1 Corinthinians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, by the
Name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind
and
the same judgment.
1 Peter 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
Psalm 133:1
A Song of Ascents. Of David. Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!
Ephesians 4:3
Eager to maintain the Unity of the Spirit
in the bond of
peace.
2 Kings 19
5 As soon as the command was spread abroad, the people of Israel gave in abundance the firstfruits of grain, wine, oil, honey, and of all the produce of the field. And they brought in abundantly the tithe of everything. 6 And the people of Israel and Judah who lived in the cities of Judah also brought in the tithe of cattle and sheep, and the tithe of the dedicated things that had been dedicated to the Lord their God, and laid them in heaps. 7 In the third month they began to pile up the heaps, and finished them in the seventh month. 8 When Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blessed the Lord and his people Israel. 9 And Hezekiah questioned the priests and the Levites about the heaps. 10 Azariah the chief priest, who was of the house of Zadok, answered him, “Since they began to bring the contributions into the house of the Lord, we have eaten and had enough and have plenty left, for the Lord has blessed his people, so that we have this large amount left.”
of 83 to 87% UNITY AMERICANS
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
The Valid Points for
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
for the total commentary
With SENATOR TOMMY TUBERVILLE AND THESE WORDS
TUBERVILLE: THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME THAT I'VE HAD THIS BILL ON THE FLOOR AND I'M CONTINUING TRYING.
S. 1383 – The current Senate version of the SAVE America Act, which includes provisions for photo ID at the polls and citizenship verification via a federal system
PRESIDING OFFICER: BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT, THE MANDATORY QUORUM CALL UNDER RULE 22 HAS BEEN WAIVED. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT DEBATE ON THE MOTION TO SUSPENDED THE OPERATION OF RULE 25, PARAGRAPH N, SUBSECTION 1, TO PERMIT THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER THE PENDING MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE MESSAGE TO ACCOMPANY S. 1383 TO FUND THE TSA SHALL BE BROUGHT TO A CLOSE.
BACK TO THE BASIC S 1383 SAVE AMERICA ACT
Senator Bill Cassidy R LOUSIANA
I GO TO VOTE AND I SHOW THEM MY PHOTO I.D. AND LOUISIANA, WHICH HAD A LONG HISTORY OF, SHALL WE SAY, PEOPLE VOTING WHO ARE ALREADY BURIED, WE NO LONGER HAVE THAT HISTORY, SINCE WE BEGAN TO PUT PHOTO I.D.'S OUT. THINK ABOUT THAT. NO IMPOSITION UPON OUR PEOPLE. AND YET, NOW WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VOTER INTEGRITY, DESPITE A LONG HISTORY OF IT, SO I'M TOLD.
BUT WE KEEP ON HEARING THAT IT'S TOO DIFFICULT. AND SO, WE HAVE A COMMON SENSE, WIDELY SUPPORTED BILL, WHICH IS BEING OBJECTED TO. AND THE SAME PEOPLE OBJECTING TO THIS BILL DON'T OBJECT TO HAVING TO SHOW AN I.D. TO BUY A GUN. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF VOTING, AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY, IT DOESN'T WORK.
NOW, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT IS SUPPORTED BY 71% OF DEMOCRATS, VOTERS, AND 95% OF REPUBLICANS. IF ONLY IT WERE SUPPORTED BY 71% OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. AND THAT'S WHY I'M A PROUD COSPONSOR. NOW, YOU MIGHT SCRATCH YOUR HEAD WHEN YOU HEAR THAT SOME REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A SMALL LEFT WING BASE WHO OPPOSES THE VERY VOCAL AND SO, THEREFORE, THAT IS THE GENESIS OF THE OPPOSITION. BUT THIS DOES NOT KEEP AN ELIGIBLE AMERICAN FROM CASTING A BALLOT. IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY SOMEONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. AND I WILL SAY, MIKE LEE, WHO IS SITTING NEXT TO ME, HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THOSE WHO OBJECT TO ITS PASSAGE TO MEET THEIR CONCERNS.
NOW, BY THE WAY, I'VE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE TALKING FILIBUSTER,
AND I HAVE SUPPORTED RETURNING TO THE TALKING FILIBUSTER SINCE I JOINED THE SENATE IN 2015. I STILL REMEMBER JIMMY STEWART'S "MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON"
AND IT WAS ROUGH ON THE SENATORS, BUT BEING ROUGH ON THE SENATORS, FRANKLY, KIND OF PUSHED PEOPLE TOGETHER TO GET SOMETHING DONE. I'M FROM LOUISIANA. FOR THE LONGEST TIME, HUEY LONG HAD THE RECORD FOR THE LONGEST FILIBUSTER. BUT THAT FILIBUSTER EVENTUALLY EITHER BROKE HIM OR IT BROKE THE SENATE, IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO COMPROMISE IN ORDER TO GET SOMETHING DONE. SO, TO MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, I ASK YOU TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
MR. WHITEHOUSE D RHODE ISLAND
WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE SO-CALLED SAVE AMERICA ACT.
WHICH I THINK PROBABLY WOULD BE BETTER DESCRIBED AS THE STEAL THE NEXT ELECTION ACT BECAUSE OF THE PURPOSE THAT THIS BILL HAS TO THROW THE ELECTION AND TO THROW POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN AMERICA TO THE REPUBLICANS.
The correct name is required for Social Security
Driver's License
and Employment.
He goes on to blather, pontifically, about all the nonsense of being wrong
and Americans do not agree with him.
83 or 87% of Americans
WANT
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
36 STATES ALREADY HAVE VOTER ID
At least he mostly stayed ON TOPIC.
GROUNDSWELL UNITY AMERICA
UNITY
PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
Senator Roger Marshall M.D. R KANSAS
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEKEND UP HERE.
WE HAVE A LOT BALLS UP IN THE AIR.
WE HAVE THE SAVE ACT AND A WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ALL OF THESE ARE DEMANDING OUR ATTENTION SIMULTANEOUSLY.
I'D LIKE TO SHED A LITTLE LIGHT HERE. WHAT MAKES THIS JOB CHALLENGING ISN'T THE WORKLOAD. I WORKED MUCH HARDER AS AN OB-GYN DELIVERING A BABY EVERY DAY, IF NOT UP EVERY NIGHT, AT LEAST EVERY OTHER NIGHT OF THE WEEK. IT'S WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH POLICY CONVERSATIONS UP HERE
AND YOU'RE UP AGAINST MISINFORMATION,
MOVING GOALPOSTS
AND ARGUMENTS THAT SEEM COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM THE FACTS ON THE GROUND
SOME OF THE COMMENTS MY COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND MADE.
YOU WOULD THINK HE WOULD KNOW BETTER. HE'S A LAWYER. HE'S A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL. KANSAS DID HAVE A LAW THAT REQUIRED YOU TO BE A CITIZEN TO VOTE. THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T SAY THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WHAT THEY SAID IS, LOOK, IF CONGRESS WANTS IT THAT WAY, IF YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR WANTS IT THAT WAY, YOU NEED TO LEGISLATE IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT JUST AMERICAN CITIZENS VOTE.
