[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 51 (Friday, March 20, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1429-S1441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Department of Homeland Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't think our friend from New Mexico 
will be shocked to hear me say that I am not going to be taking his 
advice. I know he is very concerned about Republicans in the next 
elections and our

[[Page S1430]]

ability to maintain our majority in both houses. So he will have to 
forgive me for not taking his advice.
  What I have a hard time understanding--and the argument that our 
colleague is making--is they are willing to fund everything at the 
Department of Homeland Security except the people who enforce our 
immigration laws.
  Mr. LUJAN. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORNYN. But this is very consistent with the policies of the 
Democrats because they are the party of ``defund the police.'' They are 
the party of ``abolish ICE.'' They are the party of ``now don't pay 
ICE'' and ``don't enforce our immigration laws.''
  So the reason why the TSA agents are not being paid is because we 
have voted multiple times to pay everybody who is working on behalf of 
the American people--all the patriots who are currently working--
whether they are TSA agents or they work for Homeland Security 
Investigations, which does counterterrorism investigations.
  You know, these are very dangerous times. We have had multiple 
terrorist attacks in places like Austin, where I live, and in New York, 
Michigan, Virginia. And we heard from the Director of National 
Intelligence, the FBI Director, and others that we could expect more of 
these sleeper cells or people who are already here, who came in during 
the Biden administration, to become radicalized and lash out and kill 
more Americans.
  And those people aren't being paid either.
  And they also objected to paying the Coast Guard and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. Heaven forbid that we have a hurricane or 
tornadoes or floods or some other natuarl disaster because the men and 
women of the Federal Emergency Management Agency will not be available 
because they have either been furloughed--in any event, they will not 
be paid--while Democrats persist in insisting that our immigration laws 
not be enforced because they don't want ICE--the law enforcement agents 
who enforce our immigration laws--to be paid. It is that simple.

  Here is another thing I don't really understand. I have seen a number 
of polls ranging from 70 to 80 percent of Americans who support the 
SAVE America Act. I am surprised it is that low. When you think about 
what it is, it says that you have to be an American citizen to vote, 
and when you show up at the polls, you have to produce a photo ID. We 
have given many speeches talking about how common sense that is.
  But if you are opposed to those requirements, it makes me wonder: Do 
you think noncitizens should be able to vote? Do you think fraudsters 
who claim to be someone they are not ought to be able to cast a ballot? 
I don't know what the rationale is.
  They say we are disenfranchising American citizens. Is that why 70 to 
80 percent of Americans support it? They support being disenfranchised? 
It makes no sense whatsoever. Yet Democrats persist in their folly.
  I think really what this boils down to, as I have said before, is 
that anything that President Trump is for, they are against.
  Do you remember at the State of the Union, the President asked people 
in the audience to stand up if they supported our law enforcement 
officers--the people who put their lives on the line to enforce our 
laws and maintain public safety? Every single Democrat sat on their 
hands. I mean, isn't there anything that comes out of President Trump's 
mouth that they could find their way to agree with no matter how self-
evidently true?
  You know, when President Trump took the courageous move to take out 
Iran's nuclear program, the Commander in Chief ordered our incredible 
military to fly 30 hours from Missouri and drop a bunker buster bomb 
down a ventilation shaft in a nuclear program facility in Iran. It 
makes me proud of our men and women in uniform.
  Then when Nicolas Maduro in Caracas--a fugitive from justice, 
somebody who was indicted in Federal court in New York--when law 
enforcement needed to arrest him, they were supported by our men and 
women in uniform again, who, almost miraculously, to my mind, gave 
cover to the law enforcement officers who went in and extracted him to 
bring him to justice in New York.
  So on almost every occasion, no matter how common sense, no matter 
how proud it makes me of our President and our military to keep the 
Nation free of the No. 1 state sponsor of terror, who is seeking to 
acquire a nuclear weapon, they take the other side. It is really 
amazing.
  President Trump has this amazing power to force normally reasonable, 
rational individuals to take crazy positions for no other reason than 
they oppose President Trump, and that includes commonsense provisions 
like only American citizens can vote.
  I thought our colleague from Louisiana did a nice job of sort of 
laying the predicate--I think the Senator from Ohio did the same--and 
pointed out the millions of people who came into the country during the 
pendency of the Biden administration, during his open border policies, 
unvetted--many good people who want nothing but a better life, but we 
don't know who came in for sure. We do know that it wasn't all good 
people who wanted to work and seek a better life here. It included 
criminals, sex offenders, drug traffickers, murderers, terrorists. And 
now we are paying the price for that.
  When we say that we want to be doubly sure that only American 
citizens can vote, they say: No, that is disenfranchising people from 
voting.
  I even heard our colleagues across the aisle say: Well, it is already 
illegal. There are a lot of things that are illegal, but if you don't 
enforce it, people get away with it.
  Well, the argument of our colleagues is, again, that the vast 
majority of Americans who support this legislation are trying to 
disenfranchise themselves. How ridiculous can you be?
  Then we hear the argument that it is just too hard. It is too hard to 
come up with the papers that you need in order to prove you are an 
American citizen--a marriage license, a birth certificate, a passport, 
some other form of identification.
  Two days ago, the Senator from Maryland came to the floor and said he 
opposed the SAVE America Act because only about one-half of Americans 
have a passport. He then went on to say that means that only half of 
the American citizens that are preparing to go out to vote will be able 
to vote.
  Well, as I mentioned yesterday--and I know it has been repeated ad 
nauseam by my colleague from Utah and others--there are other forms of 
acceptable ID. Unfortunately, some of our Democratic colleagues have 
come out here and misrepresented what is in the bill.
  Americans can present enhanced driver's licenses, a REAL ID-compliant 
driver's license like I have in my pocket, a State ID card, a 
certificate of naturalization, or military identification card. If they 
have none of those, they can pair a normal photo ID with their birth 
certificate, a consular report of a birth abroad, or other similar 
documents.
  In fact, if they still have legitimate concerns rather than excuses 
for this commonsense law, they can work with us, and we could tighten 
it in such a way that nobody would be disenfranchised, but they refuse 
to do that.
  Everybody knows voter ID is common sense. Everybody knows you need a 
photo ID to get into a Federal building. You even need to get one to go 
into the Democratic convention, to buy a six-pack of beer, to buy 
cigarettes, to get on a plane--the list goes on and on and on and on.
  So the excuses that our colleagues are throwing up saying, ``Oh, it 
is just too hard for us to produce a photo ID; it is going to prevent 
people from being able to vote''--no. What it is going to mean is that 
when somebody votes by mail--because some States send ballots to 
individuals without those individuals requesting them, and then they 
claim to be someone they are not and cast a ballot. What it will mean 
is that we will be able to identify those people who should not be 
voting and prevent them from doing so.
  It is not just about preventing people who shouldn't be able to vote 
from voting; it is about them diluting your vote, because for every 
illegitimate ballot that is cast, that means it undermines and dilutes 
or offsets a legitimate vote and ballot.
  Our Democratic colleagues act like this is some sort of fanciful 
innovation nobody had ever heard of before--a

[[Page S1431]]

crazy idea--but you look around the world, and other democracies have 
similar requirements. Norway, for example, requires voters to present a 
photo ID, such as a passport, a driver's license, or a bank card with a 
photo, in order to cast a ballot. Northern Ireland requires voters to 
present a valid ID. France, Israel, Iceland all have voter IDs. Even in 
Mexico, our neighbor to the south, with more than a third of its 
population living in poverty, that suffers from high levels of 
organized crime, a voter ID is required. If Mexico can require a voter 
ID, so can the United States of America.

  Surely no one enjoys paperwork, but the simple fact of life is that 
sometimes you have to fill out a form and show an ID to do something 
that is important. We do it to go to the doctor or dentist or travel or 
to start a new job. When things are important enough to us, we do what 
is required to make them happen, and what could be more important than 
voting?
  You know, the authority that we exercise on behalf of the people who 
vote for us and elect us is called the consent of the governed, which 
is the source of all legitimacy in government. This isn't just my idea 
or some other Senator's idea or Congressman's idea; it is because we 
represent people, and they have consented--by electing us to represent 
them, the governed have consented, in effect, to the laws that we pass. 
But when people who are not qualified to vote cast a ballot or when 
fraudsters claim to be somebody they are not and cast a ballot, it 
undermines the whole fabric and foundation of our constitutional 
system.
  I will make a deal with anybody in Texas that I am sure the great 
Senator from Pennsylvania or Ohio or Utah or any other Members of the 
Senate--I have a great constituent service office in Dallas, TX. They 
do magnificent work. They have won awards. So if you have a problem 
with your passport, with your VA benefits, with immigration, whatever, 
we have people available, with a phone call or a stroke of a keyboard, 
who will help you.
  If you are somehow unsure about how to get the paperwork you need in 
order to demonstrate you are an American citizen and qualified to vote, 
we will help you. We will make sure you have that documentation. We 
will make sure you are able to demonstrate that you are an American 
citizen.
  If you have a problem getting a photo ID in Texas--admittedly a red 
State, so we do have voter integrity measures in place, like photo ID--
if you don't have a driver's license, you can get a free photo ID just 
for the asking. It doesn't cost you anything.
  You know, I frankly find the argument of our friends across the aisle 
insulting because they act as though the American people are too lazy, 
too dumb, or too incompetent to do the basic things you need to do in 
order to meet the terms of the SAVE America Act. And I know that is not 
true, but that is how they act--or at least that is what they claim.
  I have full confidence that all Americans who are legal citizens can 
rise to the demands of self-government by making sure they can 
demonstrate that they are, in fact, American citizens and acquiring a 
photo ID from some source that is readily available that will help you, 
if you have difficulty, in order to cast your ballot.
  The truth is, the SAVE America Act is common sense. That is why you 
see broad polling support among Democrats, Independents, and 
Republicans. It is supported by more than 70 percent of the American 
public. So if it was true that this bill would disenfranchise voters, 
you are, in effect, saying 70 percent of Americans want to 
disenfranchise themselves. What a ludicrous argument that is.

