-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't think our friend from New Mexico will be shocked to hear me say that I am not going to be taking his advice. I know he is very concerned about Republicans in the next elections and our ability to maintain our majority in both houses. So he will have to forgive me for not taking his advice.

What I have a hard time understanding--and the argument that our colleague is making--is they are willing to fund everything at the Department of Homeland Security except the people who enforce our immigration laws.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. But this is very consistent with the policies of the Democrats because they are the party of ``defund the police.'' They are the party of ``abolish ICE.'' They are the party of ``now don't pay ICE'' and ``don't enforce our immigration laws.''

So the reason why the TSA agents are not being paid is because we have voted multiple times to pay everybody who is working on behalf of the American people--all the patriots who are currently working-- whether they are TSA agents or they work for Homeland Security Investigations, which does counterterrorism investigations.

You know, these are very dangerous times. We have had multiple terrorist attacks in places like Austin, where I live, and in New York, Michigan, Virginia. And we heard from the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI Director, and others that we could expect more of these sleeper cells or people who are already here, who came in during the Biden administration, to become radicalized and lash out and kill more Americans.

And those people aren't being paid either.

And they also objected to paying the Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Heaven forbid that we have a hurricane or tornadoes or floods or some other natuarl disaster because the men and women of the Federal Emergency Management Agency will not be available because they have either been furloughed--in any event, they will not be paid--while Democrats persist in insisting that our immigration laws not be enforced because they don't want ICE--the law enforcement agents who enforce our immigration laws--to be paid. It is that simple.

Here is another thing I don't really understand. I have seen a number of polls ranging from 70 to 80 percent of Americans who support the SAVE America Act. I am surprised it is that low. When you think about what it is, it says that you have to be an American citizen to vote, and when you show up at the polls, you have to produce a photo ID. We have given many speeches talking about how common sense that is.

But if you are opposed to those requirements, it makes me wonder: Do you think noncitizens should be able to vote? Do you think fraudsters who claim to be someone they are not ought to be able to cast a ballot? I don't know what the rationale is.

They say we are disenfranchising American citizens. Is that why 70 to 80 percent of Americans support it? They support being disenfranchised? It makes no sense whatsoever. Yet Democrats persist in their folly.

I think really what this boils down to, as I have said before, is that anything that President Trump is for, they are against.

Do you remember at the State of the Union, the President asked people in the audience to stand up if they supported our law enforcement officers--the people who put their lives on the line to enforce our laws and maintain public safety? Every single Democrat sat on their hands. I mean, isn't there anything that comes out of President Trump's mouth that they could find their way to agree with no matter how self- evidently true?

You know, when President Trump took the courageous move to take out Iran's nuclear program, the Commander in Chief ordered our incredible military to fly 30 hours from Missouri and drop a bunker buster bomb down a ventilation shaft in a nuclear program facility in Iran. It makes me proud of our men and women in uniform.

Then when Nicolas Maduro in Caracas--a fugitive from justice, somebody who was indicted in Federal court in New York--when law enforcement needed to arrest him, they were supported by our men and women in uniform again, who, almost miraculously, to my mind, gave cover to the law enforcement officers who went in and extracted him to bring him to justice in New York.

So on almost every occasion, no matter how common sense, no matter how proud it makes me of our President and our military to keep the Nation free of the No. 1 state sponsor of terror, who is seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon, they take the other side. It is really amazing.

President Trump has this amazing power to force normally reasonable, rational individuals to take crazy positions for no other reason than they oppose President Trump, and that includes commonsense provisions like only American citizens can vote.

I thought our colleague from Louisiana did a nice job of sort of laying the predicate--I think the Senator from Ohio did the same--and pointed out the millions of people who came into the country during the pendency of the Biden administration, during his open border policies, unvetted--many good people who want nothing but a better life, but we don't know who came in for sure. We do know that it wasn't all good people who wanted to work and seek a better life here. It included criminals, sex offenders, drug traffickers, murderers, terrorists. And now we are paying the price for that.

When we say that we want to be doubly sure that only American citizens can vote, they say: No, that is disenfranchising people from voting.

I even heard our colleagues across the aisle say: Well, it is already illegal. There are a lot of things that are illegal, but if you don't enforce it, people get away with it.

Well, the argument of our colleagues is, again, that the vast majority of Americans who support this legislation are trying to disenfranchise themselves. How ridiculous can you be?

Then we hear the argument that it is just too hard. It is too hard to come up with the papers that you need in order to prove you are an American citizen--a marriage license, a birth certificate, a passport, some other form of identification.

Two days ago, the Senator from Maryland came to the floor and said he opposed the SAVE America Act because only about one-half of Americans have a passport. He then went on to say that means that only half of the American citizens that are preparing to go out to vote will be able to vote.