SO, BE CAREFUL -- BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU'RE LISTENING TO UP HERE. THAT THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY SOME VERY ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS
MR. PRESIDENT, THE WARRANT SYSTEM IS DOING ITS JOB. IT IS GROUNDED IN PROBABLE CAUSE, IT PROVIDES DUE PROCESS, IT'S BEEN TESTED IN COURT AND IT'S HELD. AND IT KEEPS US SAFE. SO,
LET'S STOP PRETENDING OTHERWISE. IT ALL MAKES YOU WONDER, IT REALLY DOES MAKE YOU WONDER, WHAT DO THE DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT? THEIR ARGUMENTS DISAPPEAR WHEN IT COMES TO THE TWO THINGS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE WARRANT ISSUE OR DEMASKING, WHAT IS IT THAT THEY REALLY WANT?
WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED, DO THEY WANT THESE
30 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THIS COUNTRY TO BE GIVEN AMNESTY? IS THAT REALLY THEIR GOAL HERE? IS THAT REALLY THEIR GOAL? WHY DON'T THEY JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT? THE DEMOCRATS, WHAT THEY REALLY WANT, IS FOR 30 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS TO BE GIVEN AMNESTY SO THEY CAN VOTE. MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S TIME WE DEMASK THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE TELLING FALSE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF IMMIGRATION LAW AND FUND DHS.
IT'S TIME TO GET THE SAVE ACT ACROSS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
USA 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
154–158 million
voted nationwide
USA PRIMARY 2026
Estimated nationwide range
(based on typical patterns):
30–60 million total voters
across all 2026 primaries
JACK REED D RHODE ISLAND
WHY THE DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DOES NOT WORK IN VOTING
REED: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. NOW IN TEXAS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO GET A REAL I.D., AN APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF LAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS TO FORM DL-53, WHICH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY USES TO INFORM NONCITIZENS OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY CAN USE TO GET A REAL I.D. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A CITIZEN TO GET A REAL I.D. IN TEXAS
He goes on to say women have no idea how to get their real name on the ID
The women are stupid and don't really care enough about Voting to go out and do this immedately
Jack Reed refuses to yield to a question and goes on for a long time that 69 million married women
could be put in prison for lying. Which is completely ridiculous. Fearmongering
The correct name is required for Social Security
Driver's License
and Employment.
He goes on to blather, pontifically, about all the nonsense of being wrong
and Americans do not agree with him.
83 or 87% of Americans
WANT
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
36 STATES ALREADY HAVE VOTER ID
At least he mostly stayed ON TOPIC.
GROUNDSWELL UNITY AMERICA
UNITY
PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT
Senator Rick Scott R FLORIDA
Beloved Governor twice
MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY FOR THE HARD-WORKING AMERICAN FAMILIES WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET. THESE ARE HARD-WORKING AMERICAN FAMILIES WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET BECAUSE THEY ARE VICTIMS OF DEMOCRATS' POLITICAL THEATER. I GREW UP IN PUBLIC HOUSING AND WATCHED MY PARENTS STRUGGLE TO MAKE ENDS MEET. I SAW MY ADOPTED DAD LOSE HIS JOB. I REMEMBER WHEN MY DAD HAD HIS CAR REPOSSESSED. WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN, I FELT THE PANIC MY PARENTS FELT, WITH THEM TRYING TO KEEP FOOD ON THE TABLE FOR ME AND MY SIBLINGS, WHEN THE NEXT PAYCHECK WASN'T GUARANTEED. I DON'T WISH WHAT MY FAMILY WENT THROUGH ON ANYONE. I ACTUALLY RAN FOR GOVERNOR ON FLORIDA AND THE U.S. SENATE BECAUSE I WANT TO CHANGE THIS COUNTRY SO FEWER FAMILIES GROW UP WITH THE STRUGGLE THAT MINE DID. SO,
IT MAKES ME FURIOUS TO SEE WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE DOING RIGHT NOW WITH THIS POLITICAL STUNT OF SHUTTING DOWN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
EMPLOYEES, THE ONES WHO SHOW UP TO WORK EVERY DAY TO KEEP THE REST OF US SAFE, ARE THE ONES GOING THROUGH THE WORST OF ALL THIS SHUTDOWN. A UNION OFFICIAL WHO REPRESENTS WORKERS AT TSA SAID, A LOT OF EMPLOYEES THAT I'VE TALKED TO DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT. THEY'VE ALREADY MISSED HALF A CHECK, SO, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT BILL TO PAY.
THIS WEEK, IN MY STATE OF FLORIDA, THE GOOD FOLKS OVER AT FEEDING SOUTH FLORIDA DISTRICTED FOOD TO FEDERAL WORKERS WHO AREN'T BEING PAID BECAUSE OF THIS RECKLESS SHUTDOWN. THINK ABOUT THE SITUATION DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT DHS WORKERS IN. WHAT IF YOUR BOSS CALLED YOU TONIGHT, SAID, LISTEN, I NEED YOU TO COME IN TOMORROW. YOUR JOB IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION. WE NEED YOU TO HELP US KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND AMERICA RELY ON YOU TO SHOW UP SO THAT YOU CAN BE -- SO THEY CAN BE SAFE. THE MANAGEMENT DECIDES NOT TO PAY YOU. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN MANAGEMENT WILL DECIDE TO PAY YOU.
THEY WANT TO ABSOLUTELY SHUT DOWN ICE AND CBP. THAT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THEY WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE SO THEY CAN HAMSTRING OUR ABILITY TO HAMSTRING IMMIGRATION LAWS, BUT NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ILLEGAL ALIENS. MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS POLITICAL THEATER. WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THE HYPOCRISY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THESE INDIVIDUALS GET PAID. IT'S UNFAIR TO DENY PAYCHECKS TO OUR TSA AGENTS AND MORE THAN 200,000 OTHER DHS WORKERS. AND WE CAN'T ALLOW MORE HEARTBREAKING STORIES LIKE ALANDRA, SUSAN, RACHEL, JOCELYN, LAKEN AND STEPHANIE. AMERICA A BETTER THAN THIS. AND I'M NOT GOING TO STOP FIGHTING UNTIL THESE RADICAL ATTEMPTS AND -- AND TO PUT ILLEGAL ALIENS BEFORE AMERICAN CITIZENS. MR. PRESIDENT
Senator Mike Lee R UTAH
He is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Utah, a seat he has held since 2011. A member of the Republican Party, Lee became Utah's senior senator in 2019, when Orrin Hatch retired, and the dean of Utah's congressional delegation in 2021, when Representative Rob Bishop retired.
The son of U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee and brother of Utah Supreme Court Justice Thomas Rex Lee, Lee began his career as a clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah before clerking for Samuel Alito, who was then a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THERE HAVE BEEN MORE ASSERTIONS MADE ON THIS BILL THAN THERE HAVE IN THE PAST, BUT I NEED TO ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THOSE POINTS,
PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REFUTED OR AT LEAST ADEQUATELY REFUTED TODAY IN CONNECTION WITH THESE DEBATES.
JUST WITH A GENERALIZED STATEMENT UPFRONT THAT WILL FACILITATE MY ABILITY TO REFUTE THIS SCURRILOUS AND FALSE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THIS BILL.
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MANGLED WITH TRUTH, THEY ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY FALSE.
