[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 51 (Friday, March 20, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1425-S1429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Department of Homeland Security

  Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, today marks the fifth time that 
Republicans have asked to end debate and allow us to discuss funding 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  So for the people at home that don't keep up with Senate procedures, 
what the Democrats have actually done again, for the fifth time, is not 
even let us get on the bill and actually debate it. They have refused 
to allow us to consider the bill, which is a pretty remarkable scenario 
when you think of the effects.
  For those who aren't as familiar, the Department of Homeland Security 
was created right after 9/11, the attacks of 9/11. I don't know about 
you, Mr. President, but I know exactly where I was when that second 
plane hit the tower, because that is when we knew we were under attack.
  We took a bunch of the Agencies that are charged with protecting this 
country and put them into this very, very large Agency that today 
employs 260,000 Americans. If this was a private company, it would be 
absolutely a Fortune 50, maybe even a Fortune 25 enterprise--huge, huge 
organization.
  The one part of the Constitution that is crystal clear is that our 
responsibility is to fund the government. Yet, for the third time, we 
now are in either a full or partial government shutdown that the 
Democrats have initiated because they refuse to do the basic work--
funding the government.
  Now, you will see a lot of noise from the Democrats when they say: 
Well, we have--they acknowledge that they have not funded the entire 
Department, so they will say: But we want to fund this Agency or this 
Agency within the Department of Homeland Security.
  What they won't tell you--because obviously then they would have to 
admit what it is they really want--is they don't want to fund Customs 
and Border Patrol and they don't want to

[[Page S1426]]

fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  So you think, well, what do those two Agencies do that would make the 
Democrats not want to fund them? So let's talk about the first one--
Customs and Border Patrol.
  All of us who have ever flown in from a foreign country, you see the 
person that greets you--that is somebody from Border Patrol, Customs.
  Why would you not want to fund that Agency? I think what is 
interesting is the way the Senate is set up, the appropriations process 
is meant to allocate money, and then we have committees whose job it is 
to set the policies for those. But they don't want to do that. They are 
tying both together. We just don't want to fund--typically, when you 
don't want to fund an Agency, it is a way of saying we don't want that 
function any longer.
  So they don't want to have Customs? They don't want to have people 
inspecting packages? We are in the middle of deep hostilities with a 
very savvy adversary, and you don't want to have somebody guarding our 
border, checking our ports, making sure these containers don't have 
hazardous materials?
  We have all seen the movies. Those are people from Customs and Border 
Patrol. I haven't heard one rational explanation from my Democratic 
colleagues why on earth they would not want to fund Customs and Border 
Patrol.
  Now, of course, it is no secret to anybody that the Democrats have 
been held hostage by the extremists in their base who want to both 
either abolish ICE or defund ICE.
  So what is ICE? Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is basically 
broken down into two organizations. You have something called 
Enforcement and Removal Operations. Now, what do they do? A pretty 
straightforward mission. If somebody enters the country illegally, a 
judge gives them a hearing and says: You have a final order of 
deportation. It is the job of that Agency to remove that person from 
the country. Is that what they are looking not to have happen any 
longer?
  Then the other one is Homeland Security Investigations. What do they 
do? I am going to read you the mission statement. It says: Criminal 
investigations targeting transnational criminal organizations and 
terrorist networks that exploit U.S. customs and immigration laws.
  It seems like a decently important function. You can see it here on 
this chart. It is 7,000 special agents.
  So I wish we would just have a more honest debate here and that my 
Democrat colleagues would stand up and say: Look, we just want to 
abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We want to abolish the 
Enforcement and Removal Operations. We do not want--they do not want to 
take people out of the country that are here illegally; it is that 
simple. Instead, what they are doing is they are keeping 260,000 people 
without a paycheck.
  I said, and I will say it again today: I find it deeply ironic and, 
quite frankly, I will use the word ``disgusting'' that we here in the 
U.S. Senate are getting paid while 260,000 people aren't getting paid 
because of political shenanigans from the other side.
  It is just morally reprehensible. We need to do our job. We need to 
get the Department of Homeland Security funded. I am going to end with 
one difference between what we are seeing now and what we saw during 
the Biden era.
  I think by any metric, by any standard during Mayorkas' term as the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, it was a total abject disaster. We 
allowed tens of millions of unvetted migrants to enter this country. We 
had no idea who they were, where they came from, what their intent was, 
or, quite frankly, where they were going.
  Border Patrol was a total disaster during the Biden years, total and 
complete failure. But you know what we understood as Republicans? It 
wasn't the fault of the Border Patrol agents; it was a fault of policy. 
And yet Republicans still funded the Agency.
  Because when we are not happy with the executive, we have a few other 
tools that we should be using. We could have impeached Mayorkas; 
Democrats unanimously fought against that. By the way, we passed no new 
laws, and yet our border went from the most open in American history to 
a border that is now completely zero. Zero illegals entered this 
country in the last 10 months--zero, not 1. During the Biden years, 
there was 10,000 a day. Yet Republicans funded Customs and Border 
Patrol because we knew it was not the fault of the agents; it was the 
fault of a Commander in Chief and a Cabinet Secretary with Democrat 
enablers here in Congress that allowed that to happen. Just keep that 
in mind as these arguments get made.
  It is Friday. People should be thinking about March Madness and which 
their favorite team is, what they are going to do for the weekend, and 
millions and millions of Americans are doing that. But 260,000 American 
families are wondering how they are going to pay for that barbecue, how 
they are going to make the rent, how they are going to pay for the car 
payment, how are they going to pay for that vacation that they had 
planned because they have now missed three paychecks.
  I hope to get to a point in time where our Democrat colleagues find 
their humanity because this is what it is about, their humanity, to do 
the right thing, fund the Department of Homeland Security, and then 
let's have a robust argument around oversight and how we do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is Mr. John Lowery, one of 
my colleagues from my office.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. 
Congress have a dispute over funding the Department of Homeland 
Security. And it is such a serious dispute that that Department is shut 
down.
  Now, every now and then, there is a dispute in Washington, DC, that 
says something prophetic--something prophetic about the future of 
western civilization. This is not it. This dispute is silly.
  Every single Member of this body knows how important the Department 
of Homeland Security is. Most people recently think that Homeland 
Security is border security, and ICE, interior security of our 
immigration system.
  But Homeland Security is responsible for so much more. FEMA is part 
of Homeland Security. It is shut down. The Coast Guard is part of our 
Department of Homeland Security. It is shut down.
  The CISA dealing with cyber security is part of Department of 
Homeland Security. It is shut down. The TSA is part of Homeland 
Security. They are working without pay, and not all of our colleagues 
in the TSA are working. This is the result, and it is going to get 
worse.
  Now, for reasons that I don't--well, let me put this a different way. 
Some would argue and the party line is that we are making progress in 
terms of resolving this dispute. That is not true.
  I mean, I know that is the party line and conventional wisdom, and 
every now and then you will see a reporter report that, but it is not 
true. For reasons I don't completely understand, for a while my 
Democratic friends said: We are only going to negotiate with the White 
House. And they have been negotiating with the White House for some 
time, but they are nowhere near agreement.
  Recently, some of my Democratic colleagues have met with two of my 
Republican colleagues and Mr. Tom Homan--it happened yesterday--to see 
if we could make progress. Again, the conventional wisdom, the party 
line that we are supposed to tell everybody is that we are making 
progress, but I have spoken directly with the people who were at that 
meeting yesterday here among just Senators and Mr. Homan. On a scale of 
1 to 10--I will describe it as they described it to me--about a minus 
17. We made no progress, and I regret that, but I understand it.
  Let me see if I can state--I don't say this disrespectfully. I try 
to--what I am about to say, I want people to know I am serene in saying 
this, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but we all know what is going 
on.
  Our Democratic friends will agree to open up TSA, thank you. To open 
up FEMA, to open up the Coast Guard, to open up the CISA, thank you, 
thank you, thank you. But they haven't agreed, despite concessions on 
our side, to open up ICE. And they are not going to. It is not going to 
happen in your or my natural lifetime.
  And if you have been following this debate and you understand the 
politics,

[[Page S1427]]