  What is more, passing this bill would strengthen and honor our 250-
year tradition of self-government. By opposing this bill, not only are 
Senate Democrats placing themselves on the wrong side of public opinion 
but on the wrong side of history. And I hope--maybe this is too much to 
hope for, but I hope they will reconsider and join us in passing this 
commonsense bill that so many of the people they represent--not just 
whom I represent but they represent--want to become law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. MORENO. Mr. President, for those who are not familiar with what 
actually happens here in Washington, DC, as I stated earlier, for the 
fifth time, Democrats have blocked to end debate on whether 260,000 
families should get paid for the work that they have done. It is almost 
ludicrous to even make that statement because the idea that we would 
withhold the pay of 260,000 hard-working DHS employees is insane.
  But we haven't actually even had debate. What you see here in this 
Chamber that is virtually empty is that one person will make a speech, 
another person will make a speech, and quite frankly there is no 
interaction. So I actually want to change that a little bit.
  So to any of my Democratic colleagues that want to speak, I will 
yield my time if they can answer for me and acknowledge that there are 
currently 260,000 DHS families going without pay. Is that true or 
false?
  OK. No answer on that one. I will break the suspense. That is true.
  The second thing I will yield for a comment on is: Will any of my 
Democratic colleagues that are present in this Chamber acknowledge that 
the Democrats have not agreed--have not agreed--to individually fund 
Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, and the nuclear threat Agency 
within the Department of Homeland Security--have absolutely not 
presented any resolutions or votes to fund those Agencies? Is that true 
or false?
  Seeing no response, I will break the silence and say that is true.
  Would any Democrat in the Chamber acknowledge that fewer than 10 
percent of the entire workforce of DHS works for Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, known as ICE?
  Well, they can fact-check me, but the answer is that is true.
  Of the 22,000 ICE employees, will any Democrat in this Chamber 
acknowledge that the vast majority of those employees work for Homeland 
Investigations?
  What do they do? That is the group that identifies, chases, and 
catches really bad guys. These are the people who actually go out and 
find the worst of the worst, transnational groups. The vast majority of 
ICE employees work for that division. Is that true or false? Would you 
acknowledge that that is accurate?
  OK. Hearing no comments from my Democratic colleagues, the answer to 
that is it is true.
  So the remaining 5,000 employees out of 260,000 that my colleagues do 
not want to give a paycheck despite the fact that they came to work for 
the last 35 days--unlike anybody in this Chamber who has not come to 
work the last 35 days because that has definitely not happened--will 
they acknowledge that collective punishment is a bad idea? In other 
words, would they acknowledge that punishing 5,000 people who work for 
Enforcement and Removal Operations because a couple dozen--maybe, 
generously, a couple dozen; probably less; probably a handful maybe 
didn't do everything perfectly--you are recommending that we 
collectively punish all 5,000 people? Is that what you are saying?
  No response. The answer is only a politician would think that that is 
a good idea. Only a politician would think that collective punishment 
is the way to go. You are punishing 260,000 employees in the Department 
of Homeland Security because you think that if you had been in that 
situation, you would have acted differently. Four or five, six, seven 
people that you think did the wrong thing gives you the moral authority 
to take away the paychecks of 260,000 people.
  And I am going to look forward to hearing from my colleague from 
Utah, who has done so much work to put together the SAVE America Act. 
And he actually hasn't had anybody say this to him: Thank you. Thank 
you for the hard work. You have put in I can't even imagine how many 
hours--you and your staff. You have been willing to listen to anybody 
who wants to improve your bill, and yet you have gotten very little 
feedback, except for on the floor when they accused you of God knows 
what.
  But I will ask my Republican colleague--because I watched it on TV, 
and so I am going to ask my Republican colleague to answer whether this 
is true or false; and any of my Democratic colleagues I will yield to 
if they want to jump in. I suspect they won't.

[[Page S1432]]

  Is it true that, yesterday, my fellow Republican Senator, Senator 
Husted, who is doing an amazing job--a good man that I have known for 
20 years. Is it true that he proposed a bill that would have simply 
required photo ID to vote? Not a photo ID that proves you are a 
citizen, which I think we should have that, but just a simple photo ID 
the way any of us have to walk in and out of this building? Is that 
true?
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask consent to answer the question through 
the Chair.
  Mr. MORENO. I yield to my colleague from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in response to the question from the Senator 
from Ohio, the junior Senator from Ohio--not to be confused with the 
very handsome senior Senator from Ohio--came to the floor yesterday. 
Now, the junior Senator from Ohio comes to this job with a unique 
background, a unique set of knowledge born of experience as the 
longtime chief elections officer of the State of Ohio.
  As he looks at the SAVE America Act, he sees that there are two main 
components. Component 1 deals with voter ID, where you just show up 
with a photo ID on the day of election to prove that you are who you 
say you are, the same person listed on your voter registration file. 
Component 2 deals with establishing citizenship at the time of voter 
registration.
  About 48 hours ago, a lot of our Democratic colleagues started 
stating publicly and privately, here on the Senate floor and outside of 
this Chamber, that they would be just fine if this were just a voter ID 
bill. And so the junior Senator from Ohio had this great idea. He said: 
Look, why don't we create a separate bill file. We will take the exact 
same text from component 1--that is the part that deals just with photo 
ID, photo ID to be shown by the voter on the day of voting, at the 
voting place, to show that the voter is, in fact, the same person 
listed on the voter registration file. After all, the Democrats have 
said they are just fine with the voter ID component.
  So he gave a speech in support of it. I backed him up in a parallel 
speech. Then he offered it up, offered to pass it by what we call live 
UC, which is a mechanism by which you ask unanimous consent of all 
Senators to pass something. It seemed like a very good idea given the 
amount of bipartisan consensus surrounding the voter ID provision.
  We were watching with bated breath, very much anticipating the 
answer. And, curiously, it drew an objection from the Democrats, 
articulated by the Senator from Oregon. But here was the interesting 
thing that I would say to my friend and colleague, the distinguished 
senior Senator from Ohio. At the time the Democrat objection was 
raised, the basis of the objection, as I heard it, was related entirely 
to component 2 that has only to do with proof of citizenship at the 
time of voter registration.
  So I don't know. Maybe this was a mistake. Maybe this was an 
accident. Maybe he didn't mean to object.
  I hope that we will continue to do those things. Perhaps tomorrow or 
in the days to come, we will try that again--because it drew an 
objection, but the objection didn't have any explanation as to why it 
would be unreasonable for someone to show up on the day of voting just 
to make sure that somebody else isn't impersonating you, that you are 
the same person you claim to be and the same person on your voter 
registration file.
  I hope that that answers satisfactorily the question asked by the 
senior Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. MORENO. It does. Unless any of my Democratic colleagues want to 
debate any of the items I mentioned--hearing no debate, I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we are here 
today to debate the merits of this so-called SAVE America Act.
  Right now, Americans are struggling with the rising costs of housing, 
healthcare, gas, groceries, and more. Earlier this week in Maryland, 
the average price of gas shot up 14 cents overnight. The American 
people are suffering from the effects of a trade war started by this 
administration and now are watching as we are stuck in an illegal and 
poorly planned military war in Iran.
  This increasing unaffordability is an urgent crisis that actually 
demands a resolution, but unfortunately we have an administration that 
is completely out of touch. There are so many real issues that we could 
be working on that would actually benefit the lives of working families 
across our country, but we are here ignoring their wishes and debating 
this legislation because this President isn't living in reality. He has 
created a fantasy crisis and is committed to finding a solution to a 
problem that does not exist.
  So my colleagues are here making arguments that don't hold up under 
any real scrutiny, claiming that this bill is necessary to ensure that 
only U.S. citizens vote in American elections. But reality says that 
noncitizen voting in Federal elections is already against the law, and 
there are enforcement mechanisms in place. This is the law, and it 
should be followed.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle disingenuously claim 
that this bill is a commonsense election integrity measure focused on 
proof of citizenship, voter ID, and cleaner voting rolls. Reality says 
that, on top of everything else that people are dealing with right now, 
requiring even more paperwork would create real problems for so many 
people--like married women whose documents don't match because they 
changed their names to match their husbands or members of our military 
who move locations often in service of our country. It would be a 
problem for people who rely on mail registration or absentee voting. It 
would be an undue burden for our seniors, veterans, students, and rural 
voters. Voting already requires a form of American identification.
  And so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that this 
bill would provide necessary aggressive voter roll verification and 
removal of noncitizens from the rolls. Reality says that this 
aggressive Federal overreach would include requiring States to submit 
voter data to DHS, the same organization that is currently sending ICE 
goon squads of men with masks on to kill Americans in our streets. 
States would be required to submit their complete statewide voter 
registration lists to DHS for comparison through the SAVE program on an 
ongoing basis. That is completely impractical.
  The SAVE program was not designed to be a voter registration system, 
and it predictably has resulted in false matches and false 
ineligibility flags. What is more, it gives DHS a continuing role in 
Federal elections that it is not equipped or designed to handle. It 
hands over critical information to an administration that I would dare 
say has already proven that it is not trustworthy and that it cannot or 
will not keep the sensitive data of the American people protected. It 
hands over information to an administration that has already failed 
this very basic test of using its power for retribution.
  Reality says this is being treated as an emergency right now, and we 
understand why: Because it is a part of a broader electoral strategy 
that this administration needs to be in place ahead of the upcoming 
midterm elections. People are unhappy with the direction that our 
country is going in right now. They are upset that their government 
isn't working on the real issues that they are facing. And instead of 
addressing the affordability crisis that is staring us in the face--the 
affordability crisis that was caused by this President--this 
administration wants to guarantee a successful midterm election by 
``fixing'' an electoral system that is not broken.
  The President already issued an Executive order directing Federal 
Agencies to be more involved in election-related enforcement and 
citizen verification.
  And since then, the DOJ has sought extensive voter data from nearly 
every State. At least 48 States and DC have received requests for their 
complete voter registration lists, and the DOJ has sued DC and 29 
States, including Maryland, for refusing to provide statewide voter 
lists with driver's license and Social Security information.
  This administration is counting on Republicans in Congress to sell 
their sick fantasy, and that is why we are here now, wasting precious 
time trying to fix a problem that is not real. But

