-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, moments ago, as we convened and before we cast votes getting ready to move forward with the confirmation of our friend and colleague the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma to serve as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--it is important to reflect on the importance of this position and on the importance of the Department that he has been asked by the President of the United States to lead.

This is a Department that, 25 years ago, didn't exist. It was created, of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks on the United States homeland on September 11, 2001. It includes within it, among many other pieces, the apparatus that is used to control, as the name of the Department implies, the homeland of the United States; our ability to protect and defend our border, including our ability to protect and defend the border at the border and all the way through the interior of the United States, through the enforcement of our immigration laws.

This, of course, is one of the most fundamental and distinctively Federal powers granted to the U.S. Government by the Constitution. It is uniquely Federal not only in that it is given to the U.S. Government by the Constitution but that it has to be Federal. It would be impossible to do this without it being a Federal power because no one State could be charged with border enforcement.

If you had only the border States doing it, it would be unfair to the border States, and the border States would have to make policy surrounding immigration, border access, and so forth. And that would impact the other States as well. That is why the Founding Fathers were wise to put all of this in the U.S. Government.

So it bears mentioning here that the Department that our friend and colleague the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma has been asked to lead, the Department of Homeland Security, is a pretty important one to have funded.

It is indeed regrettable, to put it extremely mildly, that that Department has now been shut down for well over a month. And this doesn't occur in a vacuum. This occurs just a few months after that Department was shut down for a very lengthy period of time, starting in the fall, starting in October.

This isn't fair to the brave men and women who place, in many instances, their own lives, their own comfort, their own safety on the line, day after day after day, to defend the U.S. homeland, to defend our border, to enforce our immigration laws, and to perform so many other tasks that are essential to the security of the American people.

And so when we evaluate that shutdown and its impact, we have to think about some of the other things that it also affects, including, of course, but not limited to, TSA; including FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Authority; including the Coast Guard; and including USCIS, CISA, and the entities within the Department of Homeland Security that operate the SAVE database.

The SAVE database is this entity that is already set up, and it is related to the name of the legislation we have been considering: the SAVE America Act.

The SAVE database, of course, is what is set up within the Department of Homeland Security to help us ascertain the citizenship or lack thereof of persons who are already registered to vote in the United States.

Ideally, the information should be freely flowing on a very regular basis between the States, and, in particular, the secretaries of state, Lieutenant Governors, or whoever is the chief elections official in each State, to the Department of Homeland Security. They should be running their election data, their voter roll data through the SAVE database on a very regular basis, because by doing that, they can make sure that those who are registering to vote are, in fact, citizens of the United States.

If you wait too long, the task becomes overwhelming or it becomes more difficult. But if it is done on a very regular basis, it can become routine and relatively straightforward.

It is remarkable what can be done with these databases because, you know, we have got hundreds of millions of Americans. We have got--I don't know what the total number of registered voters is. I am guessing somewhere between 150 million and 200 million are registered to vote. That is a lot of names. That is a lot of numbers. That is a lot of voter registration files in 50 different States and the District of Columbia. But having access to this database allows us, in one central location, the benefit of being able to scrub through these voter registration files in every jurisdiction in America to make sure only citizens vote and to do so without its having to take weeks or months or years in order to ascertain. These are some of the many benefits of technology. But this, too, is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and this, too, is therefore affected by the shutdown. In particular, the hard-working men and women who run that Department, including that part of that Department, are now not being paid, not receiving the funding that they need, and that is, in fact, a problem.

Now, ideally, this would take place voluntarily, and the States, uniformly, would share the information because why wouldn't they want to comply with the law? Why wouldn't they want to make sure that they are not facilitating--inadvertently or otherwise--violations of Federal law, including provisions of Federal criminal law that carry with them serious felony penalties? You would think that they would want to be cooperating freely and sharing their data.

Some of the States do this--many of them do--but a whole lot of them, including and especially those with Democrat Governors and/or Democrat legislatures, are adamantly, defiantly refusing to share that data.