THEY'RE BUILT ON LIES, BUILT ON BLATANT MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE TEXT NOW PLACED BEFORE THE SENATE, BASED ON A MISCHARACTERIZE OF THE LEGAL STATUS QUO. BASED ON MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE INDIVIDUAL MOTIVES OF LAWMAKERS IN THIS BODY, SOMETHING WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CALL INTO QUESTION BUT HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS
TODAY. SO, FIRST,
WE REMEMBER THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE SAVE AMERICA ACT IS TO MAKE IT EASY TO VOTE AND HARD TO CHEAT.
WE REMEMBER THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SAVE AMERICA ACT IS TO DO THIS THROUGH A TWO-STEP MECHANISM, ONE THAT FOCUSES ON REQUIRING PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AT THE TIME OF VOTER REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER THAT REQUIRES PHOTO I.D. AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF VOTING.
THE WHOLE REASON THAT THIS LAW BECAME NECESSARY, THAT THIS BILL, THIS LEGISLATIVE PROJECT CAME INTO EXISTENCE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO IS BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN CHIP ROY AND I, HE COMES FROM TEXAS, HE AND I WERE TALKING AND HAVING BEEN INFORMED BY SOME EXPERTS IN THIS AREA, WE PIECED TOGETHER A NUMBER OF FEATURES, LEGAL, FACTUAL, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE CONVERSED INTO ONE, PRODUCING A MASSIVE GAP IN OUR ELECTION SECURITY.
TODAY, IT DOES, IN FACT, REQUIRE THAT YOU BE A U.S. CITIZEN TO VOTE IN A FEDERAL ELECTION. THAT DOESN'T ENFORCE ITSELF. IN FACT, THAT CRIMINAL PROHIBITION AGAINST NONCITIZENS VOTING IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS HAS BECOME MORE OR LESS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE BECAUSE NONCITIZEN VOTING IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT UNDER THE STATUS QUO.
DECADES AGO, THERE WERE SIMPLY FEWER NONCITIZENS IN THE UNITED STATES. IN MANY INSTANCES, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF YOU WERE A NONCITIZEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WERE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. THAT'S KNEW CHANGED. WE HAVE -- THAT'S NOW CHANGED.
WE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN THIS COUNTRY, SPECIFICALLY WHO ARRIVED BETWEEN THAT FOUR-YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 20TH OF 2021, THE DAY PRESIDENT BIDEN TOOK OFFICE, AND JANUARY 20, 2025,, THE DAY PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAME PRESIDENT FOR THE SECOND TIME. THIS VARIABLE FLOOD OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, A MASS SCALE BORDER INVASION INVITED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, CONTRARY TO OUR LAWS, BROUGHT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT. AND BY DOING THAT, SO WHEN YOU MERGE THAT WITH THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF NONCITIZENS HERE GENERALLY,
COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STATE TO ASK FOR ANY TYPE OF PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR SOMEONE REGISTERING TO VOTE AT A DMV THROUGH AN NVRA-SUPPLIED FORM. YOU'VE GOT
A RECIPE FOR DISASTER.
A RECIPE FOR DISASTER
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVERWHELMINGLY UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THIS ISN'T THAT BIG OF A DEAL.
SURE, IT MIGHT BE AN INCREMENTAL BURDEN FOR SOME, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM, AND IT'S A PROBLEM THAT AMERICANS ARE USED TO DEALING WITH. YOU DON'T GO TO THE BANK OR TO THE PHARMACY OR TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE OR HOSPITAL OR APPLY FOR A HUNTING LICENSE OR FISHING LICENSE. YOU DON'T BUY A GUN. YOU DON'T GO THROUGH TSA AND TRAVEL. YOU DON'T DO ANY OF THESE THINGS AND MUCH, MUCH MORE WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE WHO YOU ARE AND THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THE THING THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO.
WHEN WE REGISTER AS CANDIDATES, WE HAVE TO SHOW WHO YOU ARE AND WE'RE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND WE CAN BE OF SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. WE HAVE TO SHOW I.D. WHEN WE VOTE AND IF WE WIN OUR ELECTIONS, AS THOSE OF US SO FORTUNATE SERVING THIS BODY HAVE BEEN. YOU STILL HAVE TO SHOW UP AND PRODUCE AN I.D. ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR I.D. AND YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR A U.S. PASSPORT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH YOUR CITIZENSHIP JUST AS YOU WOULD WITH ANY OTHER JOB.
REMEMBER, EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAS ANY JOB AS AN EMPLOYEE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS TO ESTABLISH THEIR CITIZENSHIP. THEY HAVE TO DO THAT BY EITHER SHOWING A U.S. PASSPORT THAT ESTABLISHES CITIZENSHIP OR, ALTERNATIVELY, A BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR A PHOTO I.D. SO WE'VE GOT TO DO THAT HERE, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEE IN AMERICA. BUT, AS SENATORS, WE HAVE TO SHOW UP WITH OTHER DOCUMENTATION, IN ADDITION TO PROVING THAT WE ARE WHO WE SAY WE ARE.
THE MODERN LEFT HAS BECOME OBSESSED WITH WHAT THEY CONSIDER VICTIMLESS CRIMES. WE HEAR ABOUT THIS FROM THE MODERN LEFT ALL THE TIME, AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT IT IN THIS VERY CHAMBER THIS VERY DAY. THEY APPROACH NONCITIZEN VOTING AS IF IT WERE SUCH A MINOR THINGS, NOT TO MENTION THE NUMBERS OF FREQUENCY OR INFREQUENCY OF WHICH IT OCCURS,
BUT IT DOES HAPPEN, DEPARTMENT OF WAR -- DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. THE MANTRA IS LET'S MAKE IT EASY TO VOTE AND HARD TO CHEAT.
WHEN YOU FOCUS OBSESSIVELY ON EASY TO VOTE TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER THINGS, YOU'RE NOT JUST INCREASING MARGINALLY VOTER FRAUD, SOMETHING THEY CLAIM DOESN'T EXIST, AND THAT WE' INVENTED BECAUSE OF OUR OWN PARANOID FANTASY. BUT WHEN WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, WE'RE DISENFRANCHISING ACTUAL AMERICAN CITIZENS BECAUSE THEIR VOTE MATTERS LESS. THEIR VOTE CAN BE CANCELED OUT ENTIRELY BY ONE OR MORE OR A THOUSAND OR MORE OR 10,000 OR MORE PEOPLE WHO VOTE IN THE SAME JURISDICTION BY PEOPLE NOT ABLE TO DO SO.
YES, THIS MATTERS. AND IT IS NOT DISENFRANCHISEMENT. IT'S LIKE SAYING YOU'RE EXCLUDING ENTIRE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE WHEN YOU DEMAND THEY PROVE WHO THEY ARE WHEN THEY START A JOB, SOMETHING WE ALL HAVE TO DO
SHAME ON MY COLLEAGUES FOR SUGGESTING OTHERWISE. WE ALSO HEARD -- THIS ONE WAS FROM THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND. AND WE HEARD IT MULTIPLE TIMES NOT ONLY FROM HIM BUT FROM THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND THAT IT REQUIRES A PASSPORT TO VOTE UNDER THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.
THIS IS NOT JUST A LIE.
THIS IS A DAMNED LIE BECAUSE THE PLAIN BLACK-AND-WHITE TEXT OF THE BILL MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE ARE A ZILLION WAYS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CITIZENSHIP.