[[Page S1433]]

reality has refuted every single fantasy claim made in support of this 
bill.
  So what are the architects of this bill actually seeking? Well, 
simply put, they are seeking to suppress the vote. This is not a 
standard voter ID bill. This bill is not about protecting democracy. 
Protecting democracy would eliminate barriers that keep more Americans 
from voting. This bill does not do that; it does the opposite.
  This bill is a blatant attempt to kick eligible American voters off 
the rolls and make it more complicated for Americans to register and 
vote. States have already done an excellent job fashioning a system 
that works.
  The fantasy world this bill envisions would disrupt the way voter 
registration and voting actually work in practice. It would undermine 
or severely limit online registration, registration by mail, motor-
voter systems, same-day registration, and voter registration drives by 
requiring in-person presentation of documentary proof.
  It would alter registration, list maintenance, and ballot-casting all 
at once, forcing States and election officials to rework systems that 
voters already rely on.
  My home State of Maryland has worked hard to build a system that is 
both secure and accessible. This bill would undermine the progress that 
we and so many other States have made by replacing those successful, 
efficient State systems with new Federal mandates and new legal risks 
for elections officials.
  It would result in wrongful removals from voter rolls and more undue 
burdens, putting new barriers between eligible voters and the ballot 
box.
  Now, if the President and my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle want to ignore the urgent crisis facing the Nation in order to 
fix issues with voting that actually do exist, they would endorse the 
bill that I have introduced, the Deceptive Practices and Voter 
Intimidation Prevention Act, that would criminalize knowingly spreading 
false information about the time, place, or manner of voting or about 
voter qualifications, and would prohibit threatening or coercing 
individuals not to vote or to vote in a certain way.
  But that would require my colleagues to actually care about our 
democracy. They would sign on to the numerous bills by my colleagues 
that I cosponsored, like Senator Klobuchar's Register America to Vote 
Act. It would automatically register all eligible citizens to vote when 
they turn 18. But this, too, would require my colleagues to actually 
care about our democracy.
  They would sign on to Senator Wyden's Vote at Home Act that would 
expand vote-by-mail, a method that has proven to increase voter 
participation. Yet that would require my colleagues to care about our 
democracy.
  They would sign on to Senator Padilla's Voter Purge Protection Act 
that would prohibit States from using questionable voter purge tactics 
to take tens of thousands of eligible voters off the voting rolls. But 
that, too, would require my colleagues to care about democracy.
  If they truly cared about democracy, they would have already signed 
on to the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that would 
restore the safeguards of the Voting Rights Act that was so 
shortsightedly gutted by the Supreme Court.
  John Lewis lived through some of this Nation's most challenging 
times. His reality was seeing poll taxes and literacy tests 
disenfranchise thousands, harassment and death threats for trying to 
register voters, violent attacks for peacefully protesting. His reality 
was bravely standing up to hate, knowing that fighting for the right to 
vote was worth the blood he shed on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
  That very real crisis was met by the passing of the landmark Voting 
Rights Act, so instrumental to this Nation's progress that through 
everything he faced in his life, John Lewis said that his ``greatest 
fear is that one day we may wake up and our democracy is gone.''
  You know, I walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge last summer. It is 
something that I recommend that all who have the ability to do will do, 
so that especially the young people of our country will understand 
truly what has been put on the line in order for us to have the right 
to vote.
  It wasn't lost on me, as I walked across that bridge and recognized--
to be honest with you, very similar to these goons running across our 
country, these ICE agents in masks. These are people who were 
essentially deputized to traumatize American citizens.
  So the men who were on the other side of that Edmund Pettus Bridge 
were waiting for these young people--John Lewis was 22 years old when 
he took up this battle--walked across that bridge, and these people who 
were not even truly law enforcement officials had sticks that were 
wrapped in barbed wire.
  Can you imagine the character of a man or a person who is capable of 
beating another human with a stick that was wrapped in barbed wire? But 
that is how strongly these people felt about depriving people of the 
right to vote. They beat him within an inch of his life because they 
did not want to give African Americans the right to vote.
  So this bill would take real steps toward creating another crisis, a 
crisis that was John Lewis' ``greatest fear.'' America has a long, 
detailed history of people fighting, bleeding, and dying to secure the 
right to vote.
  That hard-won freedom to speak with your vote should not depend on 
whether you have the time, money, or flexibility to satisfy a new set 
of hurdles that go to serve this administration's goals.
  And I would say that those goals are intellectually dishonest goals, 
and they are not reality.
  You don't save America by silencing the voices of Americans. I will 
repeat that. There is no way to save America by silencing the voices of 
Americans. You save America by embracing the ideals that set us apart 
to begin with. The reality is that we should be encouraging more people 
to take full advantage of their rights. That is why we should be making 
it easier for eligible citizens to participate in our democracy, not 
harder.
  When a bill takes a fundamental right and wraps it in paperwork, 
penalties, and confusion, that is not election security; that is a step 
backward for American democracy, and that is not what the American 
people want.
  They did not ask for an additional crisis to deal with. This 
administration has insisted on ignoring their calls for help on the 
affordability crisis, but maybe listening to their objections to this 
bill will open their eyes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insights and enthusiasm 
offered by my friend and distinguished colleague the Senator from 
Maryland. I appreciate the right of every Senator to express his or her 
opinions, his or her thoughtful analysis in the legislative Chamber 
that we occupy.
  This is part of what it means to be Americans, and it is a big part 
of what it means to be a U.S. Senator, to have the privilege to stand 
here and debate matters that are important to the American people, 
important to the ongoing health and vitality not only of our elections 
but also of our system of government, our Constitution, and the ideals 
embodied in our other great founding document, the Declaration of 
Independence, whose birthday we are about to celebrate in a few months.
  Documents don't enjoy the 250th anniversary of their writing very 
often, but we are about to celebrate that. And on the same day, we will 
celebrate both the birthday of that document and with it the birthday 
of our country because that document ushered in the existence of the 
United States of America as a separate and independent sovereign 
country.
  One of the many features of that country from the very day it was 
created nearly 250 years ago is the concept of popular sovereignty. 
Now, it is probably too many syllables for most folks to want to use it 
in one sentence, but of course we all understand that popular 
sovereignty--well, it sounds like a fancy term--refers to a very simple 
thing.
  In this country, the government, the country itself, consists of the 
people. Those who have the right--the divine right--to govern are the 
people themselves, the citizens themselves. That, from day one, has 
been the concept.
  That was different than things were in our mother country. In our 
mother country, we didn't have--we had elements of popular sovereignty 
that had

[[Page S1434]]

evolved over the years, but it was very different than it is here.
  For that to mean something, we do have to protect the right to vote. 
And for the right to vote to mean anything, you also have to have fair 
and free elections. Now, when we have elections, we have a common 
understanding that I don't think anyone here disagrees with or at least 
wouldn't articulate their disagreement in public.
  There is a very widespread agreement that those who vote need to meet 
the legal requirements to vote. And one of the most fundamental laws 
that we have is that in order to vote in U.S. elections, you have to be 
a U.S. citizen.
  To my knowledge, this has never been controversial in the United 
States of America. And in fact, it is not controversial to this day, 
even in this Chamber. I think every one of us here, if asked, would 
agree: Yes, only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections. It is 
against the law to do otherwise, and in fact, if someone casts a vote 
in a U.S. election who is not a U.S. citizen, he or she has committed a 
pretty grave felony offense against the United States.
  So the question then becomes: If that is such a key element to who we 
are as a people, to the functioning of our government, to the concept 
of popular sovereignty that has been embodied in our system of 
government--first in the Declaration of Independence, later in the 
Constitution, and in our laws ever since then--then what do we have to 
do to protect that if it plays such an important role as it does?
  Well, there is this old expression that if everyone is family, no one 
is. There is a corollary to that: If everything is urgent, nothing is. 
When you apply a label too broadly, the label itself loses meaning.
  When you grant too many people the privileges, the incidents of 
citizenship--when those granted it include people who are noncitizens, 
then that is making everyone family, even if they are actually not. 
That, in turn, erodes what it means to be an American. It dilutes each 
lawful vote cast by an actual U.S. citizen.
  Now, we just heard a laundry list of complaints, very, very similar 
to the laundry list of complaints that we have heard over the last 36, 
48 hours--I guess, we are going on 72 hours since we turned to this 
bill just a few days ago.
  Almost every argument we have heard against this from across the 
aisle has included some of these same elements, and we heard some more 
of those today from my friend and distinguished colleague the Senator 
from Maryland.
  Among those arguments that she made today just a few moments ago had 
to do with--there were some arguments that had to do with the fact that 
this bill, as she described it, would somehow take away the rights of 
some American citizens to vote and that it would result in 
disenfranchising American citizens.
  I wish to state at the outset, emphatically, that this is not true. 
This was neither the intention of the SAVE America Act nor would it be 
the effect of the SAVE America Act. This legislation, once it becomes 
law, will not disenfranchise a single American citizen, not a single 
one.
  The only people who will be prevented from voting are those who are 
not citizens, those who are not allowed to vote in our system of 
government, and those who, by voting, if they were to vote, would be 
committing a very serious Federal felony criminal offense and with good 
reason.
  So we have to be clear about what this does. This does not achieve, 
as she put it, erect barriers--barriers that would stop U.S. citizens 
from voting.
  Remember what this does. We have the twin objectives that are 
upstream from everything that we are doing. We want to make it easy to 
vote, and we want to make it hard to cheat. To do that, we have two 
principal elements in the SAVE America Act. The first element would 
require voters to bring a government-issued photo ID with them to the 
polling place on the day of voting to show who they are, to demonstrate 
that they are who they claim to be and that they are the same person 
referenced in their voter registration file.
  That is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that 
you don't want somebody voting in somebody else's name, and you 
certainly don't want somebody voting who is not supposed to be voting 
at all.
  There are some people in the United States who might be citizens who 
are prohibited from voting for reasons having to do with criminal 
convictions, for example, or those who have renounced their U.S. 
citizenship. You wouldn't want that to happen. You wouldn't want a 
noncitizen voting, and you wouldn't want one person who might be a 
citizen with voting rights voting in somebody else's name--perhaps in 
an effort to cast multiple votes in the same election by impersonating 
another or otherwise. So that is a very simple principle.
  That feature of the bill--having to bring a government-issued photo 
ID to the polling location on the day of voting to show that they are 
who they claim to be--is not controversial. It is certainly not 
controversial among the American people--not among Democrats, not among 
Republicans, not among members of any ethnic group, racial minority, 
gender, any part of the country. This is noncontroversial throughout 
the United States.
  It is apparently even noncontroversial in this Chamber, whether you 
are a Democrat or a Republican. Over the last few days, we have heard 
Democrat after Democrat--perhaps not all of them but many of them--
including the minority leader himself, indicate that they are just fine 
with voter ID requirements. Yet last night, when the junior Senator 
from Ohio attempted to pass by unanimous consent a provision limited to 
the voter ID requirements of the SAVE America Act, it drew an objection 
from the Democrats. Now, when that objection was raised, the argument 
that I heard, that I recall, didn't have anything to do with objections 
to voter ID; they had to do with other things elsewhere in the SAVE 
America Act.
  The second component of the SAVE America Act, of course, is a 
requirement that at the time a voter newly registers to vote, he or she 
must establish that he or she is a citizen of the United States.
  An important point to remember here is that no one will be required 
to reregister. If you are already registered to vote in the United 
States, you don't have to go back and do it again unless and until you 
have some event that requires you to register again. Let's suppose, for 
example, that you move from California to Utah. Well, then, yeah, you 
would need to reregister in your new place of residence. But nobody who 
is currently registered to vote would have to reregister unless or 
until they move or until something else might require registration, and 
nothing in this bill would require that. So let's keep that in mind.
  There are a number of arguments that keep being raised, primarily 
about the proof of citizenship requirements within the SAVE America 
Act. I would note here that in the citizenship component of the SAVE 
America Act, there are two basic components within that. One component 
deals with the obligation of the registering voter at the time of voter 
registration, and the other imposes obligations on State governments to 
coordinate and share information and data with the Federal Government 
as they undertake regular reviews of State voter registration files 
just to make sure that people who are registered to vote are, in fact, 
U.S. citizens.
  Why is that necessary? Well, currently there are a whole lot of 
States--and they tend to be States that might colloquially be described 
as blue, meaning that they are run by Democratic Governors and/or have 
Democratic-dominated State legislatures--that are refusing to 
cooperate, to coordinate, to share data with the Department of Homeland 
Security and the entities within the Department of Homeland Security 
responsible for maintaining the SAVE database--an already existing 
database designed to help identify issues like this--like noncitizens 
who may have crept into voter registration files--and get rid of them.
  But with all those blue States refusing to cooperate, to coordinate, 
to enter into a memorandum of understanding pertaining to the sharing 
of information, of data, it is a really vexing problem because it 
raises all kinds of concerns. How are we supposed to know when the law 
is violated, when a