What does that tell us?

Now, it is not as though this would involve an enormous amount of effort on the part of those States. It is not as though they can blame it on being short-staffed or on not having the adequate expertise to send over that data because the work is done, largely, almost entirely, by Federal officials on the other end, and every State does have personnel on hand to manage and oversee the maintenance of these voter registration files.

So one must ask the question: Why would these blue States--a couple dozen of them--refuse so consistently, so defiantly to share that information? What is it that they gain from that? What is it that they would lose?

I can't really think of anything legitimate that they would lose by sharing the data. This is a service being offered to them by the U.S. Government. It is not like the U.S. Government is going to charge them a bunch of money to do it. It is not like it is going to require their personnel to do it. So why wouldn't they want that?

Well, before you answer that question in your own mind, let me feed you an additional data point that, I think, has some relevance here.

In a handful of those States--I believe it is three or four States and the District of Columbia at a minimum--they have legalized noncitizen voting within their States in some local elections. Now, why they would want to do this, I do not understand. I fail to comprehend why that is a good idea; it seems like a terrible idea. But no Federal statute prohibits it. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits it insofar as we are talking about a State or a local election for a State or a local office. In Federal law, neither the Federal statutes nor the U.S. Constitution prohibits that from happening.

So, assuming State law allows it and their State constitutions don't prohibit it, States are allowed to do this. But once they do it, it creates a problem, and it creates a strong inference--a strong presumption--of an ongoing, much bigger problem because, if you are one of those States that allows voters to register to vote and then cast votes in some local elections, that means they have a voter registration file.

Questions have been asked by Federal authorities of the State elections officials in those States: What is it that you are doing? Tell us the process by which you are able to secure a degree of confidence that those voter registration files belonging to noncitizens, who are, by operation of State law, allowed to vote notwithstanding their noncitizen status in local elections--what is it that you are doing to make sure that those same people who have registered to vote don't show up on election day in November or on a primary election day earlier in the year to cast votes in connection with Federal elections? Here I am referring primarily, of course, to U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives elections.

They have been asked that question, and they refuse to answer.

Now, just think about that for a moment. That is pretty chilling.

No matter how many noncitizen voter registration files might be found in those States, one can imagine a scenario in which it could and would make a difference. We can all think of elections, including Federal elections that many of us are familiar with, that have been decided sometimes on the basis of a few thousand votes or a few hundred votes or even a few dozen votes. It does happen, and you never know in advance when it is going to happen.

It is like my late father, also a lawyer, used to say about appellate arguments. It is something that both he and I spent much of our careers as lawyers doing--handling appellate arguments before courts of appeals.

He would sometimes get asked the question: Can the lawyer and the lawyer's argument at oral argument--because before any oral argument happens in the appellate litigation world in the United States, there is an extensive period of briefing. Sharon, my wife, likes to say that a brief--a legal brief--is oxymoronic; it is anything but brief. It certainly isn't brief to write. It is not brief to read, but you have several months of briefing.

Then there is a distinct point in time where the lawyers come together. They show up at the same time, on the same day, and the Court hears oral argument as distinguished from the written argument in the briefing.

And he used to get asked the question: Does oral argument make a difference or is it always decided on the briefs?

He would consistently say the same thing every time he was asked that question: It makes a difference sometimes. You never know when it is going to make a difference, but because we know it makes a difference sometimes, you have to prepare for each argument as if the argument in that case would make all the difference.

So, too, here.

We don't know which races, whether it is a State office, a Federal office, or otherwise--you don't know in which races the margin between fraudulently cast votes and legitimately cast votes might make a difference; so you have to prepare for each election as if it would make all the difference that you had cleaned up your voter registration files.