THERE ARE A LOT OF REAL I.D. DRIVER'S LICENSES THAT ARE ISSUED TO CITIZEN AND NONCITIZEN ALIKE. THAT'S BECOME A POINT OF CONFUSION.
THERE'S A SUBCATEGORY OF REAL I.D. DRIVER'S LICENSES KNOWN AS THE ENHANCED DRIVER'S LICENSES, ISSUED BY SOME STATES TO SOME PEOPLE THAT CONTAIN ON THE DRIVER'S LICENSE THAT IT ESTABLISHES CITIZENSHIP. THERE ARE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SOME TRIBAL PAPERS THAT ESTABLISH CITIZENSHIP. NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT SOME OF THEM DO. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF THINGS THAT DO THAT. BUT, MADAM PRESIDENT, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THESE MECHANISMS, YOU CAN ALSO SHOW UP WITHOUT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN HAND. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM, YOU CAN'T FIND THEM, YOU LOST THEM, YOUR HOUSE BURNED DOWN, WHATEVER IT IS, YOU CAN SHOW UP AND FILL OUT AN AFFIDAVIT, A SWORN AFFIDAVIT SAYING, I, MIKE LEE, SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT I'M A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS IS WHERE I WAS BORN. IF YOU'RE A NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, AS I AM, AS MOST OF US HERE ARE,
AND IT IS EXPENSIVE. COSTS A $130 HUNDRED BUCKS TO GET PASSPORT. ALL OF US AS SENATORS HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE HELPING OUR CONSTITUENTS GETTING PASSPORTS.
PRESIDENT, WE OUTLAWED POLL TAXES MORE THAN 60 YEARS BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT A POLL TAX BECAUSE YOU NEED NOT SHELL OUT A DIME. A POLL TAX IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IN ORDER TO HAVE IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THIS IS NOT THAT, NOTHING LIKE THAT. ALL RIGHT, NEXT POINT. MY COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO ARGUE THAT EVERY PART OF THIS IS SO FRAUGHT WITH PERIL, INCLUDING THE VERY BASIC ELEMENT OF WHAT UNDER THIS LAW THE STATES WOULD NEED TO DO TO COORDINATE WITH AND SHARE VOTER REGISTRATION DATA WITH THE RELEVANT FEDERAL AGENCIES, PRIMARILY
LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW WE KNOW THAT. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE'VE GOT A SMALL HANDFUL OF STATES, BUT A GROWING NUMBER OF STATES, THAT HAVE BEGUN A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THEIR OWN REGISTRATION FILES. AND THEY HAVE SHARED THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION FILE DATA WITH THE INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS A CITIZEN AND WHO IS NOT.
THOSE WHO HAVE DONE THIS HAVE FOUND MANY THOUSANDS OF NONCITIZENS IN THEIR VOTER FILES SO FAR. MY HAT GOES OFF TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONE IT. THIS IS THE RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN THING TO DO. AND THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FIGURING O HOW TO CORRECT THE ERRORS. SO SOME OF THEM HAVE FOUND OUT THAT WAY. OTHERS, AS IS THE CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, A GENERAL PHENOMENON THAT OCCURS ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT IN OKLAHOMA THEY HAVE A LAW DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR SITUATION.
THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN WHICH THEY OPENLY ADMIT THAT THEY REGISTER NONCITIZENS TO VOTE BECAUSE IN SOME LOCAL ELECTIONS WITHIN THOSE JURIS DUCKSES THEY ALLOW NON -- JURISDICTIONS THEY ALLOW NONCITIZENS TO VOTE. IT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT PROHIBITS IT IN A STATE OR LOCAL ELECTION AS LONG AS THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW OR IN THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW THAT PROHIBITS IT, THEY'RE FREE TO DO SO, AND SOME OF THEM HAVE.
MIDDLE SCHOOLISH AS IT IS, THEY DO IT ANY WAY. SERIOUSLY, IN THOSE STATES WHEN U.S. FEDERAL AUTHORITIES HAVE ASKED THEM TO EXPLAIN HOW IT IS THAT THEY DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF VOTER REGISTRATION FILES CONSISTING OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL ELECTIONS AS NONCITIZENS, HOW DO THEY PREVENT THOSE SAME CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS BUT REGISTERED TO VOTE FROM CASTING VOTES WITH A NORMAL BALLOT AS FOR FEDERAL OFFICES LIKE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND U.S. SENATE? EVERY TIME THAT HAS BEEN ASKED, THEY GO SILENT. THEY WON'T SAY A THING. THEN THEY REFUSE TO COOPERATE.
A FEW MINUTES AGO I REFERRED TO A NUMBER OF STATES THAT HAVE ON THEIR OWN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE SAFE DATABASE WITHIN THE HOMELAND SECURITY. THEY SHARE THEIR DATA USUALLY ENTERING INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BEFOREHAND. AND THEN THEY SAY, HEY, RUN THE NUMBERS. SHOW US WHERE WE'VE GOT PEOPLE IN THERE THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE. TO THEIR GREAT CREDIT THEY'VE DONE THAT. BUT THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STATES THAT ADAMANTLY REFUSE. MOST SO-CALLED BLUE STATES A WITH DEMOCRAT LEGISLATURES OR GOVERNORS HAVE BEEN REFUSING TO DO THAT. SO THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY NONCITIZENS MIGHT BE REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THOSE STATES. SO THIS IS KIND OF A PROBLEM.
BACK TO THE ARGUMENT MADE BY BOTH OF THE RHODE ISLAND SENATORS. THEY HAD A LOT TO SAY TODAY AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS TO SAY. THEY WERE USING REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS THAT ARE NOT ROOTED IN TRUTH.
AND THAT ARE MADE WITH EITHER KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FALSITY OR RECKLESS DISREGARD AS TO THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING. THEY ARE ARGUE. WE CAN'T EVEN TRUST THE STATES. THE STATES CAN'T EVEN TRUST THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY OR ANYONE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WITH THAT DATA THAT UNDER THE SAVE AMERICA ACT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR THIS REVOA. WHY?
WELL, THE ARGUMENT -- THEY USE A LOT MORE WORDS TO SAY IT, BUT IT BOILS DOWN TO THREE WORDS -- ORANGE MAN BAD. NOW, THAT'S NOT A GOOD REASON. THAT'S A LAME-ASS REASON. WE DON'T TRUST THEM WITH THE INFORMATION BECAUSE SOME OF IT CONTAINS PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. WELCOME TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. T
INFORMATION BEING HANDED OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING VOTER ELIGIBILITY, THAT DOES NOTHING TO MAXIMIZE OR FURTHER PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOR ARE MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES SAYING OR EVEN SUGGESTING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THAT THEY WANT TO UNDO ALL THE THOUSANDS, CONSIDER IF NOT MILLIONS -- AREAS IN WHICH THEY CREATE A WHOLE LOT OF DATA ON U.S. CITIZENS.
SO THEY'RE JUST HYPER FOCUSING ON THIS ONE WHERE, BY THE WAY, THE EASE AND SIMPLICITY OF PROTECTING THE PRIVACY AND THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF INDIVIDUAL U.S. CITIZENS IS FAR EASIER THAN IT IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE IRS OR OF THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OR EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT KEEPS TRACK OF. SO THIS STRIKES ME AS PRETEXTUAL, A FANCY WORD FOR A CHEAP EXCUSE FOR THE REAL REASON NOW MAYBE WE'LL GET TO THE REAL REASON IN A MINUTE.
