[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1561-S1565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to
Proceed--Resumed
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R.
7147.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill
making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
SAVE America Act
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if one thing is abundantly clear from
polling,
[[Page S1562]]
it is that there are a lot of Americans out there of both parties who
find voter ID requirements and proof of citizenship requirements for
voter registration to be pretty commonsense policies.
One poll, in fact, showed that a whole lot of voters already believe
proof of citizenship is required to register--I assume because it seems
pretty darned common sense to most people to ensure that those
registered to vote are eligible.
I mean, Americans are pretty used to proving eligibility--joining the
military, signing up for Little League, applying for SNAP benefits,
signing up for Medicare, starting a new job, all situations in which
Americans have to prove that they are eligible.
And you know what? Americans are doing a pretty good job in those
situations. I haven't heard a lot of sob stories about how someone
would have signed up their kids for Little League if only the paperwork
wasn't so darned complicated. And yet, do you know what Little League
requires? A birth certificate, and not one, not two, but three proofs
of residence. And yet somehow every year thousands of kids sign up for
these teams.
Do you know what else you need a birth certificate for? Signing your
kid up for public school. That is right. A birth certificate is an
extremely common requirement, and somehow parents of all sorts of
backgrounds and income levels have managed to produce their child's
birth certificate to sign them up for school. If only Democrats knew
that.
The senior Democrat Senator from Vermont was on the floor the other
day bewailing the SAVE America Act's birth certificate requirement for
voter registration. This is what he said ``[A]s many as 69 million
married women have last names that do not match their birth
certificates and would need to provide additional documentation proving
their name changes in order to register to vote,'' he lamented.
``Further, an estimated 4 million Americans have had their birth
certificates or other necessary documents stolen or destroyed. If you
are watching this out there, just think: Do you have a birth
certificate? How are you going to get a birth certificate? . . . You
will have to go through all of the bureaucracy to get your birth
certificate.''
Well, first, can I just say how nice it is to hear a Democrat Senator
worried about government bureaucracy. The very same Senator who has
repeatedly introduced legislation to drown your healthcare in
government bureaucracy is now worried about the bureaucracy at vital
records offices. It is nice.
But setting that aside, let's talk about the rest of his statement.
Let's say you are one of those Americans that the Senator claims have
had their birth certificates stolen or destroyed. Well, let's see. What
would you do?
Probably the same thing you would do if you misplaced your child's
birth certificate and had to register him or her for school or Little
League: A quick Google search to find the replacement process in your
State--frequently an in-person visit, an online application, or a mail-
in application. It is your choice. You can do any of the above.
And as for married women, well, let's talk about married women.
Throughout this debate, Democrats have pushed the ludicrous narrative
that married women will be disenfranchised under the SAVE America Act.
Well, give me a break. Let's go over the scenarios if you are a married
woman.
One, if you decided not to change your name, then you don't have to
do anything about your voter registration.
Two, if you have changed your name socially but not legally, then,
once again, you don't have to do anything.
And, three, if you have changed your name legally and apply for a new
driver's license, you can update your voter registration at the same
time--just as you can under the current motor voter law.
So the scenarios in which a married woman would have any trouble
voting are somewhere between exceedingly rare and nonexistent. But just
in case, the SAVE America Act adds a provision to allow women to sign
an affidavit testifying to their name change. And if their State allows
same-day registration, they can do that on the same day that they vote.
So married women will be just fine under the SAVE America Act.
Sometimes I wonder about the view my Democrat colleagues seem to have
of the American people and, in this debate, of their voters in
particular. The junior Democrat Senator from Oregon had this to say at
the beginning of the debate:
This bill is about stopping groups from voting who tend to
vote for Democrats.
This bill is about stopping groups from voting who tend to
vote for Democrats.
Well, one of two things is going on here. Either the Senator from
Oregon thinks there are a lot of noncitizens voting in our elections
and they are voting for Democrats or else he has a pretty poor opinion
of Democratic voters. Is he suggesting that Democrat voters are too
dumb to be able to obtain a birth certificate or a driver's license?