In this instance, we are not talking about the entire universe of fraudulent votes that could be cast. We are talking about the universe consisting of noncitizens. We know for a fact that this number nationwide is at least in the thousands, and we know that because there are a small handful of States--a growing number of States--that have cleaned up their voter registration files often with the help of the SAVE database at the Department of Homeland Security. On that basis alone, they have discovered thousands--somewhere between thousands and tens of thousands--of noncitizen voter registration files.

So, when we know that those are out there--and those are just from the States that are run by Governors and legislatures that are willing to share this information with the Department of Homeland Security and are willing to undertake an effort to make sure that only noncitizens are registered to vote in a way that makes them incapable of voting in a Federal election--it really does matter that we get to the bottom of this question because we know that, if there are at least a few thousand to a few tens of thousands from the red States, how many more are there from the blue States?

I can't help but wonder whether there might be a close connection between the blue States being unwilling to share their data and the number of likely noncitizen voter registration files they will have in their databases because, after all, given how little effort it would take on behalf of those States in order to share that information with the SAVE database and the people at the Department of Justice and at the Department of Homeland Security who are looking for them, why else would they be so opposed to it?

So, from that, one can wonder, instead of thousands to tens of thousands, could we be talking about tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands? And if that is how many there might be today, how many more could there be given that we now have something north of 30 million noncitizens residing in the United States, including 10 to 15 million-- maybe more--who came into the country illegally, unlawfully, just in 4 of the last 5 years alone, between 2021 and 2025, during the era of the prolonged Biden border invasion?

In other words, this could get worse. It could get much worse, especially with the number of States that have very late voter registration requirements, including a number of blue States that have same-day voter registration. These numbers could spike very quickly if we don't get to the bottom of this problem and do it very, very soon, which is why I think there is such an interesting connection between the three things that we are talking about right now.

We have been talking for the last few days, and we will continue, I hope, for weeks or for as long as it takes to get it passed, the SAVE America Act, but we are also, simultaneously, talking about that and the confirmation of Markwayne Mullin to be the next DHS Secretary, and legislation to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, to fund it now that it has been defunded for well over a month. There is a parallel between all three of these things.

In all three instances, our Democratic colleagues are dragging their heels. In all three instances, they are trying to stop something or a series of things that could result in our ability to secure our homeland; to enforce the laws governing our border, governing the immigration and naturalization of this country; and, ultimately, safeguarding our elections.

These are not esoteric points. These are not hypothetical or hyperbolic points. These are about real on-the-ground facts--facts that continue to come out every day, and I expect that. Even in the next few days, as we are debating the SAVE America Act, I will not be surprised if we get even more data points indicating that this is not a hypothetical problem and that this is not a hyperbolic alarm bell that we are sounding. These are real--real--things that have to be dealt with.

So how then do our Democratic colleagues propose that we deal with this?

Well, they are saying that they will stop at nothing to stop the SAVE America Act. When you hear their arguments, their arguments sound overwhelmingly--they sound out on the basis of facts that are not in evidence, not only facts not in evidence but facts contradicted by the legislative text itself. They have erected straw man after straw man from within the contrived, imagined ``parade of horribles'' version of the SAVE America Act that is not actually in the SAVE America Act at all.

Meanwhile, they overlook provisions of the SAVE America Act--most to the point, the text beginning on line 22 of page 12 that makes clear, under the SAVE America Act, the requirements for establishing citizenship at the time of voter registration, No. 1, in addition to the fact that they do not require anyone now registered to redo his or her registration. You don't have to worry about that.

But the point I was getting to, which is second, is that it gives every American who is newly registering to vote under these new voter registration requirements of establishing citizenship--it allows them to establish that by attestation, through a simple affidavit. If you are a natural born citizen, you will provide one set of facts in your sworn statement: I was born in such-and-such a city. These were my parents. Here is the date when I was born--the basic essential facts that one would have to know in order to establish that you are a natural born citizen.

Alternatively, if you were a naturalized citizen--if you were born somewhere else, if you were not a citizen as of the moment of your birth by virtue of the circumstances surrounding your birth, therefore, not a natural born citizen, but at some point you became a naturalized citizen--you would need to provide a different set of facts about where you were born, who your parents were, when you came to this country, under what mechanism, and through what process, and on what date you were made a citizen of the United States.