Well, as I mentioned yesterday--and I know it has been repeated ad nauseam by my colleague from Utah and others--there are other forms of acceptable ID. Unfortunately, some of our Democratic colleagues have come out here and misrepresented what is in the bill.

Americans can present enhanced driver's licenses, a REAL ID-compliant driver's license like I have in my pocket, a State ID card, a certificate of naturalization, or military identification card. If they have none of those, they can pair a normal photo ID with their birth certificate, a consular report of a birth abroad, or other similar documents.

In fact, if they still have legitimate concerns rather than excuses for this commonsense law, they can work with us, and we could tighten it in such a way that nobody would be disenfranchised, but they refuse to do that.

Everybody knows voter ID is common sense. Everybody knows you need a photo ID to get into a Federal building. You even need to get one to go into the Democratic convention, to buy a six-pack of beer, to buy cigarettes, to get on a plane--the list goes on and on and on and on.

So the excuses that our colleagues are throwing up saying, ``Oh, it is just too hard for us to produce a photo ID; it is going to prevent people from being able to vote''--no. What it is going to mean is that when somebody votes by mail--because some States send ballots to individuals without those individuals requesting them, and then they claim to be someone they are not and cast a ballot. What it will mean is that we will be able to identify those people who should not be voting and prevent them from doing so.

It is not just about preventing people who shouldn't be able to vote from voting; it is about them diluting your vote, because for every illegitimate ballot that is cast, that means it undermines and dilutes or offsets a legitimate vote and ballot.

Our Democratic colleagues act like this is some sort of fanciful innovation nobody had ever heard of before--a crazy idea--but you look around the world, and other democracies have similar requirements. Norway, for example, requires voters to present a photo ID, such as a passport, a driver's license, or a bank card with a photo, in order to cast a ballot. Northern Ireland requires voters to present a valid ID. France, Israel, Iceland all have voter IDs. Even in Mexico, our neighbor to the south, with more than a third of its population living in poverty, that suffers from high levels of organized crime, a voter ID is required. If Mexico can require a voter ID, so can the United States of America.

Surely no one enjoys paperwork, but the simple fact of life is that sometimes you have to fill out a form and show an ID to do something that is important. We do it to go to the doctor or dentist or travel or to start a new job. When things are important enough to us, we do what is required to make them happen, and what could be more important than voting?

You know, the authority that we exercise on behalf of the people who vote for us and elect us is called the consent of the governed, which is the source of all legitimacy in government. This isn't just my idea or some other Senator's idea or Congressman's idea; it is because we represent people, and they have consented--by electing us to represent them, the governed have consented, in effect, to the laws that we pass. But when people who are not qualified to vote cast a ballot or when fraudsters claim to be somebody they are not and cast a ballot, it undermines the whole fabric and foundation of our constitutional system.

I will make a deal with anybody in Texas that I am sure the great Senator from Pennsylvania or Ohio or Utah or any other Members of the Senate--I have a great constituent service office in Dallas, TX. They do magnificent work. They have won awards. So if you have a problem with your passport, with your VA benefits, with immigration, whatever, we have people available, with a phone call or a stroke of a keyboard, who will help you.

If you are somehow unsure about how to get the paperwork you need in order to demonstrate you are an American citizen and qualified to vote, we will help you. We will make sure you have that documentation. We will make sure you are able to demonstrate that you are an American citizen.

If you have a problem getting a photo ID in Texas--admittedly a red State, so we do have voter integrity measures in place, like photo ID-- if you don't have a driver's license, you can get a free photo ID just for the asking. It doesn't cost you anything.

You know, I frankly find the argument of our friends across the aisle insulting because they act as though the American people are too lazy, too dumb, or too incompetent to do the basic things you need to do in order to meet the terms of the SAVE America Act. And I know that is not true, but that is how they act--or at least that is what they claim.

I have full confidence that all Americans who are legal citizens can rise to the demands of self-government by making sure they can demonstrate that they are, in fact, American citizens and acquiring a photo ID from some source that is readily available that will help you, if you have difficulty, in order to cast your ballot.

The truth is, the SAVE America Act is common sense. That is why you see broad polling support among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. It is supported by more than 70 percent of the American public. So if it was true that this bill would disenfranchise voters, you are, in effect, saying 70 percent of Americans want to disenfranchise themselves. What a ludicrous argument that is.

What is more, passing this bill would strengthen and honor our 250- year tradition of self-government. By opposing this bill, not only are Senate Democrats placing themselves on the wrong side of public opinion but on the wrong side of history. And I hope--maybe this is too much to hope for, but I hope they will reconsider and join us in passing this commonsense bill that so many of the people they represent--not just whom I represent but they represent--want to become law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source