you don't need to be able to explain the theory of special relativity 
to know what is going on. It is not complicated.
  Parties have wings, factions within their parties. I am a Republican; 
we have factions. Democrats also have factions. And a specific faction 
of the Democratic Party right now is in control. That is just a fact.
  You could call it the progressive wing; some call it that. The more 
cynical call it the loon wing of the Democratic Party. I on occasion 
have referred to it as the Karen wing of the Democratic Party. The 
Karen wing wants to defund ICE, and they will accept nothing less.
  Now, this is the same wing of their party that also wanted to defund 
the police. How did that work out for us? This is the same wing of 
their party that has a very novel way to reduce the crime rate in 
America: Just don't prosecute anyone, and our crime rate goes to zero.
  Now, I don't mean to paint with too broad a brush. Not all my 
Democratic friends agree with the loon, the Karen wing of their party--
they don't--just like not all Republicans are part of the factions in 
my party. But it is a fact that the Karen wing of the Democratic Party 
is in ascendancy, and it is firmly in control.
  And any Democrat--we all know this--that agrees to any kind of 
compromise with respect to ICE is going to be punished to the rest of 
their natural lives. They can't do it, and they are not going to.
  Now, we can keep having meetings and discussing it; we have been 
doing it for weeks. Most of these meetings could easily be accomplished 
with an email. I have been part of the discussions in our conference. I 
am convinced that listening to the same thing over and over and over 
again is lowering my IQ, when we know that nothing is going to resolve 
this because my Democratic friends politically can't agree to a 
compromise about ICE.
  So here is what I think we ought to do: I think that we should accept 
the Democrats' offer to open up TSA and to open up FEMA and to open up 
Coast Guard and to open up and fund CISA. Let's get that done. Let's 
shorten these lines, and then the day after we do that, Republicans 
need to file a reconciliation bill, which is the same way we passed the 
One Big Beautiful Bill, and on our own, we need to come up with a 
budget for ICE. It is the only way to solve this problem.

  Now, as the Presiding Officer knows, under the Budget Control Act, we 
can pass legislation. There are parameters on us, but that only 
requires 51 votes. That is how we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill. 
Under the rules, we are allowed to do two more reconciliations, so we 
have two bullets left. For reasons that I don't completely understand--
well, strike that. I think I do understand. I just don't agree with 
them--some on my side are reluctant to do any more reconciliations. And 
they are hard, OK? I know they are hard. They are hard for my 
Democratic friends when they do it, and they are hard for us when we do 
it. You know, that is what we were sent here for, is to do hard things. 
I mean, med school was hard, but we still have a lot of great doctors. 
We ought to do our job. That is the only way I can see that we are 
going to be able to break the stalemate.
  So let me say again what I would do if I were King for a day. I am 
not, and I don't aspire to be. I would accept my Democratic friends' 
offer to immediately open up the TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the CISA--
every part of the Department of Homeland Security except ICE. I would 
stop looking reality in the eye and denying it and accept the fact that 
my Democratic colleagues, because of their internal politics, will 
never be able to reach an agreement with respect to ICE. It is not 
going to happen. In the meantime, these lines get longer.
  So, once we can get that agreement with our Democratic colleagues, 
the very next day, we start a resolution in the Budget Committee, and 
we do a second reconciliation bill. We fund ICE and border security--
what is still shut down in Homeland Security--like we want to. I would 
welcome my Democrats to work with us on a bill, but they will not. We 
only need 51 votes to do it. Then the government--all of government--is 
back open.
  Now, there are other things that we could do in that reconciliation 
bill. I have talked about them, and I am not going to repeat what I 
said yesterday. My side feels very strongly about the SAVE Act. We 
believe that only Americans--citizens of our country--should be able to 
vote, and we believe that you shouldn't be able to vote unless you can 
prove you are who you say you are.
  My Democratic colleagues, in my trying to be as serene and objective 
as I can, come back and say: Yes, but there is another side of this 
argument. It is already against the law to not be a citizen and try to 
register.
  And I understand that.
  Then they come back and make the point: Well, you cannot show me 
where we have had a lot of instances of illegal immigrants actually 
voting.
  And I understand that--those are fair points--but that is not what we 
are fighting about.
  What we are fighting about is that President Biden, for whatever 
reason, admitted between--I don't know how many--8 million, 12 million, 
15 million, 20 million people illegally into our country. He did--we 
all watched him do it--and we don't even know where these people are. 
We don't. Some of them were children. We don't know where all the 
children are. We don't.
  I am not saying all of those folks were bad people. I am not saying 
that. A lot of them were economic migrants. They just wanted better 
lives, and so they wanted to come to America. They chose not to do it 
through legal immigration. If they would do it legally, we could 
consider admitting them--we admit a million people a year of our 
world's neighbors to become American citizens--but they came illegally 
because, frankly, President Biden said to do it, and they did it.
  Not everybody was Cinderella who came in. Some people who came in 
were criminals. They were murderers. They were rapists. They were drug 
dealers. They were sex traffickers. We all know that. That is what our 
ICE, right now, is trying to do. It is trying to find these people who 
shouldn't be in any country--their own, ours, anywhere. They ought to 
be jailed and fined.
  But here is my point: As a result--and we all saw it happen, and the 
American people saw it happen. They get it. The American people may not 
read Aristotle every day--they are too busy earning a living--but they 
get it. And a whole bunch of Americans believe, whether it is true or 
not--and I am not saying it is true. I am not saying it isn't true 
because I think some of my Democratic colleagues believe this--but many 
Americans--millions of Americans--have concluded that this was all by 
design; that these 8, 10, 15, 20 million people who were admitted 
illegally into America was a way to try to bolster the Democratic 
Party. So these folks will be beholden to the Democratic Party and will 
try to vote and/or, once they become citizens, if they become citizens, 
will vote for Democrats.
  Again, some of the commentators who go catatonic and foam at the 
mouth when I talk about this--but we all know it is true--call this the 
replacement theory. I am not saying all Democrats believe that, and I 
am not here to say it is true or not, though I think there are some of 
my Democratic friends who believe that. But that is not the point. The 
point is the American people believe it, so they no longer trust our 
electoral system, and our elections are not worth a damn if people 
don't accept the result. If they don't trust the system, they are not 
going to accept the result.
  That is why we are moving the SAVE Act. I support it unconditionally. 
We are going to have difficulty passing it. That much is clear. So, as 
part of a reconciliation bill for us to get ICE back up and running, I 
would include the SAVE Act as part of that reconciliation bill as well. 
We wouldn't need 60 votes. We wouldn't need 55 votes. We would only 
need 51 votes. We passed the One Big Beautiful Bill with 50 votes, with 
the Vice President breaking the tie.

