[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 14, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Page S1718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVE America Act
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we spent the weeks before Easter debating
the SAVE America Act here in the Senate. And since the debate began, we
have seen Democrats contort themselves every which way to justify
opposing the commonsense policies in this bill.
On no issue is that more evident than voter ID. Polls show that 80
percent of Americans support voter ID. Majorities of Americans in both
parties support this commonsense requirement, but among Democrats here
in the Senate, it is a different story.
Sure, Democrats have spent the last few weeks claiming that they
support voter ID, but when it came time to vote on a reasonable, stand-
alone voter ID proposal, every Democrat opposed it.
That is right. Senate Democrats have been trying to rebrand
themselves as supporters of voter ID, but when Republicans offered a
straightforward voter ID proposal, every single Democrat in the Senate
voted against it.
I want to be clear about what Republicans put forward and what
Democrats opposed. Senator Husted--someone who knows quite a bit about
administering elections as the former two-term chief election official
in the State of Ohio--offered a very simple voter ID amendment. The
only--only--thing it did requires a photo ID at the polls: A driver's
license, Tribal ID, military ID, veteran ID, passport, the types of IDs
that are sitting in wallets right now and that the American people use
on a regular basis. That is it.
Supporting this amendment would not have obliged Democrats to support
the underlying SAVE America Act. Democrats would have been free to vote
for voter ID and then vote against the other commonsense policies in
the SAVE America Act.
But Democrats couldn't bring themselves to vote even for standalone
voter ID legislation. And it turns out that when Democrats say they
support voter ID, they don't mean actual IDs.
When Republicans--and Americans, I would argue--talk about ID, we all
mean the same thing: something with a picture, an expiration date,
something issued by a government.
And to hear Democrats talk in the lead-up to the voter ID vote, you
would have thought that is exactly what they were talking about too.
The senior Senator from New Jersey went on CNN and said:
[W]e all want people who go to vote, to show a valid ID.
The Democrat whip said:
I'm not opposed to that. They ask you for an ID at the
airport, don't they? That's reasonable.
Yes, it is reasonable.
The junior Democrat from New York said this:
The IDs that we have in our wallets should be good enough
to vote.
Well, that is exactly what we offered: licenses, State ID cards,
Tribal IDs were all acceptable forms of ID in our proposal, the same
kinds of IDs that we have in our wallets right now.
Multiple Democrat Senators even acknowledged that their own States
have voter ID requirements and that they work.
The junior Senator from Georgia came to the floor and said this:
I think you should have to prove that you are who you say
you are before you vote. I support voter ID. We have voter ID
laws in my State. You should have to prove that you are who
you say you are before you vote.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
And the Democrat leader said:
[O]ur objection, as Democrats, is not to a photo ID.
Except as Democrats' recent vote demonstrates, that is not actually
true. Before the vote, the Democrat leader spoke on the floor and made
it clear that when he says he supports voter ID, he means that he
supports voter ID as long as the ID requirements in question are
essentially meaningless. And he is not the only one.
To quote a recent news story, the junior Senator from Colorado said
he ``supports voter ID but signaled he will vote no when informed that
the bill does not allow voters to use a utility bill to prove
identity.''
He voted no because you can't show a utility bill as a form of ID.
You can't make this stuff up.
The Senator from Colorado used to own a brewery in Denver, and I have
to wonder whether you could show a utility bill to buy a beer there. I
doubt it.
But this is what Democrats think is good enough for our elections.
The Democrat leader has said that voter ID requirements need to be
``inclusive'' and ``flexible,'' and he referenced a bill Democrats put
forward a few years ago that included the sort of ID requirements that
he says Democrats support.
Well, let me read a few of the so-called IDs that that bill would
have found acceptable for voters: a debit card, a utility bill, an
expired fishing license, any document containing an individual's name--
just their name--from any government, and of course, a photocopy of any
of those would have been fine too.
If this ID list were any more inclusive, my Jones County High School
basketball jersey would have counted.
In any other circumstance, requiring an ID means requiring an
actual--actual--ID. You can't board a plane by showing a photocopy of
your debit card. You can't do an early pickup at your daughter's school
by showing a copy of your electric bill.
Republicans believe that we should apply the same standard to voting.
The American people are presenting their photo IDs on a regular basis
and having a pretty easy go of it. We don't think it is too much to ask
for the same when they go to vote.
Ask anyone on the street for their ID, chances are they are going to
pull out their driver's license, not their water bill. The American
people know what an ID is. I guess we are still waiting for Democrats
here in the Senate to figure it out.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.