[[Page S1435]]

noncitizen has registered to vote, if the Federal Government, which is 
ultimately the piece within our government system that has the records 
and the ability to ascertain citizenship--how are you ever going to 
expect that we can ensure that our laws prohibiting noncitizen voting 
in U.S. elections are being complied with?
  Now, a few minutes ago, my friend and colleague the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico made an argument on this point. He made a 
parallel reference by analogy to what might happen if somebody were 
saying ``We don't need additional laws confirming that it is against 
the law to run a stop sign if it is already against the law'' and 
saying that this is akin to passing another law making doubly sure that 
people don't run stop signs.
  I understand the point, but it would be a fair argument or at least a 
fairer argument if the argument runs something like this: If in his 
hypothetical there were a system in place that legally and practically 
prevented police from monitoring tracked activities at intersections 
guarded by a stop sign, then, yes, that might be a fair, parallel 
reference, because that is exactly what we are dealing with, status 
quo, under a 1993 law called the NVRA--a law that, 20 years after its 
enactment, was interpreted by the Supreme Court--wrongly but 
conclusively, and that ruling remains in effect to this very day--
concluding that the State governments are prohibited--even where they 
suspect a registering voter is a noncitizen, they may not do anything 
to follow up on that person's citizenship. They may not request any 
proof of that person's citizenship even if they believe that it is 
suspect or lacking.
  So that makes it analogous to this hypothetical of a supplemental law 
that would require or at least allow observation of the intersection 
guarded by a stop sign. If he is going to make that analogy, then that 
is how you make it fair, because that is essentially what is happening. 
That is directly analogous to what is happening here. It is as though 
we have laws saying that you may not run a stop sign, but State and 
local police are prohibited from observing traffic at any intersection 
guarded by a stop sign and may not issue traffic tickets even if they 
believe those things might be occurring because they are not allowed to 
watch that intersection. That is what is going on here.

  But it is even worse than that because their own State governments 
are contributing to the violation of the laws, to ignoring it, because 
they refuse to share information; they refuse to hand over their data.
  This is especially troubling for so many reasons, including and 
especially the fact that in a handful of States--I believe it is four 
or five jurisdictions, maybe four States and the District of Columbia--
they allow noncitizen voting in some of their local elections.
  Now, I don't know why any jurisdiction would want to allow this. I 
don't know why any State would want to allow any local election within 
that State to include noncitizen voting. But if their State laws and 
their State constitution contain nothing to prohibit that, then that is 
their choice because there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in 
Federal law that would prohibit them from doing that.
  Nonetheless, once they do that, it raises all kinds of questions that 
really do need to be addressed. For example, if they are voting, if you 
have noncitizens legally voting in some elections in four or five 
States and the District of Columbia, then that means they are 
registering to vote. They have voter registration files. Those States 
are asked: What are you doing with those voter registration files to 
make sure they are not cross-pollinating, that the same registered 
voters who are noncitizens are not also participating in Federal 
elections? And they are not sharing their information. They are not 
answering that question, which is a really, really important question. 
Their refusal to answer that question or to share data makes the need 
for this even more pressing.
  Now, when we look at all of this, one of the many arguments that the 
Democrats appear to be raising over and over again--there are two of 
them that are especially common that I think need to be addressed head-
on here.
  One of the arguments raised over and over again is that if we require 
registering voters to provide at the time of voter registration proof 
of citizenship, then that is necessarily going to disenfranchise a lot 
of people.
  Now, one number they throw around is something like 21 million 
Americans will be disenfranchised, will be unable to vote. Well, that 
by itself is not true. It is not supported. This is based on some 
studies indicating--based on surveys, they extrapolate that there are 
about 21 million Americans who don't necessarily have that requisite 
documentation or they don't know where it is at the moment or something 
to that effect.
  Remember, by the way, any and every time any American citizen takes a 
new job, starts a new job as an employee for an employer on American 
soil or anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, they 
have to fill out an I-9 form. The I-9 form requires them to provide, 
before they may start that job, proof of U.S. citizenship either 
supplied by a U.S. passport establishing U.S. citizenship or, 
alternatively, an original, certified birth certificate accompanied by 
a government-issued photo ID and/or an original Social Security card. 
If you don't have those things, you can't start the job unless and 
until you can provide that documentation.
  Now, those things would suffice under the SAVE America Act voter 
registration provisions requiring proof of citizenship, but that is not 
all that would suffice. We wanted to make it as flexible as it could 
possibly be, lest there be any credible argument that this would impose 
an undue hardship, an undue burden.
  One could argue, of course, that even just requiring the same 
documentation every American has to provide whenever they start a new 
job would be fair, and maybe it would be, but we wanted to make it even 
easier to comply with that. We want to encourage those who are U.S. 
citizens to be able to vote. If you can legally vote, you should, and 
you shouldn't have these impediments. So we added a list of other 
documents that you could use. Certain other ID cards that have been 
established and recognized within the U.S. Government as establishing 
citizenship could do it.
  Then we provided a catchall--a catchall that not one of my Democrat 
colleagues has even acknowledged even though they have been in the room 
when I have raised the argument, when I have cited it, when I noted 
what it does.
  Some of the people hearing the argument over and over again still 
refuse even to acknowledge that it exists when they claim that unless 
you have a U.S. passport, you are going to be disenfranchised. Some of 
them will say that a passport will cost a couple of hundred dollars, so 
it is a poll tax; it is expensive; it is going to disenfranchise all 
these people. They ignore this provision.
  The provision begins at the text on line 22 of page 12 of the SAVE 
America Act as passed by the House of Representatives, which is the 
legislation pending before us and that we are now debating. They ignore 
this every single time. They ignore it over and over and over again, to 
the point of being not only disingenuous but dishonest. These are, in 
fact, dishonest arguments because they overlook that.
  This doesn't disenfranchise anyone. You need not shell out a nickel, 
a dime, a quarter, not even a penny or a fraction of a penny. You need 
not spend anything. You need not waste any time digging through, oh, 
piles of documents. If you can't find them and if you never had those 
documents to begin with--your house burned down or your dog ate them, 
whatever--not a problem. Why? Well, because we allowed them by a simple 
affidavit to provide an attestation. It is a personal narrative of, 
here is why I am a citizen--either based on the fact that I was born in 
such and such a city in the United States on such a date, or I was not 
born a U.S. citizen but I was later naturalized. Here is where I was 
born. Here is when I was naturalized. Here is the path I took to 
naturalization.
  Either way, once you submit that--and that could be a brief paragraph 
or maybe a few sentences to describe those critical facts--you hand it 
over to the State election official, and the burden then shifts to the 
State to confirm or refute. Unless they can refute the facts that you 
allege, you are a registered voter, and there is no need for you to 
worry about it.