How does he think they are starting new jobs or signing their kids up
for school or going to the doctor or doing any one of the hundred other
things that require a birth certificate or a photo ID--for themselves
or for their child? I may be a Republican, but I am 100 percent
confident that Democrat voters are capable of obtaining their birth
certificate, if they don't already have it, and producing a photo ID.
Is this where Democrats get their belief in Big Government? Do they
think Americans are too stupid to figure out how to do anything for
themselves and so they need Democrats in Washington to do things for
them? Come on. Americans are more than used to providing documentation,
whether that is a birth certificate, Social Security card, photo ID, or
a passport. I don't think it is too burdensome to suggest that we
require some of that same documentation for voting to maintain the
security of our elections.
The American people certainly don't seem to think it is too
burdensome. Poll after poll shows that Americans support proof of
citizenship to vote and a photo ID at the polls. Perhaps Democrats
should listen to them.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the last speaker was the Republican
Senator who leads the majority in the Senate. He is talking about a
bill that is pending before us which changes the way people in America
will be required to register to vote. It is a question of proving who
you are and where you are from.
We know, historically, that showing an ID is pretty common. If you
buy an airplane ticket, you show an ID. It happens all the time. And
what do we usually show? Our driver's license. It has our picture on
there and basic information to prove who you are, and it is sufficient
in virtually every place in America--but not for this bill.
This bill, creating a new law, says that your driver's license is not
enough identification. What can you use to prove who you are and where
you were born? A passport. You have heard it suggested that obtaining a
passport is rather routine. It is not routine. If you have done it, you
know what I am talking about. First, you are going to have to pay a fee
for a passport: $165. You may have to wait 3, 4 weeks or maybe even a
month or more. So if you are trying to get a passport in time to
register to vote, to vote in an election, you had better think ahead a
few months, and you better have the money--$165--to get the job done.
There is another proof that you can make, and that is your birth
certificate. Of course, that is not always easily available for
everybody. Do you know where your birth certificate is, a copy that you
can use? I think mine is upstairs in the closet in the bedroom. I have
to check. I think that is where I left it, but I am not 100 percent
certain. And there is a complication on the birth certificate if you
are a married woman. You may have taken his name now, and so your birth
certificate doesn't reflect the name that you use legally today.
The third possibility may be some form of ID with a photo on it. It
is not clear in this bill.
[[Page S1563]]
So you say to yourself: Why would we--if we do 50 million voter
registrations a year--and that is on the average--50 million a year--
why would we change all of those registrations to vote with new
standards of proof? Because of the argument on the other side that
there are illegal aliens voting in America.
Well, they had better take care if they try that. It is against the
law today, without any change on the Senate floor, if you try to vote
and you are not legally an American citizen. How often does it happen?
Well, we are talking about 50 million registrations a year.
So between the years 1999 and 2023, in that 24-year period of time,
how many people who were not American citizens were actually caught
trying to vote in America? Fifty million people a year registered.
Would you guess 7 million, to justify us changing the law for everybody
in America? No, it is not 7 million. How about 700,000 in a 24-year
period of time? No, it is not 700,000. How about 70,000? No. How about
700? No.
Seventy-seven people in the United States of America, in a 24-year
period of time, tried to vote when they were not legally entitled to
vote--77 people. So the Republicans want us to change all of the laws
on registration across the United States because of 77 people over a
24-year period of time. Does this sound like a crisis situation? Not to
me.
We have the most accurate and honest and valid voting system in the
world; there is no doubt about it. Trying to create the impression
otherwise is just plain wrong. The facts don't back you up.
Then what is this all about? Why would we have to pass this bill
before any other measure, any other legislation? That is what President
Trump said: I won't consider anything. If a proposal was brought to him
to make sure that people working at the airport are paid on time, he
said: I am not taking that up until you pass the voting bill.
Why is it so important to him to change registration to vote? Because
it is going to create chaos in the situation for the next election,
which is only a few months away. He is worried about the outcome.
Historically, the President's party doesn't do well in an off-year
election, and so he is trying to find ways to diminish the number of
voters in America in certain areas. It is their strategy. It is their
algorithm that they are following. It doesn't make sense.