  Again, I feel like I am repeating some of what I said yesterday.
  Some of my colleagues are going to say: Kennedy, you know, you need 
to back away from the crank. You can't do this through reconciliation. 
You can't do the SAVE Act through reconciliation.

[[Page S1428]]

  And I tell them: I have been here 10 years, and we can do what the 
Parliamentarian says we can do. I have seen measures get approved under 
the Budget Control Act--we call it a Byrd bath--that I thought didn't 
have a chance, and I have seen others not get approved that were slam 
dunks.
  As I said, I am in the minority on this even among my Republican 
colleagues. I don't mean this to sound bad, but sometimes the majority 
just means all the fools are on the same side. I am not calling my 
colleagues fools, but I am saying this is worth a try. I would go get a 
really smart lawyer and ask him to help us craft a SAVE Act that can 
survive a Byrd bath. I would do those two things in reconciliation or 
at least open up ICE through reconciliation. We don't need to do it 
with Democratic support.
  I have been thinking about this for a while. Senator Cruz talked 
about this much more eloquently than I did at our luncheon yesterday. I 
hope Ted will come down and share with you, at some point, his thoughts 
on it. I see Senator Cornyn here. They are two pretty smart lawyers who 
could help us craft something.
  I just wanted to come spend a few minutes and offer my point of view 
on that.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for hearing me out and for being serene 
and patient and all that other good stuff.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I came down to the floor to talk about the 
SAVE Act, but before I do so, I am reminded that, over the last 10 
days, my Republican colleagues have blocked paying TSA agents on at 
least five occasions. The number five was used earlier to talk about 
some other procedure, but on five different occasions, Republicans 
blocked paying TSA agents.
  Now, I certainly hope that my Republican colleagues who are not in 
Washington, DC, today--because anyone watching C-SPAN or the 
proceedings earlier might be wondering why the proceedings were open so 
long. They were open because my Republican colleagues were worried that 
they didn't have quorum. They talk about 51 votes for one thing or 
another. They are not here today.
  So what I would ask my Republican colleagues--wherever you are in 
America; I hope you are with family--is that, when you go to the 
airport and you walk by those TSA agents, you have the courage to tell 
them why you blocked paying them. This could have been done.
  I very much appreciate the words of my colleague from Louisiana just 
a few moments ago. Any one of them could offer unanimous consent right 
now. I would agree to it, but I would bet my life that one of my 
Republican colleagues would object to paying the TSA agents if it were 
offered right now. That is the truth.
  One of my colleagues just talked about people voting who are not 
citizens. It is a crime. It is illegal. It is against the law. Enforce 
the law. If there is a concern about something that is happening, then 
stop it. I am surprised one of them has not offered a piece of 
legislation that says that American citizens should stop at a stop 
sign. Maybe that is not the law just yet. We should be clear about that 
if that is what we are trying to do here.
  But come on, man. If there is disagreement, stop holding these other 
folks hostage. Pay the TSA agents. Get FEMA funded. Get CISA funded. 
Get the Coast Guard funded.
  My Republican colleagues were very happy when the President was doing 
whatever he was doing around Venezuela. I asked the Admiral of the 
Coast Guard if he had been included by the Secretary of Defense in any 
of that work. His response was no. That is their job. If there is 
agreement, let's move forward and get that done.
  I appreciated the debate yesterday with my colleague from Ohio and my 
colleague from Michigan. I thought there was some agreement to say: 
Let's move forward. Let's get this done.