LET'S SAY THEY'RE OPPOSING THIS FOR A REASON BUT NONE OF THE REASONS THAT THEY ARE OFFERING PASS MUSTER, NOT ONE OF THEM CAN WITHSTAND SCRUTINY. SO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT TRUMP BAD EQUALS NO STATE SHOULD HAVE TO SHARE ITS DATA, EVEN WHERE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO WEED OUT FRAUD IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS, THAT ARGUMENT ISN'T GOOD. THAT ARGUMENT IS BASICALLY SAYING, WE DON'T WANT OUR STATES TO HAVE TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE'RE PRETTY SURE THAT OUR STATES HAVE ALREADY ASSURED A WHOLE BUNCH OF NONCITIZEN VOTERS AND WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM UP. FROM DAY ONE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THIS, EVEN BEFORE DEBATE BEGAN IN THE SENATE, MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN ARGUING THAT
ANYONE WHOSE NAME WOULD LIKELY TRIGGER ALARM BELLS THROUGH THEROCESSES ESTABLISHED BY THE SAVE AMERICA ACT WARRANTING THEIR REMOVAL ON THEIR STATUS AS NONCITIZENS, THEY SAY THAT ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKELY BE REMOVED FROM THE VOTER REGISTRATION FILES WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BE A DEMOCRAT THAN A REPUBLICAN, AND THAT WOULD BE BAD FOR US. THEY LITERALLY SAID THIS. THEY ARE CAREFUL NOT TO SAY IT BECAUSE THEY ARE NONCITIZENS.
BUT THAT'S THE REASON -- THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU'D BE REMOVED THROUGH THIS FRAMEWORK IS IF THEY'RE NONCITIZENS. SO, WHEN THEY SAY OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THIS IS GOING TO DISENFRANCHISE PEOPLE. WELL, YEAH, IF YOU'RE A NONCITIZEN. IF YOU'RE NOT, IT'S NOT GOING TO. AND SO, THIS PROCESS THAT THEY GO THROUGH IN DEFENDING THE STATUS QUO AND THEN SAYING THAT ARMAGEDDON WILL BE UPON US IF WE REQUIRE PEOPLE TO SHOW UP WITH A PHOTO I.D. WHEN THEY VOTE, TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE CITIZENS WHEN THEY REGISTER TO VOTE, AND THAT THE STATES ARE GOING TO SHARE THEIR DATA ON THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION FILES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, NOT VOTING IN U.S. ELECTIONS AS NONCITIZENS. WHEN THEY OBJECT THAT STRONGLY TO IT, MAKES YOU WONDER WHY THEY'RE SO UPSET.
AND I THINK THE QUESTION ANSWERS ITSELF. IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF WHEN THEY FREAK OUT OVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER AREAS WHERE PHOTO I.D. IS REQUIRED. IN FACT, YOU KNOW, MADAM PRESIDENT, THE LAST CONGRESS, WHEN PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS STILL IN OFFICE AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE MAJORITY IN THIS CHAMBER,
WE'RE TALKING JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, EVERY DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE THEN JOINED IN AND SUPPORTED LEGISLATION THAT CONTAINED A VOTER I.D. ELEMENT. SO, THE VOTER I.D. COMPONENT OF IT, MOST OF THEM HAVE SAID THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT,
AND THEN WHEN WE TRIED TO OFFER THAT ONE UP AND PASS IT BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AT THE MOTION OF OUR FRIEND,
THIS ONE CAME SPECIFICALLY FROM THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, WHO -- IF I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT -- FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SAID THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TO ASK A REGISTERING VOTER FOR PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. NOW, IF I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT, I HOPE AND EXPECT TO BE COECTED, BUT I DON'T THINK I DID. I THINK THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT, AND IF THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT, THAT ARGUMENT IS A LIE. IT IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
IT IS NOT ONLY GUILTY OF BEING FALSE, IT IS INNOCENT OF BEING TRUE. THE SUPREME COURT RULING TO WHICH HE'S REFERRING IS THIS CASE CALLED ARIZONA VERSUS INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA. NOW, IT WAS WRONGLY DECIDED, BUT IT'S CONCLUSIO IT'S CONCLUSIVE NONETHELESS. IT DID NOT SAY IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ASK A REGISTERING VOTER FOR PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. FAR FROM IT. IT SAID THAT BASED ON THE TEXT OF THE 1993 MVRA THAT THE TEXT IS A MATTER OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION PRE-EMPTS, PROHIBITS ANY STATE USING THE MVRA FORM AT A DMV FROM ASKING ANY DRIVER'S LICENSE APPLICANT SIMULTANEOUSLY REGISTERING TO VOTE TO ALSO ESTABLISHING CITIZENSHIP. THAT IS A STATUTORY CONCLUSION, ONE THAT WE ARE FREE TO CHANGE. IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. IT IS FAR FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. NOW, IF THAT'S WHAT MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, THE DISTINGUISHED JUNIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND MEANT TO SAY, THEN HE IS JUST PLAIN WRONG
. BUT BY SAYING THAT, HE'S SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE POWERLESS, ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, FROM REQUIRING ANY REGISTERING VOTER TO PROVIDE PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. WHICH WOULD MAKE NO SENSE, BY THE WAY. I MEAN, GIVEN HOW MANY TIMES YOU'RE REQUIRED ELSEWHERE IN FEDERAL LAW TO SAY NOTHING OF STATE LAW, BUT JUST EVEN IN FEDERAL LAW, TO ESTABLISH WHO YOU ARE AND THAT YOU ARE A U.S. CITIZEN. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT IN THE I-9 EVERY TIME YOU START A NEW JOB.
EVERY AMERICAN HAS TO DO THAT, OR YOU CAN'T START THE JOB. YOU ALSO HAVE TO DO IT WHEN YOU YOU ALSO HAVE TO DO IT WHEN YO YOU ALSO HAVE TO DO IT WHEN Y YOU -- WHEN YOU APPLY FOR A PASSPORT. AND THEN THERE ARE RELATED ISSUES OF PROOF THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IN MANY, MANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. IF YOU WANT TO BUY A FIREARM, YOU GO INTO A FEDERALLY-LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A PHOTO I.D., YOU THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK, YOU HAVE TO SHOW WHO YOU ARE. NOW, TO THIS, THE DEMOCRATS SAY, OH, BUT THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGH CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RI RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO VOTE. TRUE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROVISIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT IN DIFFERENT WAYS PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
YES, IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. SO, TOO, ARE A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS. SO, TOO, IS YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL. AND YET, YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT UNQUALIFIED. IF YOU WANT TO TRAVEL IN AND OUT OF THE UNITED STATES, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A PASSPORT. IF YOU WANT TO TRAVEL BETWEEN TWO STATES OR EVEN TWO CITIES THROUGH COMMERCIAL AIR TRAVEL, YOU ARE AT A MINIMUM GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW A DRIVER'S LICENSE. AND YET THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, AS IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE. SO, THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE ARE AND CAN BE NO GUARDRAILS AROUND THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE A PERSON WHO IS ALLOWED TO EXERCISE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT IN QUESTION. THAT NEVER HAS BEEN THE CASE, AND IT NEVER WILL BE THE CASE. YOU STILL DON'T ESCAPE THE NEED TO ESTABLISH WHO YOU ARE AND THAT YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT.
