John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 696.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Americans are pretty used to presenting their photo IDs. These days, you need one for just about everything you do. Driving a car, you better have your license on you. Starting a new job, you will need to show a photo ID. Want to be an emergency snow shoveler in New York City, you need to bring two forms of ID for that. You need a photo ID to open a bank account or visit your doctor. You could be asked for a photo ID before you get on a plane or check into a hotel. You need to have your ID ready to buy an alcoholic drink or to go into an R-rated movie. So it is safe to say Americans are taking their IDs out on a regular basis and having a pretty easy go of it. Yet, when it comes to voting, Democrats talk like requiring a photo ID is some kind of an insurmountable burden, and that really doesn't make sense. As I said, most Americans are taking out their IDs on a regular basis and for things that are a lot less important than voting. In the city of Washington, DC, for example, you need to show a photo ID any time you go to use a city rec center. Yes, if you are in a basketball league or trying to swim a few laps in the pool, you need to show an ID here in Washington, DC. But you can vote in this city, perhaps in that very rec center, without showing a photo ID. Now, how does that make any sense? There is a very clear difference between using a city facility and casting a vote to determine how your city or Federal Government is run. And, logically speaking, doesn't it make sense that our elections should at least be as secure as the local rec center? I think so, and the American people seem to think so too. Poll after poll shows that the American people support voter ID. Yet despite years of Democrat fearmongering about the implications of requiring a photo ID to vote, the American people view voter ID as just common sense. North of 80 percent of Americans in a poll last year said they support requiring all voters to show a photo ID at the polls. An NBC News headline this week reads: ``Most Americans support requiring photo ID to vote. Democrats in Congress reject it.'' Well, that is pretty much it. Requiring a photo ID to vote is something that is so common sense only congressional Democrats could oppose it, and I would really like to know their reasoning. Of course, Democrats are now hedging, suggesting that they do kind of support voter ID. Well, if they do, it would certainly be news to me. As I said, for years, Democrats have acted like asking for a photo ID would be an intolerable burden to place on voters. When he was a Senator, Barack Obama opposed a national voter ID amendment, saying that it was an attempt ``to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the country.'' As Vice President and later as President, Joe Biden decried State laws that required voter ID. And a few years ago--and this one really baffles me--then-Vice President Kamala Harris said: I don't think that we should underestimate what [voter ID laws] could mean. Because in some people's mind, that means you're going to have to Xerox or photocopy your ID to send it in to prove who you are. Well there are a whole lot of people, especially people who live in rural communities who don't--there's no Kinkos, there's no OfficeMax near them. That was from then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Well, I spend a good amount of time in rural South Dakota, and I am happy to share that people in rural areas do, in fact, have photo IDs and regularly use them, and they would be more than happy to show them at the polls. In fact, under South Dakota law, voters already-- already--have to show a photo ID to cast a ballot. And the former Vice President will be happy to know that copy machines have also made it to rural America. Despite Democrats' fearmongering, requiring a photo ID is not some sort of an impossible thing to ask of voters, and I think Democrats actually know this. A photo ID was required to get into the Democratic National Convention in 2024. Vice President Harris required an ID to get into her campaign events. The senior Democrat Senator from Georgia required a photo ID to get into his recent rally. The other day, the junior Senator from Oregon said that the SAVE America Act is ``about stopping groups from voting who tend to vote for Democrats.'' Well, if that were true, why would Democrats be requiring a photo ID for their voters to get into their campaign events? Needless to say, it is not true. Requiring a photo ID to vote is just common sense, and it is not that hard. You need a photo ID to see a doctor, stay at a hotel, start a job. It is not too much to ask to require it when you go to vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for Senate amendment No. 4421.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I don't think this is a hot take: Only American citizens should be voting in American elections. Let me repeat that: Only American citizens should be voting in American elections. Of course, there is only one way to be sure that only Americans are voting in our elections: Voters have to prove they are citizens when they register to vote. That is just intuitively obvious. It is so obvious, in fact, that one poll shows that most Americans believe that proof of citizenship is already--already--a requirement to register to vote, but it is not. And polls show that the majority of Americans believe that we should require proof of citizenship to vote. In one recent poll, 75 percent of voters said they support requiring proof of citizenship to vote. That includes 61 percent of Democrats and more than two-thirds of Hispanic and Black voters. This is just common sense. And it is why requiring proof of citizenship to vote is one of the pillars of the SAVE America Act. Confirming eligibility is not some new-fangled idea. The American people are used to proving they are eligible, especially when dealing with their State or the Federal Government. You want to join the military? You should be prepared to show you are old enough, fit enough, and have graduated from high school. SNAP benefits? Same story. You need to hand over documents to prove need, residency, and eligibility. Seniors who have paid into this system their entire lives still need to prove that they are eligible for Social Security and Medicare when they are old enough. And every single job in this country requires new employees to fill out an I-9 and provide documents that prove they are eligible to work. Every job requires you to prove you are eligible to work in this country, whether you are working your first job scooping ice cream in the summer or joining a law firm as a senior partner. So why--why--don't we require proof of eligibility that is, proof of citizenship to vote? As I said, you need to prove you are eligible to work, to join the military, and to get any sort of government benefit. But under current law, you don't need to prove you are actually eligible to vote when you register. And the lack of a Federal requirement on this point has stood in the way of States deciding for themselves to implement proof of citizenship requirements. On two separate occasions, the State of Arizona has attempted to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. In 2004, Arizona voters approved a ballot referendum requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote in the State. It passed with a clear majority: 55 percent of Arizona voters supported the ballot question. But the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. Fast forward to 2022, and the Arizona Legislature passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. And, once again, the Supreme Court said that States cannot impose requirements that