Floor Speech2026-03-24

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to Proceed--Resumed

Full Text

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2026) [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

Referenced legislation: S1383, S1383, HR7147

View original source →