John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, we will finish up the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the latest piece of legislation in Republican's affordability agenda. And next week, I will be bringing the SAVE America Act to the floor, and we will be having a full and robust debate. So what is the SAVE America Act? It is a package of commonsense policies--the kind of commonsense policies that should get an automatic ``yes'' vote from literally every Member of this body. At the core of the SAVE America Act is the requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and then show an ID when they go to the polls. In other words, it would require Americans to demonstrate that they are eligible to vote and that they are who they say they are when they go to do so. Not to keep using the word ``commonsense,'' but it is pretty commonsense, right? We require a photo ID for a whole lot of things in this country, for obvious reasons. Getting on a plane? Show your official government-issued photo ID. Go to the doctor? The same thing, provide your government-issued photo ID plus your insurance card. Get hired for a new job? Provide your government-issued photo ID when you start. Public libraries ask for a photo ID. In New York City you have to provide some type of photo ID to get a library card. In Baltimore, MD, it is the same thing; in Washington, DC, again, photo ID. I will stop with the list of libraries, but I think we can all agree that if you have to show photo ID and prove where you live to get a library card, it is not too much to ask voters to show ID to vote in Federal elections. It takes about 10 seconds and protects the security of our elections. Americans overwhelmingly agree that voters should have to show ID at the polls. Eighty-three percent of Americans--83 percent--in an August 2025 poll supported requiring photo ID at the polls for all voters. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Black Americans, 77 percent of Asian Americans, and 82 percent of Hispanic Americans. It kind of feels like the only Americans not to support voter ID requirements are Democrats here in Congress. That is right. We are expecting continued, full-throated opposition to voter ID and the SAVE America Act from Senate Democrats, as well as more of the unforgiveable rhetoric that Democrats have already been engaging in. The Democrat leader has been calling this bill ``Jim Crow 2.0,'' a phrase that is not only deeply irresponsible and insulting for those who actually lived through that dark chapter in our history but also insults the overwhelming majority of Americans, including minorities, who look at voter ID and see nothing more than commonsense. In fact, I can really see only two reasons for Democrats opposing this legislation: Either Democrats are just reflexively opposing this proposal because it originated from Republicans, or Democrats believe that there are, in fact, people out there voting illegally; and that it is benefiting Democrats, and they want to keep it going. I honestly cannot think of another reason to oppose something so eminently reasonable as requiring people to demonstrate that they are eligible to vote and that they are who they say they are when they go to the polls. Now, I will have a lot more to say about the SAVE America Act next week, including about two other commonsense measures in the bill that would prevent biological males from competing in women's sports and protect minors from gender transition procedures--two other things, I should note, that are supported by the American people. I can't guarantee an outcome on this legislation, but I can guarantee that we are going to put Democrats on the record and that they will be forced to defend their outrageous positions on these issues and explain to the American people why common sense and the Democratic Party have parted ways. Republicans are looking forward to this debate, and I look forward to saying much more about the SAVE America Act in the very near future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Would the Democrat leader yield?

Mr. THUNE. So I assume the Democrat leader is aware of the fact that we have tried repeatedly to fund everything temporarily to allow the negotiations over the ICE budget to continue.

Mr. THUNE. And the reason that hasn't--

Mr. THUNE. The reason that hasn't worked--

Mr. THUNE.--is because the Democrats are blocking it.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, will the Democratic leader--

Mr. THUNE.--yield for a question?

Mr. THUNE. Well, I would say again to the Democrat leader that the Democrats have had multiple opportunities--and will have another one today--to provide funding for all of the Agencies that he just mentioned, under a continuing resolution, to allow us to consider how we are going to resolve the DHS issues that the Democrat leader has raised, which are being negotiated, I might add, at the moment between Democrats and Republicans and the White House. So there will be an attempt. The Democrats will have an opportunity to block--because they have now repeatedly--a continuing resolution that would fund all the Agencies to which you just alluded and allow us more time to negotiate. So those Agencies will be funded--

Mr. THUNE.--if the Democrats don't block it.