We need to protect the right for legally eligible Americans to
register to vote and to vote. We shouldn't have a poll tax, like a new
passport fee of $165, to make you eligible to go register to vote in
your precinct. Fifty million people a year are going to register to
vote based on what we change. If it is a true constitutional challenge,
if it is a true legal crisis, let's change it. But 77 in 24 years?
That, to me, doesn't strike me as any kind of a crisis. It is a crisis
that is being created by the Republican leadership to push a bill that
is unnecessary.
Many people fought and died for our right to vote. We shouldn't have
it taken away from us because we have stacked up bureaucracy in the
path toward registration. That doesn't make sense.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
S. 1383
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, I would first like to talk about
the voter ID amendment that Senator Thune talked about on the floor.
Today, Leader Thune is going to appease the MAGA far right with
another amendment Republicans claim is about commonsense voter ID.
But let's be very clear: This amendment is a giant coverup. It was
never in the original bill.
The bill--98, 99 percent of it--is about suppressing voters, about
taking them off the voter rolls, unbeknownst to them, so they cannot
vote.
The bottom line is very simple: 99 percent of this bill has nothing
to do with voter ID--what a voter does when they arrive at a polling
place to vote. The vast majority of this bill, the overwhelming bulk,
is about suppressing people on the voter rolls--taking them off, not
even knowing about it.
And it is a coverup. When the Republicans saw that everyone saw
through their so-called voter ID amendment, which is not about voter ID
but about suppressing the vote, they got worried. So they added this
amendment to the original bill, and now Leader Thune is going to ask
for a vote on it.
But it is a coverup to cover up what is a giant voter suppression
bill. That is the real purpose. That is what 99 percent or so of this
bill does, but they can't say that because it is so devastatingly
wrong, unconstitutional, and unpopular with the American people. So
they are trying to cover up with this amendment.
Let me talk about the amendment.
Republicans say their amendment is a reasonable approach to voter ID.
It is not. It is not true when you look under the hood. What
Republicans won't tell you is that, first, this MAGA voter ID proposal
is more sweeping and restrictive than every State--every State--
Democrat or Republican.
So Republican Senators, this will make it even harder for people to
identify themselves in your States.
This amendment would preempt all State laws and was drafted by a MAGA
think tank expert who was part of the Trump 2020 fake elector scheme.
Second, MAGA's voter ID provision would block student, veteran, and
other State and Federal IDs.
Can you imagine? You can't use your--under this amendment, you can't
use your veteran ID, after you served the country and you want to come
back and vote, and you show your voter ID, which has been used for so
many different legitimate purposes.
And they say: Nope, it doesn't meet this new law.
Third, Democrats support commonsense voter ID standards. States
require varying forms of voter ID, either at registration, at the
polls, or both. We support both. We support those.
Democrats' Freedom to Vote Act, from a few years ago, set flexible,
comprehensive standards based on West Virginia's then-law for voter ID
requirements. It was something I think that Senator Manchin talked
about and helped get written into the bill.
Ours is supposed to help people vote by making ID within reach.
Theirs is very limiting. It doesn't even allow a soldier's ID as a
mechanism.
Our bill--our proposal in the Democratic Freedom to Vote Act--from a
few years back, provides flexibility for States and inclusive options
for voters. That is a commonsense approach to election integrity and
voter access.
This Republican amendment, however, does not. As I said, this is a
giant coverup to disguise the real purpose of the SAVE Act, which is to
kick 20 million people off the voter rolls, most of them not even
knowing that it has happened to them.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. President, now, talking about this bill, Senators continue
negotiations to reach an agreement to fund TSA, fund the Coast Guard,
FEMA, and CISA, and fund other critical Agencies, while at the same
time securing real reforms to rein in ICE.
We had made some modest progress over the weekend, before Donald
Trump threw a temper tantrum yesterday, demanding that the SAVE Act be
part of any deal to pay TSA workers. Attaching voter suppression to TSA
paychecks was an outrageous demand from the start. Democrats knew it.
Republicans knew it. And we wasted a day of negotiations because of
Donald Trump's temper tantrum. A day may not seem like a lot to the
President, but that is another day TSA workers are needlessly waiting
for checks, another day of travelers standing for hours at a time at
security.