[[Page S1436]]

  So this is absolute nonsense to say that you will be disenfranchised 
if you don't have your documents or if you can't afford a passport or 
whatever it is. This is just an absolute, total lie.
  Look, in these more serene moments within the U.S. Senate, when 
things seem calm--and they are, in some respects, calm--it is not a 
time for us to assume that the arguments aren't real, that they aren't 
being made aggressively. This is not a time for drinking a pina colada. 
This is not a time for ignoring the endogenous and exogenous pressures 
that we face from every direction.
  Speaking of endogenous pressures, I see the presence of my friend and 
distinguished colleague the great Senator from the State of Kansas, and 
he has got a message for us. I am going to interrupt my remarks and 
yield, with the permission of the Chair, to Senator Marshall, until the 
conclusion of his remarks, when I will continue mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCORMICK). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for his 
great leadership on this.
  Last night, we had a moment of clarity in this Chamber. Senate 
Democrats were given the simplest possible test--a clean, standalone 
vote on voter ID, with nothing attached, with nothing complicated, and 
just one question: Do you believe only American citizens with a valid 
ID should decide American elections?
  With nowhere to hide, they voted it down. In doing so, they told 
every American exactly where they stand.
  Now, I understand their concerns about the provisions in the SAVE Act 
as to the proof of citizenship and stronger guardrails around absentee 
ballots, and those deserve honest debate; but there is simply no excuse 
for rejecting basic voter identification when 70 percent of Democrats--
their own voters, the people who sent them here--support it. There are 
70 percent of Democrats who support voter ID. This vote was very 
clarifying; it was unmasking.
  I want everyone who is at home tonight enjoying March Madness to 
think about your situation personally for a moment. You know what it is 
like to vote. You leave work. You go and vote. You stand in line. You 
fill out your ballot. You drive home. You are late for dinner. You did 
everything right. But on the way home, you think to yourself: Oh, my 
gosh. Somewhere out there, someone with no legal right to vote canceled 
my vote. My vote is gone--neutralized like it never happened.
  Now, that should make every American angry regardless of your party. 
I think it is important to stop and think why--why people are concerned 
about this--and what we are actually dealing with here.
  There are 50 million noncitizens living in this country. There are 50 
million noncitizens living in this country--some are legal; some are 
illegal--out of 330 million. We have four States that are automatically 
registering people to vote when they interact with government services.
  Let me say that again. Four States are automatically registering 
people to vote--regardless of their citizenship--when they interact 
with government services.
  We have no reliable national system to verify citizenship at the 
ballot box. That is not fearmongering. That is just the truth. Maybe 
that is why 80 percent of Americans support voter ID. We can't get 80 
percent of Americans to agree on whether a hamburger is better than 
chicken or if peanut butter is better than jelly, but 80 percent of 
Americans support voter ID. It is just common sense. Like I said 
earlier, 70 percent of Democrats agree with them as well.
  Now, as I sat and listened to the arguments on the floor last night, 
we saw Democrats dodging and weaving like Muhammad Ali at the Thrilla 
in Manila, never once addressing voter ID itself. It was amazing to sit 
here and watch them squirm and refuse to answer the question at hand: 
Do they support voter ID or not?
  So I had to pause, and we have plenty of time to think this weekend 
and ask a fundamental question. One of those questions we didn't get to 
talk about much in med school, but the question I ask myself is: What 
actually sustains a Republic? What are we really fighting for?
  Well, I think, No. 1, at the top of this is safe and secure 
elections.
  These are not a Republican issue, and they are not a conservative 
talking point. They are the beating heart of democracy itself.
  So, last night, I sat down and penciled out what I believe are at 
least seven of the sacred pillars that uphold our entire system of 
self-government. If I could, I would like to walk through them because, 
when any one of these pillars is weakened, the whole temple of liberty 
trembles.
  First and foremost are free and fair elections. The sacred 
cornerstone of our Republic are safe, secure, honest elections defended 
by integrity, universal suffrage, the secret ballot, and the peaceful 
transfer of power. This is the voice of the people itself. Without it, 
democracy does not stumble; it dies.
  Next is the rule of law, the unyielding bedrock of equality under 
justice. No person, no party, no elite stands above the law. Lose a 
single pillar and every other freedom collapses.
  Next is the separation of powers with checks and balances. We see 
that every day up here, the masterful architecture of liberty itself, 
forged by genius, to chain ambition and prevent any single branch from 
devouring our freedoms.
  Next is an independent and impartial judiciary, the fearless bulwark 
of due process and constitutional fidelity, the final guardian of 
justice protecting the weak, the innocent, and the Constitution against 
the storms of fleeting majorities.
  Next is the protection of fundamental rights and civil liberties, 
including free speech, a free press, assembly, association, and 
religion. These are sacred, God-given, and must burn undimmed forever.
  Next is the sanctity of private property, the moral and economic 
foundation of human dignity.
  Finally, political pluralism, transparency, accountability, and 
active citizenship participation.
  Election integrity is not just one of these pillars. It is the 
foundation beneath all of them. Every debate in this Chamber, every 
vote, every piece of legislation, all of it rests on the assumption 
that the people in these seats were put here legitimately by the voters 
of their States.
  I cannot get past the simple fact in this country that we have 
collectively decided you need a photo ID to board a plane. Remember, 
trust but verify. I walk up to the plane, and they all know I am 
Senator Roger Marshall, but they make me verify who I am.

  When you check into a hotel, when you buy certain medications, when 
you open a bank account, when you pick up a prescription, when you 
apply for government benefits, you have to show an ID. But with your 
vote--the single most important thing you do as a citizen--we are told 
that asking for an ID is somehow voter oppression, which certainly has 
not been proven to be true in the multiple States that already have 
voter ID.
  Again, it doesn't make sense, and the American people know it doesn't 
make sense. That is why 80 percent of them support voter ID.
  I am willing to come to the table. There are parts of this bill that 
we can work out. I am not asking anyone to take it or leave it, but, 
first, answer the premise of this entire debate. We don't get anywhere 
if you don't recognize the importance of voter ID.
  So here is the question: Do you believe only American citizens should 
decide American elections?
  I am going to say it again: Do you believe only American citizens 
should decide American elections? Because until we get a straight 
answer to that, nothing else matters.
  What gives us the best chance right now is getting 10 Democrats to 
come across the aisle and do the right thing. Again, if 70 percent of 
their own voters support voter ID, you would think 10 Senate Democrats 
would do the same thing; that somewhere in that caucus are 10 Senators 
who are willing to listen to the people who sent them here. If we could 
get just 10 of them to stand with us--to stand with their own 
constituents--on this one thing, then let's keep talking. Let's work 
out the rest together.
  So I am going to say it a third time and a fourth time. I have no 
regrets in saying it again.

[[Page S1437]]

  Last night, Senate Democrats voted against voter ID. Now, I have only 
heard two Democrats ever publicly--on this floor or anywhere--say they 
support voter ID, only 2 of the 47 Senate Democrats. The national media 
needs to ask the rest of them directly on camera: Why don't you support 
voter ID? And when they dodge and deflect, that answer should be put 
out for the rest of America to see. The American people deserve to know 
their vote counts. They deserve to know that the person casting the 
ballot next to them has every right to be there. They deserve a system 
they can trust.
  We are going to keep fighting because the American people deserve 
better than the answer we got last night.
  I yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, thank you to my friend and colleague the 
Senator from Kansas for his observations. It is often helpful to have 
the diagnosis of an actual medical doctor when prescribing a problem.
  We have an illness within our election system. Our elections have 
been rendered infirm or at least very insecure by some of these 
features that I noted just a few minutes ago, including the fact that 
the 1993 NVRA, as passed by Congress, has been interpreted the wrong 
way--but conclusively--by the Supreme Court as prohibiting the States 
from taking any voter registration file that comes through the NVRA, 
meaning an application for a driver's license made at a DMV in which 
the applicant checks a box and signs their name, saying: Yes, I would 
like to also register to vote with my driver's license application, and 
I certify with my signature that I am, in fact, a U.S. citizen.
  Once that is done, there can be no further inquiry according to the 
Supreme Court's incorrect but conclusive ruling in this 2013 case 
called Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
  And that, in short, is why we are where we are today. It is most of 
the reason why we need the SAVE America Act. It is because they said 
that the State cannot require--even where citizenship is believed to be 
lacking on the part of one or more applicants, as long as they have 
used the NVRA form at a DMV, the State can't do anything to follow up 
on it.
  As I was noting a minute ago, some of these States do nothing 
themselves to follow up on the question of citizenship, and many of 
them--most of the blue States--have refused to share data with the 
folks at the Department of Homeland Security who run the SAVE database, 
which is designed to help weed out those who have been incorrectly, 
fraudulently, mistakenly, or otherwise placed in a voter registration 
file.
  Again, if a State wants to allow noncitizens to vote in State 
elections, they may do so, and some States have allowed that in the 
context of some of their local elections as has the District of 
Columbia. I still know of no reason why they would want to do that, but 
they may do so if their own laws allow it because the Federal 
Constitution and Federal law doesn't prohibit them from doing so.
  Mr. MORENO. Will my colleague from Utah yield for a question?
  Mr. LEE. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. MORENO. There are just a few of us here in this Chamber, but I 
see my colleague from Connecticut. So I am going to ask the Senator a 
question, my colleague from Utah.
  Would it surprise you to know that, just a couple of years ago, a 
Democrat State representative in Connecticut proposed a bill to allow 
all undocumented noncitizens the right to vote? It is estimated that 
there are 240,000 illegal aliens in the State of Connecticut; yet a 
Democrat-elected official proposed that bill. Would that surprise you?
  Mr. LEE. It surprises me in the sense that it seems phenomenally 
unwise. It would have surprised me earlier in my lifetime. It would 
have surprised me even earlier in my time here in the U.S. Senate; yet 
something has happened in recent years that has eroded this 
longstanding, long-accepted assumption that only citizens vote in our 
elections.
  I am not aware of any other country--certainly not any other country 
that any of us would want to live in, but probably not any other 
country that we wouldn't want to live in either--that would want to 
have or that would allow to have noncitizens vote in their elections 
because an election isn't much of an election if anyone can vote and 
you don't keep track of who is voting and you don't keep track of 
whether there are duplicative votes, especially as to what we are 
focused on here--persons voting who have no right to vote who, by 
voting, would not only be committing a serious felony offense but, by 
voting, would also be diluting the votes cast by lawful voters, by 
actual citizens of that country.
  There has been a trend more in one party than the other, and you can 
guess which one. There has been a trend where people say, let's just 
let everyone vote, and toward thinking of a lot of things like this, 
like noncitizens voting in elections as being something of a victimless 
crime or perhaps, at a minimum, as sort of the required cost of doing 
business.
  Remember how I said a moment ago how our mantra has been and should 
continue to be: Let's make it easy to vote and hard to cheat.
  The Democratic Party has, in recent years, leaned so heavily on 
``let's make it easy to vote'' that they often forget or, in some cases 
defiantly refuse, to finish the sentence. I am talking about hard to 
cheat.
  Now, I understand the point. I understand that, perhaps, they are so 
enthusiastic to just make sure that everyone votes that maybe they 
don't care that some noncitizens might vote. I think this is very 
unwise, and it becomes especially untenable--especially indefensible--
when we now have an estimated 30 million-plus noncitizens residing in 
the United States, 10 to 15 million of whom entered this country 
illegally between 2021 and 2025 alone.
  So, yes, that is shocking in some ways that a Democratic lawmaker in 
a State not too far from where we now stand actually introduced 
legislation trying to open up the franchise like that because when you 
do that, that is not a victimless moment. If you were to create that, 
you would be diluting the votes of lawful citizens. But, again, a State 
may do that if that State's laws and that State's Constitution allow 
it. It would be unwise.
  Nonetheless, by doing that, whenever a State does that, whether for 
statewide State elections or just for local elections within that 
State, it creates a problem. It creates what I would think of as more 
or less a clear and present threat, one that, unless acted upon, will 
culminate in widespread violation of the law.
  As I was describing a few minutes ago, for those handful of States 
that have expressly allowed noncitizen voting in some of their local 
elections, that means individuals have registered to vote who are not 
citizens. Once they have registered to vote, they are registered 
voters. What is to stop them from showing up and saying: ``I am a 
registered voter, and I would like to vote on election day,'' and they 
receive a ballot? And the way ballots in most States work, there is a 
ballot that has Federal elections and State elections and local 
elections all on the same ballot, the same document or sequence of 
documents.
  So when the questions have been asked of those jurisdictions: What, 
if anything, are you doing to separate out those voter registration 
files from those voters who are noncitizens but, nonetheless, allowed 
to vote in local elections in your State, what are you doing to prevent 
them from voting in Federal elections?
  Silence has been a response. A refusal to cooperate has been the 
response. That is chilling.
  All right. Let's get back to what we were talking about a few minutes 
ago. They have been making a series of arguments against the 
citizenship obligation, the citizenship-related provisions of the SAVE 
America Act. And to repeat, we have made it really easy, far easier 
than the citizenship documentation requirements associated with new 
employment. If you are an American citizen and you have ever started a 
new job anywhere in the United States, you have had to fill out an I-9 
form, and with that, you had to comply with a very rigid, specific set 
of document obligations. You had to establish either a U.S. passport, 
one that establishes your citizenship as an American citizen, or, 
alternatively, a U.S. birth certificate and government-issued photo ID 
or original Social Security card. If you can't do that, you are not 
going to