  I appreciate what my colleague from Michigan said: Let's get locked 
in a room and not leave until we figure it out.
  That was an old adage from a former Governor from New Mexico, Bruce 
King.
  Bruce, who was a cattle rancher, always said: Lock them up in a barn, 
and don't let them out until they can figure things out.
  Maybe we should do that.
  Well, I am here on the floor today to talk about a piece of 
legislation that many of my colleagues have been talking about, and it 
is the reason that we are here today. We are supposed to be in 
Washington, DC, today as U.S. Senators, having a debate about a piece 
of legislation.
  But, again, I hope the journalists up there on the third floor or 
those who are in the room are writing about the number of Republicans 
who aren't here. If this is so important to Republicans, where the hell 
are they? Because they are not here, and someone needs to call this 
out.
  Now, I asked the Parliamentarian if there were some words that I 
could use earlier because I have come to the practice of calling some 
things ``manure'' and ``fertilizer'' and things, but I found out today 
that I can say ``bullshit'' on the Senate floor, and maybe it is about 
the time someone were to do this--because come on, y'all, if this is 
important enough to be here, then get your colleagues back to 
Washington, DC, and let's get to work, because they are not here.
  I will yield to you.
  Mr. MORENO. Thank you. Thank you.
  Are all of your Democrat colleagues here, because, by our count, 
there are nine missing.
  Mr. LUJAN. Senator Moreno, it takes 51 votes for y'all to move on any 
of your procedures. The Republicans aren't even here for something that 
is important.
  Mr. MORENO. So we are willing to call our Members back. Are you 
willing to call your Members back from the California fundraiser that 
they are doing this weekend?
  Mr. LUJAN. I think everyone should be back here. I am here, sir.
  Mr. MORAN. So I look forward to you having your nine Democrat 
colleagues back from the posh California--
  Mr. LUJAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President.
  I would ask all my Democratic colleagues and all of my Republican 
colleagues and all of the men, wherever they are, to come back to 
Washington, DC, and let's do the work.
  Mr. MORENO. Will you yield for another question?
  Mr. LUJAN. I will yield in a little bit, sir. I have a lot to say 
right now. I will give you a few moments in a bit, Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
  Mr. LUJAN. I appreciate that, Mr. President. Thank you for that. 
Sometimes I forget the rules around this place.
  Now, getting back to the SAVE Act, you know, yesterday, I was part of 
a press conference with some of my colleagues, and one of my 
constituents called me up and said: You know, the name of that piece of 
legislation should be called ``Saving Republicans' Behinds Act.''
  And the reason that I think that holds true is the only thing this is 
good for is for Republicans to throw a bunch of people off the voter 
rolls--namely, 67 million women across the country who may have changed 
their last name. Some of them may have gotten married. That is what 
happens in America. Sometimes we take our partner's name, our spouse's 
names, as well. Sixty-seven million women would be thrown off the voter 
rolls.
  My Native American brothers and sisters' Tribal IDs would not be 
respected. Many of my Native American constituents were born at home. 
They didn't go to vital statistics. They were born in generational 
homes.
  Some of my colleagues in this room also represent First Nations, and 
they know the truth about this.
  So throw Native Americans off the rolls. Throw women off the rolls. 
Let's do what President Trump said. President Trump said out loud to a 
bunch of my Republican colleagues--I don't know if you were down at his 
resort, wherever they were--but he told them: If Republicans pass the 
SAVE Act, it will guarantee that Republicans win in November of 2026.
  And then he went further. He said: and for the next 50 years.
  Well, thank you for telling the truth. Thank you for telling the 
American