Mr. THUNE. I would support a resolution, which will be offered, to fund not just TSA but Coast Guard; Cybersecurity, CISA; FEMA; other Agencies and Departments of our government that are essential not only to national security and homeland security but to making sure that people can move through our airports in this country, that the FEMA-- Federal Emergency Management Agency--has the ability to respond to disasters. Those are things, I would say to my friend the Democrat leader, that could all be funded today, and then we can continue this discussion that he wants to have, which, again, there have been offers made repeatedly, the most recent of which was about 13 days ago, I think, from the White House, and the Democrats have yet to respond.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 673.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are almost now a month into the Democrat's DHS, Department of Homeland Security, shutdown. Democrats have essentially walked away from trying to solve it. That is right. After almost a month of forcing DHS employees to work without pay, Democrats have shown their true colors. They don't care about funding Homeland Security. They don't actually care about reforming immigration enforcement; that has also become very obvious. They are only interested in keeping this issue alive for an election that is 8 months away. This is the type of political game that the American people are sick of. I am sick of it. I want to read for you something that was reported here by Bloomberg. This is a Member of the Democrat leadership. The quote is this: We are very serene with what is going on. We are very serene with what is going on. We have a job to do. Part of that job is funding the Federal Government. That hadn't always been treated like a priority around here, but this year we made some real bipartisan progress in government funding. We made progress despite the fact that Democrats delayed things with a record-long 43-day government shutdown last fall. And we were on track, this year, to complete all 12 appropriations bills by the end of January, finishing the work for fiscal year 2026 and laying the groundwork to continue our progress in fiscal year 2027. Among those bills was a bipartisan agreement for a full-year Department of Homeland Security funding bill, with reforms requested by the Democrats. It had money for more body cameras, deescalation training, and additional oversight of immigration enforcement activities. But then Democrats reneged on that agreement. So we went back to the negotiating table--or, I should say, when I say ``we,'' I mean we the Republicans, at least, went back to the negotiating table. Since Democrats reneged on the DHS agreement, the White House has made two very serious offers for legislating additional reforms. The same cannot be said of the Democrats. And with their refusal to respond to the White House's second--and, again, serious and substantial offer--Democrats have now essentially walked away from negotiations entirely. We have made repeated overtures to them to get them back to the negotiating table, but they are not interested in talking. It might be understandable to walk away from a negotiation when there doesn't seem to be a prospect of coming to a resolution, but that isn't the case here. As I said, the Republicans and the White House have demonstrated their willingness to negotiate and compromise. It is Democrats who are refusing to talk. So why would Democrats walk away from what could otherwise be a very productive negotiation? Not long ago, Democrats were telling us how urgent the need for reform was. Now they are apparently fine without reforms. Now, why would that be? Well, it could be that Democrats believe the actions the Trump administration has already taken on its own are enough to resolve the issues, or it could be that Democrats were never really interested in implementing reforms in the first place. Actually, if Democrats cared about reforms, they would be coming to the table to get a bill. Instead, they are playing politics. There was a time when Democrats--I remember very well--would lecture about the importance of funding the government and the dangers of government shutdowns. Well, those days are apparently long gone. Democrats now see government shutdowns as a handy tool to use any time they don't get everything that they want. They don't care if they force people to work without pay indefinitely. They don't care if they put our national security and public safety in jeopardy. They only care about what is in it for them. As I said, the American people are tired of the games. Lines get longer at the airports because TSA isn't funded. The American people want us to do our jobs. Republicans are at the table. We are ready to work toward a solution. Democrats have walked away, and they will need to explain to the American people why they refuse to do their job and why they regard doing nothing as better than doing something. And maybe, again, it is because, in the words of one of the Democrat leaders, ``We are very serene with what is going on.'' We are very serene with what is going on. That captured it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just heard the Senator from Washington suggest that they are willing to sit down and talk with anybody at any time. But my understanding is, there have been repeated overtures to the Senator from Washington and other Senate Democrats from Republicans and the White House that have been rebuffed. Would the Senator like to clarify her position on that? That is my understanding, and I think that point--that offer has been made repeatedly.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reclaiming my time. The situation which I think the Senator from Washington is referring to is how we landed at the agreement on the DHS bill that we have been trying to vote on. Subsequently, Democrats walked away from that agreement. It was the White House, it was House Democrats, it was Senate Democrats, it was House Republicans, and it was Senate Republicans who all negotiated the original deal. The Democrats have more recently said: That is not adequate. And so subsequent to that acknowledgment by the Democrats, there have been several, now, occasions where Republicans have offered to sit down and talk with Democrats, and there have been offers from the White House. And just to be clear, the latest offer between Senate Democrats and the White House--which is where the Senator from Washington is suggesting this should reside--has come from the White House. I think it was somewhere on the order of about 12 or 13 days ago now.