[[Page S1438]]

start your job unless or until you have been able to complete that.
  Again, we made it a lot easier, very deliberately, to comply with the 
SAVE America Act. We have a list of other documents that are widely 
known and recognized by the U.S. Government as establishing 
citizenship, including a certain subcategory of driver's licenses that, 
in some States, these enhanced driver's licenses will affirmatively 
establish citizenship based on the documentation that was required at 
the time the driver's license was received. We included those.
  But we also included this provision that makes it really easy for 
someone who has no documentation at all, is missing some documentation 
or even all of it. They can do so by an affidavit, an attestation just 
providing the basic details about how they became a citizen: when and 
where they were born; whether they were citizens at the time of their 
birth; and if they weren't citizens at the time of their birth, when 
and where and how, by what mechanism, they became naturalized citizens.
  From the moment you do that, you shift the burden onto the State, and 
it is then the State's job to go and confirm or refute what you have 
done.
  Now, if you were lying, they will figure that out. You won't be 
registered, and you may end up getting in trouble for having lied under 
oath with that statement. I assume most people wouldn't do that; very 
few would knowing it is a sworn statement. But if they don't conclude 
that it is false and conclude that it is true--it would be pretty easy 
to confirm once you have provided the names, the dates, locations--then 
you will be registered to vote. No additional documents, in fact, not a 
single document has to be produced by you, just that basic set of 
statements.
  Again, that begins on line 22, page 12, of the legislation we are now 
debating. And yet over and over and over again I hear from my 
Democratic colleagues that are arguing against this how this is going 
to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't have a passport--as many Americans 
don't--and a passport costs a couple hundred dollars. And they then 
often make the logical leap, well, this means you are imposing a poll 
tax, something that has been prohibited by the U.S. Constitution for 
over 60 years.
  This simply is not true. There is not a poll tax. There is not a 
single expense. This doesn't disenfranchise anyone, even if you don't 
have any documents. And it is far more permissive than what you have to 
produce every single time you start a new job in the United States of 
America as a U.S. citizen.
  Here is another argument that is frequently being raised against the 
SAVE America Act. This is a fairly broad argument. It is a surprising 
argument for reasons I am about to explain.
  The Democrats are waving the flag of federalism, purporting to be the 
champions--the newly invigorated champions--of State sovereign 
authority, of the authority of the States within our Federal system. 
That is what I refer to when I mean ``federalism.'' I am referring to 
the 10th Amendment, the broad concept of federalism, the idea that 
Federal Government is as James Madison described in Federalist No. 45, 
a government with powers that Madison described as ``few and defined.'' 
And those powers reserved to the States he described as ``numerous and 
indefinite.''
  My Democrat colleagues, each time they bring this up, they use the 
same term. It is an awkward term. It is an outdated term. It is a 
misnomer, in my opinion. I don't like it. It is ``States' rights.'' 
This is a term that conjures images of George Wallace in the Deep 
South, the Jim Crow South. The Jim Crow policies that the Democratic 
Party, at the time, insisted upon--racist, oppressive, hateful policies 
designed to disadvantage Black Americans and to exclude them from many 
aspects of society, public life, and private life--indefensible.

  They would often invoke this doctrine of States' rights, which was 
then and remains now a misnomer because States do not have rights; 
States have authority. Authority is kind of the opposite of a right. A 
right, in this context, is something that is a privilege, a protection 
against authority being misused against you. So they are kind of the 
yin and the yang. They are polar opposites of each other. They are not 
the same thing.
  All right. I got that out of my chest. Now let's move on to the 
substance of this.
  We will call this federalism or State sovereign authority. They 
purport now to be champions of State sovereign authority. This is 
really interesting. They say that the SAVE America Act--this very 
straightforward bill that just requires proof of citizenship at the 
time of voter registration and photo ID at the time you cast a ballot 
to prove that you are who you claim to be, the same person identified 
in your voter registration file--they claim that this is somehow 
incompatible with constitutional principles of federalism; that it is 
somehow unconstitutional as a Federal takeover of State authority to 
conduct elections.
  Now, this argument would be laughable if it weren't so frightening 
and, frankly, hypocritical.
  Remember that, in the first place, article I, section 4, clause 1, of 
the Constitution couldn't be clearer on this point. I don't know how 
any of these people could even make this argument with a straight face 
for this reason alone, let alone for the other reasons I am about to 
identify. But article I, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution makes 
a couple things clear. First, they acknowledge--wisely, I believe--that 
elections would be conducted by States. They didn't want to set up a 
Federal election authority. It would be cumbersome. It would be 
unnecessary. It would be unwise--too much consolidation of power, 
especially because this was always supposed to be a government of 
limited and enumerated powers.
  So they said that not only for State elections, which, obviously, 
State authorities would manage, but also for the election of Federal 
officials, specifically election of U.S. Senators and U.S. 
Representatives--Members of Congress. Their elections would also be run 
by State officials. They said that the legislatures of the respective 
States would have authority to establish the rules and regulations 
governing those elections, which they themselves would conduct.
  But my Democrat colleagues conveniently leave out the following 
phrase in the same provision, in article I, section 4, clause 1, of the 
Constitution; that phrase being ``but the Congress may at any time . . 
. make or alter such Regulations,'' meaning those regulations, those 
rules and regulations governing specifically the State-run elections to 
choose U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators. It could not be clearer.
  So that is all this is. We are using our authority--our very 
specific, very clear authority--to prescribe those rules and 
regulations.
  It is not just in the abstract that this makes sense, not just in 
that technical, grammatical sense that we have that authority, and that 
is what we are exercising here. This is exactly the kind of thing that 
should be--and I believe must be, perhaps can only be--wielded by the 
Federal sovereign, not by State governments because what we are doing 
here is to establish citizenship.
  Remember, we do have the power to say this, and we have, in fact, 
enacted laws saying that only U.S. citizens may vote. To give meaning 
to that, to render it enforceable, we have the power to ensure that 
that law is being complied with.
  And the U.S. Government is also uniquely in a position to be able to 
ascertain who may be a citizen and who is not a citizen. No single 
State is going to be able to ascertain that question, nor is U.S. 
citizenship itself a creature of State law, as it is of Federal law. It 
is exactly the reason why we have various government Agencies that are 
involved in this, and they are managed, more or less, through the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security, which, among other things, runs this 
database that already exists called the SAVE database that is created 
for, in addition to whatever else it may cover, this very sort of 
thing, so that States sharing information with the U.S. Government may 
cross-tabulate, cross-check, their voter registration files against 
U.S. citizenship data, uniquely in the hands of the U.S. Government, 
and easily ascertain who is a citizen and who is not.
  That is an especially important thing to have, especially considering 
the fact that we had between 10 to 15 million people come into this 
country unlawfully just in a 4-year period alone--separate and apart 
from those who may

[[Page S1439]]

have already been here, just between 2021 and 2025--10 to 15 million 
people entering this country unlawfully. And there are an estimated 30 
million-plus noncitizens residing in this country in almost every 
State.
  Given that almost every State participates in the NVRA, in almost 
every State, any of those noncitizens--whether they are here legally or 
illegally--in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in 2013 in Arizona v. 
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, any one of those people in any NVRA 
State--which is almost every State of the Union--can go into a DMV, 
apply for a driver's license, and by checking one box and then signing 
their name, they may register to vote.
  So it is really important that we have that ability to do that. This 
information is uniquely in the hands of the U.S. Government, which is 
uniquely in a position to define and manage what it means to be a 
citizen and keep track of who is a citizen and who is not.
  And yet these blue States continue, defiantly, to refuse to share 
information. They are actively subverting our ability not only to 
enforce Federal law but to even know when a violation has taken place 
or is taking place, and so that is stunning. That is what makes it all 
the more indefensible for them to oppose this and all the more 
laughable that they purport to be invoking the doctrine of federalism. 
They purport to be invoking the 10th Amendment, to be wrapping 
themselves in the Constitution by saying: This is an outrage; this is a 
Federal takeover of a State function. No, it is not. It is doubly and 
triply not a State function. It is a distinctly, decidedly, by 
designation of the U.S. Constitution, a Federal function.