You can do all of this through a simple affidavit even if you don't have any of the requirements--any of the more typical, more common documents that are required elsewhere--including when every citizen starts any job anywhere in the United States as a U.S. citizen. You have to establish your citizenship. You have to do so with a set of documents that is much more rigid and far less flexible than what we allow for in the SAVE America Act because, to start a job, you have got to fill out the I-9 form. The I-9 form requires you to provide either a U.S. passport to establish citizenship or, alternatively, an original certified copy of your birth certificate, accompanied by a government- issued photo ID or a Social Security card.

Now, for the most part--I don't know how they get around the truly difficult cases there, but it has always been my understanding that, unless or until you can provide those specific documents under the I-9, you are out of luck. You are not starting that job until you can pony up with them. So you are going to have to track them down. You might have to spend a few dollars to get your birth certificate or if you end up going through the additional steps of getting a passport. Many Americans have them; many don't. They cost a couple hundred bucks. So if you are not doing international travel, there is a good chance you don't have one, and you don't necessarily want to shell out $200 to get one. But you pretty much have got to do that when you are starting a new job.

But we wanted the SAVE America Act to be more flexible than that because, after all, we want to make it easy to vote while also making it hard to cheat. So, to that end, we allowed for this alternative method by which you can do a simple affidavit, and you can submit it to the State authority, shifting the burden to them. You are taking the load off of your shoulders and giving it to the State elections officials, who will then have the obligation of confirming or refuting the accuracy of the information you gave them.

Now, if you lied to them and you did that under a sworn statement under penalty of perjury, you could be in a fair amount of trouble, and I don't think most people will do it for that reason alone. But if you are telling the truth, they are also going to figure that out. And given the databases of documents that these State officials will have access to, it should be relatively straightforward for them to be able to confirm or refute citizenship.

So these arguments, these features of the legislation, get ignored over and over and over again. Instead, we hear these parade-of- horribles arguments that you are going to have to shell out 200 bucks to get a passport or you will be unable to vote--false; that if you lost your birth certificate, you won't be able to vote--false; that if you are a married woman who, after getting married, took on your husband's name and you can't find your marriage certificate, you won't be able to vote--false; that this will somehow disenfranchise, render unable to vote, 21 million currently registered voters in America. That one is completely false, and it gets repeated over and over again. There is not a scintilla of truth to that one.

I understand, at least, where they get to the other ones, but this is just based on some survey done years ago, I believe, by the Brennan Center, identifying that there are about 21 million Americans who are not sure where their documents are that would establish their citizenship. That does not mean they would be disenfranchised. And that, again, completely ignores this provision in the text of the statute, beginning on page 22, line 12, of the SAVE America Act.

So a picture is beginning to emerge. They don't want to fund the entire Department of Homeland Security. We are talking about somewhere between 230,000 and 260,000 hard-working Americans, who are not making a lot of money. They are paid for their services, but they are not getting rich off of this. Many of them, I would imagine, are living paycheck to paycheck. They have got people relying on them. They have got mouths to feed at home--children, spouses--house payments, car payments, and utility bills mounting up.

They don't want to pay them because they are mad at the fact that the border is being enforced. They are mad at the fact that there have been some enforcement efforts in the interior of the country, some of which have resulted in tragedy.

And those are all being investigated right now. Inquiries are going on to figure out what happened. But even before waiting for the final outcome of those investigations, they are willing to shut it all down, to defund ICE and make it impossible for them to do their job.

Meanwhile, they are standing behind the entrenched unwillingness, defiant opposition on the part of these blue States, dozens of them, who are refusing even to share the most basic information--the most basic data--from their voter registration files, such as would allow for the detection and removal of noncitizen voters who are currently able to cast votes, including in Federal elections.