go beyond the standard Federal voter registration form to vote in Federal elections--the standard Federal form that does not require proof of citizenship. And so here we are. The SAVE Act would put this commonsense proof of citizenship requirement in place. This commonsense requirement, that, as I said, polls show the majority of voters support. Passing this requirement should be a no-brainer. But Democrats roundly oppose this commonsense policy, and this should surprise nobody. A number of blue States happily issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Democrats uniformly opposed Republican's efforts to prevent noncitizens from getting Federal healthcare and nutrition benefits last year. And while States like Arizona and my home State of South Dakota are passing legislation to ensure only American citizens vote in our elections, blue cities are passing laws to allow--allow--noncitizens to vote in local elections. That is right. In cities in Vermont, California, right here in Washington, DC, noncitizens are allowed to vote in local elections. So it should be no surprise that Democrats seem not to care very much about ensuring that American citizens--and American citizens only--are voting in our national elections, but it is deeply concerning. The vote of even one ineligible voter dilutes the vote of an American citizen, and that is unconscionable. It is unconscionable for Americans who faithfully cast their votes to nudge our country in the direction they believe is best for our future. And I have to imagine it is especially galling for legal immigrants who have become American citizens who have often spent years waiting and working for their citizenship and their right to vote. One individual in my State said this on getting his citizenship a few years ago: It's a long time coming . . . I'm eager to vote, I'm eager to cast my voice and how I feel. And that is no surprise. Voting is, in many ways, synonymous with being an American. It is one of our most sacred rights as Americans and a serious obligation we have to our fellow citizens and to the future of our country. Why shouldn't we make sure everyone who casts a ballot in this country is actually eligible to vote? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today is day 32 of Democrats' shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. On Thursday, Democrats, once again, blocked the Senate from proceeding to a DHS funding bill--a bill, I should note, that already includes a number of reforms to immigration enforcement: more money for body cameras, deescalation training, and additional oversight of immigration enforcement activities. And getting on this bill would not have precluded additional reforms from being added. But for the fourth time now, Democrats stopped the Senate from proceeding to consideration of this legislation. For weeks, Democrats have spoken about the urgent need for reforms to immigration enforcement, but it has been Democrats who have been the biggest obstacle to getting those reforms enacted. The Trump administration took a number of steps on its own, I might add, to reform immigration enforcement, and on top of that, the White House made two substantial and serious offers to Democrats to legislate reforms, the most recent of which was sent more than 2 weeks ago. But Democrats couldn't even be bothered to respond to the White House's latest offer until late last night, 18 days for Democrats to even bother replying. And that offer--Democrats' third--was basically the same as their first two offers: no compromise and still filled with a number of nonstarters that would make it more dangerous for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. Meanwhile, on the Senate floor, the best Democrats have been able to offer is funding some DHS Agencies and leaving others unfunded. It is really pretty remarkable. Last summer, Democrats threw a fit over Republicans' rescissions package that cut just $9 billion in Federal spending, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the entire Federal budget. Now, to hear Democrats talk, they seem to think that entire Agencies--especially the Agencies that secure our border and enforce immigration laws--are dispensable. The Democrat leader had the audacity to call this a ``moderate'' plan last week. When did defunding law enforcement become a mainstream position in this country? Now, this might be considered moderate for Democrats, but I think the average American would view it as extreme. We are now a month into Democrats' second shutdown since October. And like their record-long shutdown in the fall, the victims of this shutdown are beginning to pile up. TSA agents are working without pay. A significant number of agents are calling out sick, leading to long wait times and lines stretching into airport parking garages. CBS reports that 300 TSA agents have quit since this shutdown began, and that is on top of the 1,100 agents who quit after Democrats' shutdown in the fall. It is pretty darn understandable if you think about it. What do you do when, for 2 out of the last 6 months, you have to work without pay? Well, that is what Democrats have put these people through. So it is more than understandable that they might be thinking that there has got to be an easier way to earn a living. I heard from one TSA agent in South Dakota who was at the end of her rope. She writes: It is very hard to live without getting paid. . . . I do not know how long I can keep doing this. Well, that is what happens in a shutdown: real people get hurt. But if you ask the senior Senator from Hawaii, a Member of the Democratic leadership, he says: We are very serene with what is going on. ``Very serene.'' I suppose that is not a surprising statement considering the Democratic leader characterized Democrats' last shutdown in the fall by saying: Every day gets better for us. ``Very serene.'' ``Every day gets better for us.'' For Democrats, a government shutdown is just fine as long as it seems to be working for them politically, no matter whether it is hurting hard-working Americans, no matter if it is jeopardizing public safety and national security. Make no mistake, Democrats' shutdown is harming hard-working Americans and putting national security in jeopardy. Our country is facing a heightened threat environment right now. There are a few examples of that. Stryker, a medical tech company, was the victim of an Iran-linked cyber attack last week. ISIS-inspired individuals attempted to detonate bombs targeting protesters outside of the home of the mayor of New York City last weekend. And on Thursday, we saw two tragic attacks take place. One of those, in Virginia, was perpetrated by an individual who was arrested in 2016 for attempting to provide materiel support to ISIS. The other, an attack on a Detroit- area synagogue, was perpetrated by an individual who was reported to have had connections to known or suspected Hezbollah terrorists. This is no time for Democrats' political games. Republicans are at the table and ready to work whenever Democrats are done playing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has received a message from the House to accompany S. 1383.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the House message to accompany S. 1383.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to S. 1383.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. I move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the motion to concur with amendment.

Mr. THUNE. I ask the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. I move to refer the House message on S. 1383 to the Committee on Rules and Administration with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment No. 4422.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the reading be dispensed with.