[[Page S1429]]

people what this is all about, because that is what this is.
  Now, Donald Trump, when he made those intentions clear, he also said 
that Republicans should just try to rewrite the rules. President Trump 
said that Republicans should just take over these elections. President 
Trump has already threatened insurrection rule here and there. 
President Trump has also said he is going to send ICE agents across the 
country to ballot places.
  There was a hearing this week where Tulsi Gabbard, who is supposed to 
be in charge of intelligence in America--that is kind of an oxymoron. 
She was sent down to look for ballots in Georgia, something about a 
stolen election in 2020.
  Now, I look around the room. At least two of my colleagues that are 
in the Chamber right now were here on January 6. I was here as well.
  This notion of the President not buying the outcome of the election 
because he didn't win--bring it back to where we are today and the SAVE 
Act: another power grab. Take away the right to vote for American 
citizens.
  Now, Republicans know something today that I know to be true as well: 
that the Republican agenda isn't working, and that is bad for the 
American people.
  If you don't believe me, go to a grocery store with some of your 
constituents. Chat with them after church. Go to the ball game, but 
take a few extra bucks because that hotdog is not going to cost you a 
buck fifty anymore. It is going to cost you 5, 6, 10 bucks.
  American people, when they are trying to get some groceries for the 
kids, they go to the checkout line, and they realize that maybe they 
put too many things in the grocery cart because everything got more and 
more expensive--Trump tariffs, this and that.
  There is nothing happening to lower the costs for the American 
people, and what I hope my brothers and sisters across the country 
realize today is that if Republicans in the majority in the Senate want 
to do something and bring it to the floor, they do it. They are doing 
it right now, even though a bunch of Republicans are not in Washington, 
DC. We are on the floor talking about the SAVE Act.
  I wish they had the same gumption to lower prices for the American 
people, to hold this President accountable. Bring that legislation to 
the floor.
  And maybe one of my Republican colleagues will surprise me and offer 
a unanimous consent to pay the TSA agents. I am going to stick around 
for that one because I look forward to hearing that we are going to do 
that one here as well.
  So just as a reminder, this legislation would also empower the 
Department of Homeland Security to get their hands not just on Social 
Security information and on IRS information, but now on voting 
information.
  What my Republican colleagues want to do is give these out-of-control 
ICE agents--the same ones that killed two of our American citizens, our 
brothers and sisters in Minnesota; the same out-of-control agents that 
are busting American people's car windows open, busting into people's 
houses without a judicial warrant--those same folks, that is what this 
legislation will do, hand that nonsense over to them.
  But, look, let's not forget that the Trump administration has shown 
that it is willing to lie and abuse its power. President Trump keeps 
joking over and over and over about a third term. And every time I 
bring it up, my Republican colleagues say: Oh, he is just joking. He 
doesn't really mean it.
  Well, I wish that was true.
  I am going to give some advice to my Republican colleagues, if they 
are willing to listen. Some of them are up for election this year.
  I am reminded of stories that many of us maybe heard firsthand--I 
hope all of us have read--about a colleague that some of us served with 
as a Member of the House of Representatives. His name was John Lewis.
  John, a civil rights giant, a civil rights hero, a man who stood arm 
in arm with strangers to stand for our rights, to make sure that--no 
matter who we were as American citizens, the way we spoke, the color of 
our skin, where we were from--we could vote; that no longer would the 
right to vote be taken away from us. He stood on that bridge in Selma, 
where thousands of Americans were bloodied and beaten and left for 
dead--that John Lewis.
  The SAVE Act would undo the work of these civil rights activists and 
giants that fought for all of us.
  Now, in our democracy, voting should be accessible for every eligible 
American, no matter who they support. But what congressional 
Republicans only want to happen is you can vote in America, but only if 
you vote for them.
  So here is my advice: If Republicans want to win some more elections, 
they should stop taking food away from seniors, children, and veterans. 
That is something we should agree on. They should stop taking away tax 
credits that make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. 
I am not even going to remind you all of my fight 4 years ago when I 
survived a stroke, of how hard it is to get care and how expensive it 
is.
  Maybe stop emboldening untrained ICE agents from smashing in 
Americans' car windows and illegally entering American citizens' homes 
to kidnap American citizens. That is probably good too.
  And stop leaving behind our farmers and ranchers--enough with the 
bandaids. Let's work on some things together here. The farm bill is 
something that we could still do, and I hope we do it.
  Stop allowing this President to keep raising prices on families with 
tariffs and illegal wars. That is something that a lot of my colleagues 
agree on. Some of them have voted to stop this stuff.
  So to my Republican colleagues, if any of you are still wondering how 
I am going to vote on this bill, I will be voting no.
  And to the American people, my Republican Senator colleagues should 
too.
  Donald Trump doesn't get a third term. He does not get to choose who 
votes and who doesn't when they are American citizens. In America, 
people decide who is going to represent them.