They then move on to making an invented argument, under the Constitution, that this somehow violates the principles of federalism; that it violates the 10th Amendment; that it is Federal overreach. That is absolute nonsense, as article I, section 4, clause 1 gives us, unambiguously, the authority to set needful regulations concerning the conduct of State-run elections for Federal offices.

By the way, that same provision of the Constitution--article I, section 4, clause 1--is that very same provision that was used and relied upon by Congress in 1993 when it passed the NVRA, the National Voter Registration Act, also known as the motor voter law. And it is that same law, the NVRA, that was interpreted, two decades later, by the Supreme Court--wrongly, but conclusively nonetheless--as prohibiting the States from doing any follow up when somebody shows up to a DMV.

The whole point of the NVRA is to allow someone to show up at a department of motor vehicles office in their State, in any participating State--and that is nearly all of them that do participate--and you may, simply by applying for a driver's license, filling out the driver's license application, all you have to do on that driver's license application is check a box saying: Yes, I would like to register to vote. And then, at the very bottom, sign your name saying: Yes, I want to register to vote, and I am entitled to vote. There is no legal impediment to me voting. I am a U.S. citizen and not otherwise barred by law from voting.

And that is it. No specific information is required. No specific information is even allowed. Per this Supreme Court precedent wrongly interpreting the NVRA, you can't even ask them any additional questions to verify that.

Why? Why are they so defiantly, adamantly opposed to funding the Department that protects our homeland, that allows us to enforce border and immigration laws? And they are simultaneously adamantly opposed to legislation that would require people to go through the simple process of establishing who they are and that they are entitled to vote in U.S. elections. Why?

When you marry up the absurdity and the invented form and the hyperbolic nature and, ultimately, the lack of foundation behind the arguments that they raise with what they are doing, this is alarming, to say the least. It is damning.

We are a nation of laws, and we are a nation. You can be neither a nation nor a nation of laws if you don't enforce your border laws, if you don't enforce who may call themselves an American, if you don't enforce who may cast a vote to decide your laws.

We talk a lot about a lot of policy ideas here. We make a lot of laws here. Some would say too many, and they might be right. But this one is different. This is upstream from all of them. They might say it is a metalaw or a protolaw. It is upstream from so many others because we are talking here about the law that determines who will be able to make our laws when voters across this country are casting votes in Federal elections, deciding who will represent them in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives. We want to make sure that those voters are kept in the family, that those votes are kept within the bounds of who is allowed to vote. Only American citizens are allowed to vote in them.

Now, if that upsets the Democrats, they should say so. I haven't heard calls from any of them calling to repeal existing legislation that prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections. It would be interesting if they raised that. That would be an interesting debate. That would be, at least, a more honest discussion, if they were to raise that, but they haven't.

They have instead said: We don't need the SAVE America Act because-- and this one is a kicker--because it is already against the law. That, under these circumstances, is analogous to saying: We don't need a law allowing police to issue citations and monitor traffic at intersections governed by a stop sign because it is already against the law in our State to run a stop sign. And even though police officers, under the status quo, are prohibited from monitoring intersections and taking note of when someone runs a stop sign, we know that people don't run stop signs because it is against the law.

That is directly, closely, tightly analogous to what they are saying here. We don't need a law making our laws prohibiting noncitizen voting because it is already against the law. And we take that defiant, illogical, absurd position, even knowing that it would make it impossible to detect--and therefore prosecute and punish--anyone who breaks that law.

We have got to clear both of these logjams. We have got to get Markwayne Mullin confirmed. I was happy to cast my vote for him and support him through that effort. He is a man with a lot of energy, a lot of ideas, and it is going to take such a man to run the Department of Homeland Security.

We also have to get the Department of Homeland Security funded, and we have to fully enable the Department of Homeland Security to protect the American people--not just by paying them, which is long overdue, but also by giving them the authority to get the data they need from the States in order to make sure that only Americans vote in U.S. elections.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source