thinks voted against him, and probably will make it
harder for the people who voted for him.
Since the President's return to office, he has focused relentlessly
on false narratives of voter fraud. He has issued Executive orders that
are unenforceable. He has sued States that have refused to comply and
threatened to take control of the electoral process in States he views
as political enemies.
He has sent Federal agents from the FBI and the Director of National
Intelligence to seize ballots in Georgia, election records in Arizona,
and voting machines in Puerto Rico.
His Justice Department has sued 30 States, including Colorado,
demanding sensitive, unredacted voter data to create a national voter
database. And President Trump has pursued a longstanding and
inexplicable grievance against mail-in voting, which he falsely claims
can be used to commit mass amounts of fraud. It is simply not true. It
is simply not true.
He sees it, in his own words--the SAVE America Act--as a method to
``guarantee the midterms'' this November. He sees, in his own words,
the SAVE America Act as a method to ``guarantee the midterms'' this
November. And that is why they put this on this floor now? I hope not.
I really hope not.
This is an election bill that distorts our shared understanding of
what free and fair elections should look like, and Coloradans want no
part of it.
This legislation, by the way, is wildly unpopular in America. We have
received thousands of calls and letters in opposition to the SAVE
America Act. We received over 7,000 last month alone.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these constituent
letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Constituent From Colorado Springs
I am writing today to ask you to vote against the SAVE Act,
as written.
This week I assisted my 85 year old mom get her first-ever
passport. She did not get it so she could travel with us and
enjoy her remaining years. She got it because she felt it was
the best way to ensure that she had proper identification/
proof of citizenship to continuing voting and/or change her
voter registration. Like many married women, her surname on
her driver's license and her surname on her birth certificate
do not match.
My mom spent $195 to be able to apply for the passport: $15
for a certified copy of her birth certificate, $130 for the
passport book, $15 for the necessary photo, and $35 for the
facility acceptance fee. She lives in Colorado Springs, but
we drove to Woodland Park for the appointment to drop off her
passport application because getting an appointment at either
of the Colorado Springs acceptance locations is, well, let's
call it ``challenging.''
Fortunately, $195 won't keep mom from eating and we had the
ability to run around and make this happen. Not all who find
themselves in an ID/proof of citizenship name mismatch can
say the same.
Voting is a right, not a privilege. And a passport is for
travel, not for voting. Again, I ask that you vote against
the SAVE Act.
Constituent From Fort Collins
Dear Senator Bennet: I currently live in France. I moved
here recently after 27 years living in Fort Collins. I still
feel very engaged with my state and with my country, and I
vote in every election and in every race. I also pay taxes to
Colorado and to the US Treasury.
Please do not allow this disastrous SAVE act pass. It's
clearly designed to suppress votes. If it is passed, I will
not be able to vote, which as a citizen I have the right to
do.
As you know, Colorado has an efficient and safe voting
record. It's easy, engaging, and accurate. Obviously, this
scares the Republican Party, because the only way they win is
by corrupting voting results. Please do not let them win this
round of corruption.
Constituent From Firestone, CO
Please do not support the save act and work with your
colleagues to ensure this
[[Page S1355]]
does not pass. I have been an election judge in weld county
for many elections so I know personally how safe and secure
our elections are. As a woman who changed my last name when I
got married it is terrifying the rights that trump is
insistent on removing from me. Please at least ensure I have
the right to easily cast a vote as it is my constitutional
right.
Constituent From Breckenridge
Hello! Wanted to write and convey my deep objection to both
the SAVE voter suppression act (as a woman with a daughter,
it's unacceptable to put greater burden on women to vote than
men . . . not to mention it's easier for a man to acquire a
gun than a woman to cast a vote) as well as my objection to
Markwayne Mullin, not please no!!!!!
Constituent From Durango
Please vote no the Save Act. This is truly voter
suppression and nothing more. We are going backwards in
women's rights. Please vote no on this bill not just for my
rights but for the rights of all women now and in the future.
Please vote no!!!!
Constituent From Boulder
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act currently
being considered by congress. Since voter fraud is a very
rare occurrence in this country, this bill seems entirely
unnecessary. Although many people seem to support the bill in
order to keep non-citizens from voting, that is already
covered by other laws and rarely occurs.
I am deeply concerned that this bill could interfere with
mail-in voting, which I value as a civic right and believe
greatly improves voter participation. I am also concerned
that the additional ``paperwork'' for voter verification
could disqualify valid voters, including myself. Please
commit everything in your power to defeat this unnecessary,
unconstitutional infringement on my voting rights.
Constituent From Thornton
Good day Michael Bennet, I am a constituent from Thornton,
Colorado. I urge you to vote no on the SAVE Act. This bill is
a voter suppression tactic that would make it harder for
eligible Coloradans to vote by requiring in-person
documentation. When the government requires you to have a
specific document to vote, and that document isn't free, that
is essentially a poll tax which is unconstitutional and
illegal per the 24th amendment and is an unnecessary burden
on voters. I personally will not look kindly at any senator
who votes yes on this and will be looking to vote for
alternative candidates who align better with my values in the
next election.
Constituent From Wellington
I urge you to vote ``No'' on the SAVE Act. Voting rights
would be severely abrogated if this bill passes, and many
legally eligible voters would have difficulty voting. The
proponents of this bill point to voter fraud caused by
immigrants, but the facts are that such violations, according
to the data, are extremely low.
Please do all you can to stop the SAVE Act.
Constituent From Loveland
Hello, my name is Melissa Kelley. I have lived in Loveland
for the last 16 years. I'm writing to you today, because I
want you to vote no, on the Save Act. It is a badly hidden
attempt at infringement of my voting rights. I had to show my
birth certificate to get my marriage certificate, and my
driver's license. I appreciate your attention on this matter.
Thank you, and I hope you have a good day.
Constituent From Denver
Senator Bennet: As a Colorado resident and taxpayer I am
asking you to please not vote for the SAVE act, as it will
disenfranchise legal voters across the state, if not the
nation.
Constituent From Colorado Springs
The public goal of the SAVE Act is to solve a problem that
is miniscule.
It impact of the SAVE Act is to disenfranchise millions of
legitimate voters: some have no passport, some have changed
name (marriage/divorce) since last registration, some have
moved in the year preceding an election. Most Americans do
not vote in person due to transportation limits, work
schedules, child care or illness.
Please do not support this legislation.
Mr. BENNET. The Founders understood the gravity of the debate before
them about who could and who could not claim the franchise. The authors
of Federalist No. 52 explain that ``the definition of the right of
suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican
government.''
They wrestled with this question. They wrestled with this question.
They debated it. And, ultimately, they excluded the great number of
subjects who were newly made Americans, but, nevertheless, were denied,
as those at Seneca Falls wrote, ``the first right of citizen.''
This was the founding generation's great mistake--this and the
enslavement of Americans. And we have spent centuries working to
rectify it--centuries working to rectify it.
Should the SAVE America Act pass, we will fall further away from
realizing this country's promise and retread the familiar errors of the
past. We should reject that vision of our democracy. We should reject
that return to a history that we have fought so hard to free ourselves
from. Coloradans and all Americans deserve better than this.
I yield the floor and look forward to hearing my colleague from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
____________________