  Now, for the reasons why this is not just a laughable argument but it 
is also hypocritical, just a few years ago, many of the very same 
Democrats who now occupy this Chamber--in fact, nearly all of them were 
there at the time--and every single Democrat serving in the United 
States during the 117th Congress--that is the Congress empaneled on 
January 3, 2021, serving through January 3, 2023. Remember, that was a 
moment when the House and the Senate and the White House were all 
controlled by Democrats.
  Every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate at that time--which are most 
of the Democrats who are still here--but every one of them that were 
here then tried to pass and supported a bill designated in the 117th 
Congress as H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act, perhaps the most 
aggressive, intrusive, and independently aggressively overreaching 
Federal power grab over elections in American history.
  Now, that bill was not a modest reform. Unlike the SAVE America Act, 
it was not there as an exercise of our very clear and very narrow power 
under article I, section 4, clause 1; nor was it, as the SAVE America 
Act is, a natural outgrowth of an existing Federal law--the NVRA--nor 
was it necessitated by a quirk in the judicial interpretation of an 
existing Federal law--the NVRA--as this is.
  Remember, that is the only reason we are even here. That is the only 
reason the SAVE America Act even became necessary, is because of the 
NVRA and existing Federal law itself imposes obligations on States 
based on the way it was later interpreted after its enactment.
  So, in other words, I say to my Democratic colleagues: If you are 
offended by the SAVE America Act as a supposed Federal overreach, not 
only is that indefensible as a matter of Federal constitutional law--
either the plain text of the Constitution or any Supreme Court 
interpretation thereof--but it also presupposes that if you are opposed 
to this, that you also think the NVRA is itself an unconstitutional 
Federal takeover of State election authority.
  Now, if you think that, then we are going to have a very different 
discussion. But to my knowledge, not one of them has suggested or 
argued that the NVRA is unconstitutional; and if it is not, there is 
not a chance in hell that you can make the argument that the SAVE 
America Act is unconstitutional--not a chance.
  Back to the For the People Act, H.R. 1 in the 117th Congress, it was 
an 800-page monstrosity, a blueprint for nationalizing every meaningful 
aspect of how States run Federal elections--that is, elections for 
Federal office--most importantly, elections for U.S. Senate and the 
U.S. House. And Democrats defended it by citing the exact same 
constitutional authority that they now pretend doesn't exist. That is 
Congress' power under the elections clause to set uniform rules for 
Federal contests.
  Now, let's recall a little bit about what H.R. 1 actually did--I 
should say what it would have done had it been enacted. Mercifully for 
all of us, it wasn't.
  Let's talk about what it did. It didn't just suggest a few changes. 
It didn't just suggest some curative protections to existing Federal 
legislation. No, this is an entirely different beast--and beastly, it 
was. It imposed binding nationwide mandates with Federal court 
enforcement on matters of sweepingly, stunningly broad application. 
Among other things, it forced automatic voter registration at every 
government interaction, overriding State processes, overriding State 
law.
  It mandated same-day voter registration everywhere. This is a big 
issue because States have a broad range of when they deem it 
appropriate to begin or end--especially end--voter registration prior 
to any election. Many States consider it reckless and an invitation--a 
recipe for voter fraud if they allow same-day voter registration. Other 
States don't. You know, that has long been considered their prerogative 
to decide, but this would just have decided it for the entire country.
  It would have required no-excuse absentee voting and minimum periods 
of early voting no matter what State law said. If some States wanted 
and previously had always had much more limited pre-election-day voting 
periods or none at all, it wouldn't matter. It completely eviscerated 
their authority to make such decisions.
  It would have stripped State legislatures of their traditional role--
not just their traditional role, but their constitutional role--a role 
acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution itself and in the respective 
State constitutions--in drawing legislative district maps, specifically 
those mentioned in the U.S. Constitution--the congressional maps; and 
it would have done that by forcing the so-called independent 
redirecting commissions, taking away the authority that has always 
belonged to the States and to the State legislatures--as the 
Constitution--as designed, as the Constitution contemplates and 
ordains--and forced them to adopt these independent redirecting 
commissions whether they wanted to or not.
  It would have severely restricted how States could maintain accurate 
voter rolls, banning removals based solely on failure to vote, limiting 
interstate cross-checks, and imposing cumbersome requirements before 
any cleanup of voter registration files.
  As if that weren't enough of an insult to federalism, to State 
sovereign authority, to good government, local self-rule, or any of the 
other things that we hold dear in our constitutional system, H.R. 1 
went even further than that. It would have legalized unlimited ballot 
harvesting by third parties. It would have barred States from requiring 
witness signatures or notarization on mail-in ballots and forced them 
to count ballots received up to 10 days after election day.
  Now, any of those things in isolation is a powder keg, is a huge, 
huge policy decision. Efforts to change anything like that in State law 
in any State legislature would end up being a very significant debate, 
but this just bulldozed all of it.
  Particularly, when it comes to ballot harvesting--this is troubling. 
Ballot harvesting, when coupled with the existence of widespread, 
universal mail-in ballots, allows for a special kind of mischief, which 
fortunately is thwarted in many States, like my own, that prohibit 
ballot harvesting. And where it exists, it causes a massive risk of 
voter fraud; and yet this would have prohibited the States from banning 
it--every State.
  It would have weakened voter ID laws by allowing sworn statements in 
lieu of actual identification, even if State law would itself have 
required something more. It would have overridden State 
felony disenfranchisement rules, gotten rid of bans imposed by States 
on people voting based on a felony conviction--that, too, has long been 
considered the unique province of the States. This bulldozed over that.

[[Page S1440]]