Fortunately, it seems like things are getting back on track this
morning. Donald Trump, perhaps realizing that Democrats will block
voter suppression in the Senate--the SAVE Act--seems to have gotten
over his temper tantrum--we hope, for a little while. With him, you
never know.
Republicans can, hopefully, now come back to the table and get
serious about reaching a solution to pay TSA workers ASAP.
We await to hear from them in a written proposal that we will review,
because, right now, the situation at our airports is untenable. TSA
wait times in Houston reached 6 hours at one point over the weekend.
And what does Donald Trump do? He sends ICE agents to the airports.
ICE
[[Page S1564]]
agents don't know the first thing about airport security. They aren't
trained to screen travelers. They don't know the layout and protocols
of the airports they have been sent to.
And it sounds like ICE agents aren't really doing anything once they
get to the airport--many of them. They are just paid to stand around,
posted by exits and baggage claims, just people watching.
What is the point? What is the point? As Americans are waiting hours
in line at the airport, they are asking each other: Why is Trump paying
these ICE agents, who seem to have little to do, instead of using those
dollars to pay TSA agents so the lines can go much more quickly?
Americans waiting in line are asking those questions.
Just because something popped into Donald Trump's head--put ICE
agents at the airports--and his administration just says, ``Yes, sir,''
even though they know it is a ridiculous idea, doesn't mean we should
continue.
We should have the TSA paid.
Of course, perhaps, it may not be that security is Donald Trump's
main goal in sending ICE to the airports. Listen to this.
Yesterday, in a podcast, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said Trump
should use these agents ``as a test run . . . to really perfect ICE's
involvement in the 2026 . . . elections.''
Again, Bannon: Trump should use these agents ``as a test run''--his
words--``to really perfect ICE's involvement in the 2026 . . .
elections.''
This is bone-chilling. Steve Bannon is saying the quiet part out
loud, calling ICE's deployment to airports ``a test run'' for the
midterms.
This is how authoritarians turn law enforcement into intimidation
forces. This is why Democrats are so intent on reining ICE in.
The disease of undermining elections is rampant in the rightwing of
the Republican Party, and it seems they will use any means they can to
achieve that goal. They know that Donald Trump and Republicans are in
trouble this November, and they will do whatever it takes--legal or
not--to prevent a legitimate election.
ICE needs to leave the airports now. Trump needs to pay TSA workers
now and push Republicans to reach a deal. No intimidation forces at our
airports, no more chaos at checkpoints--enough is enough.
Mr. President, let me just finish with this on vote-by-mail. This
morning, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump--who constantly
complains about vote-by-mail, who says it is rife with fraud--used
vote-by-mail himself in a special election in Florida.
Can you believe it?
According to Donald Trump, vote-by-mail is cheating when other people
use it, but perfectly fine when he does it himself. What a hypocrite
this man is--what a hypocrite.
Maybe Donald Trump should ask for another amendment to the SAVE Act
to create a Presidential exception for mail-in ballots because,
apparently, his own rules do not apply to him.
And, of course, the White House is now offering ridiculous excuses,
saying: The President is a busy man. He obviously lives in the White
House.
This is all nonsense. A single mom with three kids and two jobs is
just as busy as Donald Trump, and he is doing everything he can to stop
her from voting, while voting by mail himself because he is busy.
Donald Trump goes to Mar-a-Lago almost every weekend. His polling
location is less than 15 minutes away by car. If he wanted to vote in
person, he easily could. His decision to vote by mail shows just how
hypocritical Donald Trump is about fraud and cheating.
That is who he is, I am afraid. That tells you everything. It shows
not only Donald Trump's hypocrisy but the complete baselessness of his
claims about voter fraud. It shows that the whole point of pushing this
bill is to make it harder for people to cast a ballot.
And as I mentioned in the beginning, voting for the Thune amendment
along those lines is just a coverup to hide what the bill, the SAVE
Act, really does.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Iran
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the recent decision to waive oil sanctions
on Russia and Iran in an attempt to stabilize oil prices frees up both
of these adversaries to sell their oil at market prices.
Waiving oil sanctions now enriches the very countries that we wish to
harm. It advantages the countries that wish to do us harm.
