Floor Speech2026-03-26

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

Full Text

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S1648-S1659] 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 legislative 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. Department of Homeland Security Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, enough is enough. Republicans have bent over backward to negotiate with Democrats, and now Democrats need to get serious about funding the Department of Homeland Security. Now, let's just review things for a minute here. In January, Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate reached an agreement on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, including a number of reforms: deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, increased funding for body cameras, and increased oversight of border security and immigration enforcement funding. Then Democrats reneged on that agreement. Republicans said: OK, we will reopen negotiations. The White House offered up a robust list of additional reforms. The Democrats said no. And then, over the weekend, Democrats suggested that they would agree to fund the entire Department with the exception of immigration enforcement operations, and we offered them a bill to do exactly that. And Democrats still refused. It seems that Democrats have no interest in reaching an agreement. Many of them are perfectly willing to leave the Department of Homeland Security unfunded for the long term. They claim that they want to fund the Department. They claim that they are concerned about TSA officers and others working without pay. But talk is cheap, and their actions belie their words. If Democrats cared about TSA officers, if they cared about Coast Guard employees, if they cared about the vital work of the Department of Homeland Security, then they would be getting serious about closing a deal, not ceaselessly offering up the same unchanging list of demands, like a broken record or a particularly nightmarish version of ``Groundhog Day.'' Last fall, Democrats shut down the entire Federal Government for a recordbreaking 43 days. Their Department of Homeland Security shutdown is now on its 41st day, which means that, thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have spent almost half--almost half--of the fiscal year working without pay. Let that sink in for a minute. Thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have spent almost half of this fiscal year working without pay. It is no wonder they are quitting in droves or that, as an NBC article yesterday reported, they have been reduced to things like selling blood and plasma--yes, blood and plasma; that is from an NBC article--just to get by. And all of this--all of this--is because Democrats have been unwilling to consider anything other than what they think will serve them politically. Republicans are at the table. We have been at the table. Now it is long past time for Democrats to get serious. How much worse do things have to get? How many more Americans have to suffer before Democrats do their job and work with Republicans to fund the government? SAVE America Act Just where do Democrats stand on voter ID? It is pretty darn hard to tell. I mean, we spent years hearing from Democrats how voter ID is a tool of voter suppression. As recently as mid-February, the Democrat leader was decrying voter ID, and then suddenly Democrats started hedging their bets. Wait. Of course, Democrats support voter ID, Democrat after Democrat has been claiming--and photo ID specifically. The Democrat leader said last week: Our objection as Democrats is not to a photo ID. Except, is that true? Is that really true? Because on Tuesday the Democrat leader came down to the floor and made it very clear that he, at least, does object to photo ID. We need, in his words, ``inclusive'' voter ID options, like leases or utility bills or debit cards or photocopies thereof. He is apparently OK with a demand for photo ID in a million other situations--from boarding a plane to signing your kid up for school to opening a bank account--but heaven forbid that we ask Americans to produce the same ID they produce all over town when they go to the polls. It is not inclusive. Other Democrats have acted similarly, paying lip service to voter ID and photo ID, in particular, but backpedaling the minute actually supporting voter ID legislation comes into question. The senior Democrat from New Jersey was on CNN Tuesday and said that he would support a voter ID bill, until he was pressed on that commitment, and then he suddenly started avoiding the question. The junior Democrat Senator from Georgia boldly claimed: I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID. Then he went on to knock the voter ID requirements under discussion. And just to give the Presiding Officer an example of some of the--I mean, this actually is quite revealing. Here are quotes from one, two, three, four, five Democrats. This one: Who could be against that, requiring an ID to vote? That from a couple of days ago. Here is the Senator from Arizona: If people want to adopt the Arizona way, which is strict voter ID, I think that would be fine. That was about a week ago. The Senator from Rhode Island: I represent a State that has a sensible voter ID law and that regularly reviews its voter rolls. This approach has been extremely effective. That, again, just a few days ago. And as I said, the Democrat leader--and this is 10 days ago: Democrats support voter ID. The Senator from Michigan: [H]opefully all Americans are in agreement about [voter ID]. That from a week ago. Here is the other Senator from Georgia: We have voter ID laws in my State. You should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. That is basic. That also from about a week ago. So the question is will Democrats vote the way they talk. Well, today, they are going to get a chance to support voter ID without supporting the SAVE America Act. We are going to have an amendment. We are going to have an amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill. The only thing--the only thing--the amendment would do would be to require photo ID at the polls: a driver's license, a Tribal ID, a military ID, a veteran ID, a passport. That is all it would say--and something that a lot of Democrats have been out there openly advocating for. And, again, supporting this amendment doesn't require Democrats to support the overall SAVE America Act. It doesn't obligate them to vote in any way on the final bill. They can vote for this amendment and vote against the SAVE America Act. What this amendment will do, however, is force Democrats to come clean on whether or not they actually support voter ID in a real way-- not photocopies of debit cards or utility bills, as Democrats once proposed--REAL IDs, with photos, issued by States or the Federal Government; the kind of IDs Americans use all the time in their daily lives; the kind of IDs that polls show Americans overwhelmingly support. Democrats have been trying to have their cake and eat it, too, pretending that they stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans, who support photo IDs at the polls, while declining any occasion to put their money where their mouth is and support actual legislation. So here is their chance. If Democrats are being honest, if they really think that showing an ID is ``reasonable,'' as the Democrat whip [[Page S1649]] claimed, then they can support this clean photo ID amendment. Clean. No other provisions; just a requirement to show the same kind of photo ID at the polls that Americans show elsewhere on a daily basis. No obligation to vote for the overall bill. No statement on the overall bill--just a clean photo ID provision. I look forward to seeing where Democrats really stand. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from California. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that we are going to be voting on shortly, but I want to begin by sharing that I am a little confused--not to the substance of the amendment--but to the process. I think we just heard a few minutes ago that the majority leader suggested that it was going to be a clean vote on a voter ID measure, when as I see it, it is a stand-alone amendment with language that is already in the underlying bill. It is also language that is in a substitute amendment as well. I understand there is some showmanship and theatrics going on here, but before I talk about the substance of the bill, let me make one other observation as to what is and what isn't happening here. As prices are going up for families across the country--we have talked about it so many times--healthcare costs, grocery bills, prices at the pump. We are not focusing or debating ideas on how to bring down costs for working families. Instead, we have now spent 2 weeks debating a bill that would make it harder for eligible Americans to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, and to cast their ballot. How un-American and how undemocratic that is. Another observation: As we are going back and forth on negotiations for how to restore funding for TSA and the Coast Guard and FEMA and CISA, we are not talking about that right here and now. We a

Referenced legislation: S1383, HR7147

View original source →