  And they would have mandated out-of-precinct ballot counting, 
preregistered 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, dictated rigid 
redistricting criteria, banned mid-decade map drawing, and imposed 
Federal standards for polling equipment, drop boxes, curbside voting, 
and much, much more. State election officials were even subjected to 
new Federal restrictions themselves.
  There were also provisions in there that, as I recall, would have 
forced every voting jurisdiction, every precinct--local, statewide, or 
otherwise--to become the effective equivalent of a section 5 
preclearance jurisdiction. Let me explain what that means.
  Under the Voting Rights Act, there are a limited number of voting 
jurisdictions in the United States with a history of racial 
discrimination. Those States, under the Voting Rights Act--or those 
jurisdictions, once they were deemed to have engaged in this, they had 
to subject changes to their legislative districts to some preclearance 
requirements, meaning before they could take effect, some Federal 
officials would have to approve them.
  This would have taken every jurisdiction of the United States--in the 
North, in the South, in the East, in the West--regardless of whether 
they had any tradition, any history at all of any kind of racial or 
other discrimination and said: All of you, before you make any changes 
to your district boundaries, whatever, you have got to come to 
Washington, DC, and receive a ``Mother May I'' permission slip from 
Uncle Sam.
  These were not just incentives. These were not just slight 
modifications. These were commands steamrolling over policies that have 
long been deemed the province of the States.
  Now, every Democrat in the U.S. Senate at the time justified every 
one of them by arguing that Congress could ``provide a complete code 
for congressional elections,'' thus superseding State law. And they 
were right in one respect, that at least one provision of the 
Constitution--article I, section 4, clause 1--gives Congress some 
power, but they were dead wrong about the wisdom, the legality, the 
constitutionality of using legislative reforms like that one to turn 
States and localities into nothing more than administrative 
subdivisions of the Federal Government subject entirely to the will and 
the whim of the Federal sovereign.
  Compared to all of that, the SAVE America Act is the precise opposite 
of that kind of overreach. It doesn't touch early voting. It doesn't 
touch ballot deadlines, redistricting, or campaign finance. It doesn't 
render any district subject--doesn't make any voting district or 
precinct or State--much less all of them--a preclearance jurisdiction. 
It doesn't force States to adopt same-day voter registration or 
independent redirecting commissions, contrary to State constitutions 
and the U.S. Constitution. It simply enforces what has been Federal law 
for decades--most importantly, the Federal law that has been on the 
book for decades and says that only U.S. citizens may vote in Federal 
elections.
  It requires basic documentary proof of citizenship at the time of 
registration with reasonable, very flexible, affordable--and, in fact, 
free--alternatives to those documentary requirements and a photo ID at 
the polls, the bare minimum commonsense demands that we make after 
years of open borders. It even helps States clean up their rolls by 
directing data sharing with the Department of Homeland Security.
  If Congress could constitutionally force every State to count out-of-
precinct ballots and legalize unlimited ballot harvesting under H.R. 1, 
it can certainly require proof that voters are actually Americans.
  Now, of course, it can't do the former. H.R. 1 was blatantly 
unconstitutional for a whole host of reasons, not to mention its many 
policy defects. But my point is this: Every Democrat in the U.S. Senate 
saw no problem--no problem at all--with the constitutionality of H.R. 
1. This is the equivalent of straining at a gnat while swallowing a 
camel. In fact, that comparison is almost an understatement. The 
difference isn't just in the magnitude, isn't just constitutional; it 
is also political.
  (Mr. JOHNSON assumed the Chair.)
  Democrats cheered Federal preemption when it was sweeping; when it 
expanded access and, in their view, as they saw it, their voter base; 
when they saw it as consistent with their own political interests; when 
they saw it as a chance to secure significant gains in elections.
  They screamed federalism--or, as they put it, States' rights--the 
moment the focus shifts to election eligibility and integrity. And they 
scream it even where, as here, this is plainly well within what the 
Federal Government is authorized to do and plainly within the same 
statutory context that already exists, that has existed for decades, 
and that not one of my Democrat colleagues has called on us to repeal.
  If the SAVE America Act is somehow unconstitutional as a Federal 
overreach, then the NVRA is a far worse infraction, and yet you don't 
hear them saying that because it is not true. This is selective 
federalism of the very worst kind. The same crowd that tried to 
nationalize American elections--truly nationalize them--is now engaging 
in this aggressive pearl-clutching exercise about State authority the 
instant we try to stop noncitizens from diluting the votes of actual 
citizens.
  And, make no mistake, that is what is happening. That is what happens 
every time a noncitizen casts a vote. This is not a victimless crime. 
This is not a harmless infraction. This is not the voting equivalent of 
removing, however recklessly and wantonly and willfully, the ``Do Not 
Remove'' tags from a mattress.
  The same crowd that tried to nationalize American elections is now 
engaging in this awful pearl-clutching about State authority the 
instant, the second, the millisecond we try to stop noncitizens from 
diluting the votes of actual American citizens. And the American people 
aren't buying this, nor should they.
  Look, the Constitution does not recognize any political parties, and 
not only that, it certainly doesn't allow one party to federalize 
elections when it happens to help them and then invoke federalism as a 
shield when they are about to be held accountable, when people are 
about to be held accountable, when State officials are about to be held 
accountable for facilitating the wanton violation of Federal law.
  So no--no--the SAVE America Act does not violate federalism. It 
vindicates the sovereign authority of the American people, the true 
sovereigns of our system, to choose their own government, and it does 
so with far, far more restraint than Democrats ever showed when the 
shoe was on the other foot, when they were pushing an 800-page 
monstrosity that was itself an indefensible Federal takeover of State 
authority.
  Congress should pass the SAVE America Act without apology. This 
hypocrisy has gone on long enough. Their constitutional arguments here 
do not hold water--not at all, not for an instant.
  You know, it is interesting that, as we stand here today, the 
Department of Homeland Security has gone unfunded, thanks to Senate 
Democrats, for over a month. They have been going without pay. How 
tragic that is that these individuals, who are working hard--they are 
having to work hard. They are not wealthy people. If you think of 
everyone from TSA agents to ICE agents and everybody else in the 
Department of Homeland Security continuing to have to work, these are 
not wealthy people. And there are so many of them who, in addition to 
not being paid, still have to work and have to work doing really hard 
jobs, sometimes risky jobs. This is not fair.
  Then what is the parallel between the two? Well, I find it 
interesting that the same Department that has now been unfunded is the 
same Department that, among other things, oversees the SAVE database 
and the offices, the Agencies within the Department of Homeland 
Security that exist to help ensure election integrity and security, 
that are there to help States to review their voter registration files 
and identify those who are not citizens and thus shouldn't be voting. 
Those same offices, those same personnel themselves remain defunded.
  During this discussion this afternoon, the Senator from Maryland was 
speaking about some of these incidents. Even though these things appear 
to be unrelated--on the one hand, the SAVE America Act and its merits 
which we have been debating, and on

[[Page S1441]]

the other hand, funding for the Department of Homeland Security--I 
sometimes think that they are not very unrelated at all, especially 
because they are defunding the very entity that could and otherwise 
would and should--and if we were able to enact the SAVE America Act, 
ultimately would--help protect our elections, to make sure that they 
are secure, to make sure that they are free from foreign election 
interference, which is exactly what happens when we allow foreign 
nationals, not citizens of the United States, to vote in our elections.
  She referred to ICE agents, to ICE as a whole, as a ``goon'' squad. 
She accused ICE of being out there, deployed, and killing people. This 
is sad. This is tragic.
  (Mr. MARSHALL assumed the Chair.)
  Now, keep in mind there are about 22,000 ICE agents. A subset of 
those--about 6,000 of them--are responsible for apprehending and 
removing those removable illegal aliens that are in the country, so 
about 6,000 out of the 22,000. Then it is a much lower subset of the 
6,000 that she might be referring to when she accuses ICE, a much 
broader Agency, of killing people and being a ``goon'' squad.
  How many of those people were actually involved in any of the 
activity she has complained about? I don't know the answer, but it is 
not 6,000. It sure as hell isn't 22,000, and it sure as hell isn't 
260,000. That is the total number of employees going unpaid within the 
Department of Homeland Security. So this is collective punishment at 
its worst, at its most indefensible.
  She and her Democrat colleagues stand here today, continue over a 
month into this shutdown--not concerned, blaming the collective for 
what she is complaining about with just a few, before investigations 
are even complete and before we know where, when, to what extent 
wrongdoing on the part of any agents might have been involved.
  This is wrong. It is not just wrong, but I sometimes wonder, is this, 
in fact, a willful attempt to subvert the enforcement of our laws--not 
just our immigration laws but also our laws that govern our elections, 
that protect our elections from foreign election interference? As they 
say in Latin, ``res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.
  Before I wrap up, I want to thank our Republican leadership in the 
Senate. I want to thank my friend and colleague the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming who serves as the Republican whip, and I want to 
thank my friend and colleague the distinguished Senator from South 
Dakota, the majority leader, Senator John Thune, for their leadership. 
I want to thank them for keeping us here through this weekend to keep 
us debating these matters.
  We have no business going home--not for a weekend, not for a recess. 
We have no business going home until this is done. We have to get DHS 
funded. We have to get the SAVE America Act passed. And yes, they are 
related. For the very same reason we need one, we also need the other. 
And for this very same reason that they oppose one, they oppose the 
other.
  But the fact is, the American people are not with them; they are with 
us. The American people understand that it is not fair to punish the 
collective for what may or may not be the wrongdoing of just a few. The 
American people understand that it is not an act of aggression, 
certainly not an unconstitutional overreach, certainly not an egregious 
abuse of power, or anything other than common sense to require people 
who vote in U.S. elections to be American citizens and to end this 
barbaric practice to which we have been subjected for far too long and 
which we are told: Yeah, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote, but you 
can't do anything about it. They have rendered it unenforceable. We are 
trying to fix that with a narrowly tailored piece of legislation.
  Now, if one of them--even one of them--wants to talk about changes 
that we could make that would make them feel better about it, I am all 
ears. I have been listening to that for 3 days now--and longer than 
that, before we got on it. But since we got onto this bill about 3 days 
ago, I have been listening especially attentively for anyone to make a 
constructive suggestion from the other side or even an argument that is 
itself defensible in light of what the SAVE America Act actually does, 
in light of what Federal law actually says, and in light of what the 
U.S. Constitution actually allows, authorizes, and says, and I have yet 
to hear it.
  Sometimes I wonder what it is that they actually want. Do they 
actually want our borders to remain open, as they were between 2021 and 
2025? Do they, beyond this, actually want noncitizens to continue to be 
able to vote, even when we know that in some States they are openly 
allowing or even inviting noncitizens to participate in some local 
elections, even when they know that there are thousands upon thousands 
of noncitizen registered voters that have been detected just in the 
small handful of States that have, on their own, undertaken a review to 
see who is registered? They have found thousands, and that process is 
far from complete yet. How many more are there?
  How long are the American people to be expected to suffer through a 
system that invites, allows, and perpetuates forces that will 
undeniably dilute and, by diluting, ultimately deprive them of one of 
their most sacred rights--their right to vote?
  Finally, when we talk about constitutional protections of rights, my 
colleagues say again and again and again that because their right to 
vote is constitutionally protected--and it is, by multiple amendments, 
in multiple ways, by the Constitution--that that somehow means that you 
can't put any reasonable restrictions on it. Well, that is not true. 
That has never been true. We do have restrictions on them all the time. 
We also have restrictions on a lot of other constitutionally protected 
rights, and that doesn't mean that you don't have to prove who you are 
and that you have the right to do the thing you want to be able to do.
  We already have to prove our citizenship every time we start a new 
job with the document requirements that are far more strict than those 
are here. We already have to divulge all kinds of information that is 
far more intrusive than anything required here.
  In fact, on the subject of specifically constitutionally protected 
rights, the right to bear arms--do you know what you have to do when 
you want to buy a gun through a federally licensed firearms dealer? You 
have to provide ID, and you have to show that you are who you say you 
are. Then they run it through a database to make sure that, in addition 
to being who you say you are, that you also have the right to exercise 
the constitutionally protected right that you want to exercise by 
buying that gun.
  It is the same exact thing. It is also a constitutionally protected 
right. And yet we allow it why? Well, because we have laws, and those 
laws decide how that right may be exercised, and we ban certain persons 
from wielding that right. For example, if you are an alien illegally or 
unlawfully present in the United States or you are a convicted felon or 
you fit into any of the other categories in 18 U.S.C. section 922(g), 
you are not allowed to purchase, possess, use, or probably even think 
about a gun. You will be prohibited from doing so.
  They are apparently OK with that. If they are OK with that--and that 
is a constitutionally protected right--why aren't they OK with this, 
when here, when somebody else exercises that right, they are 
undermining your vote, my vote, the vote of every American citizen?
  We cannot allow that to happen. I will continue to come back to the 
Senate Chamber every day--day after day, week after week, month after 
month--if that is what it takes to get this thing passed, but it will 
pass. We will not stop until it does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

                          ____________________