NEXT COMES THE ARGUMENT MADE REPEATEDLY BY BOTH THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND AND THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, THAT THIS WILL SOMEHOW DISENFRANCHISE WOMEN. THIS HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD, NOT EVEN -- NOT JUST IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BILL, WITH THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, MADAM PRESIDENT, BUT WITH ANY BILL EVER DEBATED IN THE 15 1/2 YEARS I'VE BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
I FIND IT UTTERLY OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST THAT WOMEN JUST CAN'T POSSIBLY BE EXPECTED TO GET THEIR STUFF TOGETHER ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH WHO THEY ARE,
THAT THEY'RE CITIZENS.
OR, AS THE ARGUMENT GOES, WOMEN WHO GET MARRIED AND CHANGE THEIR NAME UPON GETTING MARRIED ARE NEVER, EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVE WHO THEY ARE AFTER THEY CHANGE THEIR NAME BECAUSE AFTER ALL,
THEIR PARENTS COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEIR MARRIED NAME WOULD BE WHEN THEY WERE BORN, SO -- WE JUST CAN'T PASS THIS LAW. THIS IS REALLY, REALLY DUMB.
I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE A LOT OF WOMEN SERVE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, EVERY ONE OF WHOM HAD TO PROVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP, HAD TO PRODUCE THEIR ELECTION CERTIFICATE, AND MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN MARRIED AND CHANGED THEIR NAME IN CONNECTION WITH THAT. AND IT'S NOT JUST THE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, IT'S ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE. AND I KNOW A LOT OF WOMEN. I HAVE FIVE SISTERS, MADAM PRESIDENT. MY WIFE ALSO HAS FIVE SISTERS. BETWEEN US, THAT'S TEN SISTERS. THAT IS A LOT OF SISTERS. EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM KNOWS HOW TO ESTABLISH WHO THEY ARE AND THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.
HEARD IT STATED WITH REGARD TO RURAL AMERICANS AS OPPOSED TO MORE URBAN AMERICANS. OR SUBURBIAN AMERICANS. PEOPLE OF CERTAIN ETHNIC OR RACIAL BACKGROUNDS, MEN, WOMEN, OLD PEOPLE, YOUNG PEOPLE. THEY TRY TO OTHERIZE JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IMAGINABLE AND SAY THAT CERTAIN SUBGROUPS WILL SOMEHOW BE DISENFRANCHISED AND DISADVANTAGED.
THIS IS ALL NONSENSE AND IT IGNORES THE SAME CENTRAL FEATURE IN THE BILL THAT MAKES THIS TREMENDOUSLY EASY. ALL RIGHT.
NEXT ARGUMENT THAT THEY BOTH MAKE, FEES. YOU GOT TO PAY FEES, SOMEHOW, TO VOTE. THIS GETS BACK TO THEIR POLL TAX ARGUMENT. UTTER LIE, BUILT ON PARANOID FANTASY TO MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO SCARE PEOPLE.
NOW, THIS REALLY HAS TO STOP AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER. AT TIMES, THEY START TO ARGUE AGAINST THE PHOTO I.D. POINT MINIMALLY AND THEN THEY REMEMBER THAT MANY, IF NOT MOST OF THEM, AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER, INCLUDING SOME IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, HAVE SAID THEY'RE OKA WITH PHOTO I.D., SO, THEY DON'T ARGUE WITH THAT ONE TOO MUCH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY DON'T OWN UP TO THE FACT THAT EVERY DEMOCRAT IN HERE IN THE LAST CONGRESS WAS, I BELIEVE A COSPONSOR OF LEGISLATION THAT CONTAINED AN I.D. REQUIREMENT.
NOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THIS ONE. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE WAS THAT IT WASN'T QUITE AS TIGHT, BUT THERE WAS A TYPE OF -- OF I.D. REQUIREMENT IN THAT BILL.
IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT. NOW, THEY KEPT ARGUING ALSO THAT THIS WOULD DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDEN CITIZEN VOTERS, THAT IT WOULD BE CITIZENS THAT REALLY WOULD HAVE TO WORRY AND THIS WOULD END UP RESULTING IN THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF LOTS AND LOTS OF CITIZENS.
THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY -- A COUPLE OF THINGS. I HAD TO LISTEN CAREFULLY WHEN HE STARTED TO SAY THIS BECAUSE I THOUGHT HE WAS JOKING OR I HOPED I WAS MISUNDERSTANDING IT. HE STARTED TO THEORIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, BACK TO THIS POINT THAT ORANGE MAN BAD SO NONE OF THIS CAN HAPPEN, WE HATE TRUMP, WE CAN'T TRUST TRUMP OR ANYBODY IN HIS ADMINISTRATION, THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO JUST SAY THAT ALL OF IT IS UNACCEPTABLE. SAYING THAT IF THIS LAW PASSES, WE CAN EXPECT THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MIGHT JUST WILLY-NILLY CANCEL THE VOTER REGISTRATION FILES OF ANYONE THEY FELT LIKE CANCELING.
SOMEBODY LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT NOT BE A TRUMP VOTER OR SOMETHING BOTHERED THEM ABOUT THIS OR THAT PERSON, THEY MIGHT JUST WILLY-NILLY SAY, WHEN IN DOUBT, THROW THEM OUT. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND EVEN BE WENT A STEP FURTHER IN A WAY THAT PAINED ME TO HEAR BECAUSE IT'S SO ABSURD. HE SAID IT'S EVEN -- IT'S EVEN SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION COULD GO IN AND JUST CANCEL ALL THE VOTER REGISTRATION FILES IN AN ENTIRE STATE. THIS IS NONSENSE.
THAT NOT IS THAT ABSURD TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT, TO THINK THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT, IT'S UTTER HI AT ODDS -- UTTERLY AT ODDS WITH THE TEXT IN THE LEGISLATION. NOTHING IN THE LEGS WOULD ALLOW -- LEGS /- LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. THEY WOULD NOTIFY THE STATES, THESE APPEAROR NONCITIZENS, VOTERS ONE THROUGH 5,000,
18. PROHIBIT NONCITIZENS FROM VOTING IN ELECTIONS SO LET'S JUST ENFORCE IT. THAT'S WHY WE WROTE THIS LAW BECAUSE THE EXISTING LAWS AS INTERPRETED AND AS IMPLEMENTED MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE -- IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND OUT WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING. WE CAN'T ENFORCE EXISTING LAW, AT LEAST NOT EXISTING LAW IN STATES THAT,
NUMBER ONE, REFUSE VOLUNTARILY COME FORWARD AND SHARE THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION FILE DATA WITH DHS TO RUN IT THROUGH THE SAVED DATABASE, WHICH I THINK ROUGHLY HALF OF THE STATES, BLUE STATES IN PARTICULAR, ARE REFUSING DO. AND THOSE STATES INCLUDE, ESPECIALLY THIS HANDFUL OF STATES,
THAT OPENLY BRAZENLY ADMIT THAT THEY ALLOW NONCITIZENS TO REGISTER TO VOTE TO PARTICIPATE IN CERTAIN LOCAL ELECTIONS EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NONCITIZENS.