Iran and Russia are actively working to place Americans and other
innocent lives at risk. Iran has provided Russia with critical drone
technology to use in terrorizing Ukrainians. And Russia is reportedly
providing intelligence that allows Iran to target U.S. facilities and
critical infrastructure throughout the Middle East.
I urge the administration to immediately delist these waivers and not
renew them once they expire after 30 days.
Last October, President Trump took the extraordinary step of imposing
sanctions on Russia's two largest energy producers, LUKOIL and Rosneft.
This move was long overdue, and it corrected yet another error of
President Biden's handling of Russia's war against Ukraine.
Here in this body, in the Senate, more than 80 Senators have added
their names to legislation to further sanction Russian oil, and there
is significant support to get this legislation passed.
In the months following President Trump's new sanctions, Russia's
revenue dropped significantly. Vladimir Putin was beginning to feel the
budgetary pressures, forcing him to choose between which domestic
program to cut to sustain his war of aggression in Ukraine.
The effect of President Trump's sanctions policy is now at risk of
being reversed. To combat rising oil prices, the Treasury Department
recently lifted sanctions for a period of 30 days on Russian oil
already at sea.
The Financial Times estimates that Russia is earning $150 million a
day, or nearly $2 billion, since the Strait of Hormuz was effectively
closed at the start of the month. In the span of a 30-day waiver,
Russia could reap nearly $5 billion in a single month.
Similarly, with the waivers for Iran announced last Friday, one
report says Iran could make as much as $14 billion from their sales. It
makes no sense. It makes no sense to provide financial relief to a
country that we are currently fighting.
The impacts of these waivers will be immediate. Russia can now more
easily fund its war machine, from producing more drones and ballistic
missiles to offering more pay for enlistees.
The influx of cash is a gift to one of our Nation's greatest
adversaries intent on continuing its war in Ukraine; dividing NATO; and
cooperating with China, Iran, and North Korea to undermine American
interests.
The infusion of money for Tehran will enable it to rebuild
capabilities that have been degraded over the past several weeks. Iran
can also fund its proxy networks that threaten our interests in Iraq,
Lebanon, and Yemen. The waivers signal desperation to the Iranian
regime and reinforces that their strategy of taking the Strait of
Hormuz hostage is working.
Since Putin began his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, he has
wagered that he can outlast the United States of America. He can
outlast Europe and other nations supporting Ukraine.
Likewise, the Iranian regime believes it can endure pain for longer
than its neighbors and the United States. It is up to us to make sure
that that bet they both lose.
Here at home, Americans are not immune to the sacrifices that come
from waging war. Certainly, our servicemembers and their families are
paying a price, but it is not expected that Americans can go without
suffering as well.
This is a reminder of the urgent need to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and strengthen domestic energy production. Energy touches
every aspect of daily life, whether heating our homes, irrigating our
crops, operating a business, or simply filling up the tank.
To secure a stable and affordable energy future, we must pursue a
long-term strategy that expands and diversifies our domestic energy
portfolio. That includes drilling more oil domestically, permitting
reform and advancing biofuels, hydrogen, and the next generation of
nuclear technologies and
[[Page S1565]]
hydropower resources that can bolster our resilience and reduce
vulnerabilities to global markets.
I have long supported allowing the year-round, nationwide sale of
E15. Expanding access to this affordable fuel blend gives consumers
more choices at the pump and strengthens markets for our Nation's
farmers and ethanol producers.
Now is the time to continue to invest in our own energy production so
we are not dependent upon foreign countries to supply us with energy.
In both Russia and in Iran, the economic pressures of sanctions had
begun to bite. Russia cannot achieve a breakthrough on the battlefield,
and more money is needed to bribe ordinary Russians to fight.
In Iran, mismanagement of the economy under sanctions led to major
protests over the past decade.
President Trump's sanctions are an essential component to the efforts
to pressure Putin into ending his war and forcing Iran to come to the
negotiating table. This tool is more important now than ever. Now is
the time to keep the pressure on through the use of sanctions and choke
off Russia and Iran's oil revenues that is funding their military
operations. They are our adversaries. We should keep the sanctions on.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________