WITH A HANDFUL OF STATES THAT ALLOW NONCITIZENS TO VOTE AND HAVE NO EXPLANATION HOW THEY WILL KEEP THEM FROM VOTING IN ELECTIONS FOR OFFICE. RHODE ISLAND IS A BLUE STATE. I WILL CHECK TO MAKE SURE BUT I WILL BET $5, A LOT OF MONEY WHERE I COME FROM, THAT RHODE ISLAND IS ONE OF THOSE STATES THAT DEFIANTLY REFUSES TO SHARE THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION DATA. HOW IN THE HECK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ENFORCE THE LAW WHEN THEY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THE LAW?
IT IS UNKNOWN AND IT IS UNNOBLE.
THIS IS LIKE -- I GUESS IT'S LIKE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANINGS TELLING THE CHIRP OF ISRAEL THEY HAVE TO MAKE BRICKS WITHOUT STRAW. IT CAN'T BE DONE. THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE WORK BEHIND THEIR SLAVES. APPARENTLY OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE NOT ALL THAT CONCERNED ABOUT NONCITIZENS VOTING. ALL RIGHT.
ONE MORE MOVIE QUOTE WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC. SHREK, ONE OF THE GREAT MASTERPIECES OF THE LAST 40, 50 YEARS. SHREK, THERE IT IS A CHARACTER IN THERE WHO IS NOT A NICE GUY. HE IS A TYRANT, FASCIST,
AND HE'S TALKING TO HIS SOLDIERS, AND HE SAYS, I REALIZE THAT IN THIS BATTLE THAT SOME OF YOU MAY DIE, BUT THAT IS A SACRIFICE I'M WILLING TO MAKE. IT
SEEMS LIKE SOME OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ARE APPROACHING THIS WITH AN ANALOGOUS AT TUCHLTD I REALIZE IF WE DO NOTHING
AND NOT PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, WE COULD HAVE THOUSANDS, TENS OF THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS CURRENTLY REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO WILL VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND MIGHT DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS,
BUT THAT IS A SACRIFICE WE ARE WILLING TO MAKE.
WHY? IT BENEFITS THEM. THAT OLD LATIN PHRASE, WHO BENEFITS? THEY DO. THEY BENEFIT FROM THE STATUS QUO WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE EXISTING LAW. SO, NO, MR. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE NEED THIS BECAUSE ALL WE NEED TO DO IS ENFORCE THE LAW.
IT CAN'T BE DONE AND YOU KNOW THAT AND YOU'RE ALL TOO CONTENT WITH THAT SO KNOCK IT OFF. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND GOES ON TO SAY, THEY'LL USE IT TO PURGE VOTER ROLLS. YES, TO PURGE VOTER ROLLS OF NONCITIZENS, NOTHING IN THE LAW WOULD AUTHORIZE IT IF SOMEBODY TRIED TO DO IT. NOT ONLY WOULD THEY LOSE IN COURT, BUT THEY WOULD BE FIRED FROM THEIR JOB AND THEY MIGHT EVEN BE IMPRISONED.
THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS AND THEY'RE TREATING IT AS IF THEY CAN JUST MAKE UP THE FACTS AND MAKE UP THE LAW. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN FACTS. AND THOSE THINGS THAT THEY WANT US TO ACCEPT AS FACTS ARE JUST DAMNED LIES. ALL RIGHT. THERE WERE SEVERAL -- THERE WERE SEVERAL REFERENCES MADE TO MY HOME STATE OF UTAH. TALKING ABOUT HOW RELATIVELY CLEAN UTAH'S VOTER REGISTRATION ROLLS ARE, CLEAN OF NONCITIZENS. GREAT. YEAH, YOU KNOW WHY? MY STATE IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THAT REFUSES TO CLEAN UP ITS VOTER REGISTRATION FILES. I DON'T KNOW IF WE KNOW THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN REGISTERED TO VOTE OR IF THEY HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THOSE.
IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS OF THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY, UTAH HAD MORE INCOMING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TRAFFIC INTO THE STATE THAN ANY OTHER STATE IN THE UNION MEASURED ON A PER CAPITA BASIS.
SO EVEN THOUGH OVER TIME, YEAH, WE PROBABLY HAD PRETTY CLEAN VOTER REGISTRATION FILES,
THERE'S NO TELLING IF THAT IS STILL THE CASE TODAY OR IF THAT IS WHAT IT IS NOW AND THE NEXT ELECTION, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, NO CITIZEN, NO PROBLEM. GO INTO A DMV, FILL OUT A FORM, CHECK THE BOX, SIGN YOUR NAME AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ARE A REGISTERED VOTER. NEXT, FEDERALISM. THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE ARGUMENTS THAT THEY MAKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BOTH SENATORS FROM RHODE ISLAND MADE THE FEDERALISM ARGUMENT TODAY.
ABOUT THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PART OF WHAT THEY SAID THAT IS TRUE IS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED POWERS. JAMES MADISON IN FEDERALIST 45 DESCRIBED THIS GOVERNMENT, THE ONE THAT WE OPERATE, THE ONE FOR WHICH WE MAKE LAWS IS A GOVERNMENT POWERS MADISON DESCRIBED AS FEW AND DEFINED. THE POWERS REFUSED TO THE STATES ARE NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE. UNLIKE THE STATES WHICH ARE GOVERNMENTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION,
THEY CAN LEGITIMATE ON ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE, THAT IS NOT PROHIBITED TO THE STATES OR U.S. CONSTITUTION OR STATE CONSTITUTION, THEY CAN DO. WE ARE NOT THE SAME. THIS GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SAME. WE HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC REASON TO LEGITIMATE, A REASON THAT FALLS WITHIN CONGRESS'S LIMITED ENUMERATED POWERS, MOST OF WHICH, NOT ALL OF WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN ONE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, ART 1, SECTION 8, THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF OTHER SCATTERED AUTHORITIES THROUGHOUT THE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT IS MOST RELEVANT HERE AND THAT'S THE ONE FOUND IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH RULES AND REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE ELECTION OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS, NAMELY U.S. SENATORS AND AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVES. THAT SAME PROVISION, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1, SAYS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE STATES WILL CONDUCT THOSE ELECTIONS. THAT'S TRUE.
IT ALSO SAYS THE STATES WILL ESTABLISH THE RULES GOVERNING THE TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF THOSE ELECTIONS, AND THAT'S TRUE. IT ALSO SAYS, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME IMPOSE ITS OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS, NOT REGARDING ELECTIONS GENERALLY BUT SPECIFICALLY FEDERAL ELECTIONS, FOR U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE RACES. WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. THAT AUTHORITY'S BEING EXERCISED HERE.
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE ARGUMENT THAT THE SAVE AMERICA ACT FALLS OUTSIDE THAT AUTHORITY. NOT ONE.
AND IT'S VERY AMUSING,
I TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE LAST NIGHT, AMUSING TO ME THAT MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE ARE MAKING A FEDERALISM ARGUMENT, CLAIMING THAT OUR AUTHORITY IS TOO LIMITED, SO LIMITED THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT THIS. I'M SURPRISED BY THAT FOR TWO INDEPENDENT REASONS. NUMBER ONE, GENERALLY SPEAKING THEY DON'T LIKE FEDERALISM. THEY'RE NOT FANS OF IT. EVER SINCE THE -- AT LEAST THE FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION,
ARGUABLY IT GOES BACK TO THE WOODROW WILSON ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS NOT BEEN THE CHAMPION OF FEDERALISM. THAT IS REALLY, REALLY PUTTING IT MILDLY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE SAYING THAT JACK DANIELS AND JIM BEAM ARE NOT FANS OF TEETOTELERS OR THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT. THESE GUYS GO WHOLE HOG INTO FEDERALIZING EVERYTHING. SINCE APRIL 12, 1937, THEY'VE HAD THEIR WAY. ROOSEVELT HAD DEMOCRATIC SUPERMAJORITIES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE. HE BULLIED AND INTIMIDATED THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAD BEEN KNOCKING DOWN HIS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND THREATENED THEM. RIGHT AFTER
■HIS FIRST REELECTIN IN THE FALL OF 1936, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WAS MAD BECAUSE A LOT OF THE LAWS HE HAD PUSHED THROUGH AS PART OF HIS NEW DEAL PROGRAM, REMEMBER, THE VILLAIN WAS THE GREAT DEPRESSION, ROOSEVELT WAS GOING TO BE THE HERO. THE WEAPON OF CHOICE WAS THE NEW DEAL, DRAMATICALLY INCREASING THE SIZE, SCOPE, AND COST OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, PUTTING IT IN CHARGE OF ALL KINDS OF THINGS. THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE FIRST TIME KNOCKED THEM DOWN, ONE AFTER THE OTHER. YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN'T DO THAT. THEY WERE RIGHT. A LOT OF THEM WERE RELYING ON AN EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WHICH IS THERE TO GIVE US AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THINGS OR PERSONS MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ACROSS STATE LINES, AS PART OF INSTRUMENTALITIES OR CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AIRWAYS, WATERWAYS, SO FORTH. WHENEVER THEY TRIED TO GET TOO CUTE WITH IT, SAYING IT GOES BEYOND THAT, ANYTHING THAT IS SORT OF ECONOMICISH AND THAT INVOLVES MONEY SHOULD DO IT. THE SUPREME COURT KNOCKED IT DOWN. WHAT DID FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT DO? I IMAGINE HE'S ONE OF THESE GUYS THAT PROBABLY PLAYED T-BALL AS A KID, NEVER MADE IT TO BASEBALL. PROBABLY PLAYED ON ONE OF THOSE TEAMS WHERE THEY DON'T KEEP SCORE BECAUSE EVERYONE IS A WINNER. HE GOT TIRED OF LOSING, COULDN'T LOSE LIKE A GENTLEMAN, COULDN'T ACCEPT THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT DID HE DO? THREATENED TO FORCE THE RETIREMENT OF A BUNCH OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHOM HEIDN'T LIKE, WHO HE NAMED THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE, NOT EXACTLY MR. CON JEANALITY THERE. AND -- CON GENIALITY THERE. HE ENTITLED HIMSELF TO INCREASE THE SUPREME COURT UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AS BIG AS 15 PEOPLE. THEY BARELY MOVED INTO THEIR MARBLE PALACE ACROSS THE STREET ABOUT A YEAR EARLIER. NOW, IT WAS TWO YEARS EARLIER TO THE DATE. THE SUPREME COURT HAD ALWAYS BEEN SORT OF THE ANCHOR TENANT OF THIS BUILDING, OR THE SUBTENANT, REDHEADED STEPCHILD, IF YOU WILL. ON APRIL 12, 1935, THIS BEAUTIFUL BUILDING OVER HERE OPENS ITS DOORS FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEY'D BEEN THERE TWO YEARS WHEN THIS COURT-PACKING PLAN BEGAN, BECAUSE FDR NEVER LEARNED TO LOSE LIKE A GENTLEMAN AND WASN'T WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSTITUTION AS THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. HE THREATENED THEM TO THE POINT THAT ENOUGH OF THE JUSTICES FLIPPED THEIR VOTES AND APRIL 12, 1937,
TWO YEARS EXACTLY TO THE DATE THEY HAD MOVED INTO THEIR MARBLE PALACE, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES REWROTE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, GIVING CONGRESS NEWFOUND POWER OVER BASICALLY EVERYTHING.
NOT ONLY COULD THEY REGULATE THINGS OR PERSONS MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS PART OF INTERSTATE TRANSACTION AND CHANNELS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT THEY COULD REGULATE ANY AND EVERY ACTIVITY MEASURED IN THE AGGREGATE, OCCURRING IN ONE STATE AT ONE TIME, HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. YES, THIS IS LEGALESE. YES, THIS IS JARGON FOR A VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT THAT JUST MEANS CONGRESS COULD NOW REGULATE WHATEVER THE HELL IT WANTS. EVERY ASPECT OF HUMAN EXISTENCE, LABOR, MANUFACTURER, AGRICULTURE, MINING, HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, EVEN IN ONE STATE AT ONE TIME, WAS UPON THE TABLE, WAS NOW FEDERAL.
DEMOCRATS CHAMPIONED THIS. IT WAS THEIR COURT-PACKING PLAN THAT FORCED THEM TO PUSH THIS THROUGH. MY POINT IS THIS, IS IT IRONIC, ONE COULD SAY HYPOCRITICAL AND DEEPLY SO, FOR THE PARTY OF UNLIMITED FEDERAL POWER, THAT DISTORTED THE VERTICAL PROTECTION OF FEDERALISM AND WITH IT THE HORIZONTAL PROTECTION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, WE HAVE NEVER RETREATED FROM THAT POSITION. AS SOON AS WE GAVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, THAT MESSED UP THE VERTICAL PROTECTION OF FEDERALISM, WE STARTED MESSING UP THE HORIZONTAL PROTECTION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.
NO SOONER HAD WE AS SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN GOTTEN ALL THIS NEW POWER THAT WE STARTED SAYING HOLY CRAP, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO WORK A LOT HARDER AND TAKE A LOT MORE VOTES, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAD AT ME. THEY STOPPED MAKING REAL LAWS AND STARTED PASSING PLATTE TUDES -- PLATITUDES. WE DECLARE WE SHALL HAVE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AND PRACTICES IN THIS COUNTRY, AND DELEGATE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE POWER TO MAKE, INTERPRET, AND ENFORCE RULES CARRYING THE FORCE OF GENERALLY APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW THAT WILL GUARANTEE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS. THEY DO THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEIR VERSION OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT. SO DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT FEDERALISM.
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC FEDERAL POWER AND A VERY NARROW, NONABUSIVE, NONABUSABLE GRANT OF FEDERAL POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. THIS IS NOT A FEDERALISM PROBLEM, MADAM PRESIDENT. NOT BY A MILE.
THAT LEADS TO THE NEXT ARGUMENT, CLOSELY RELATED TO THAT ONE. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, WHO WAS ON A ROLL
TONIGHT, I'LL GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR THAT,
IN AN HOUR AND HALF
HE FAILED TO MAKE EVEN A -- TO MAKE EVEN A SINGLE CORRECT POINT WITHOUT THE ABUSE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, LAW, AND COMMON SENSE.
OTHER THAN THAT, IT WAS A GREAT SPEECH. HAVING EXHAUSTED THE LAME FEDERALISM ARGUMENT THAT DOESN'T WORK, HE SAID, BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WHATEVER POWER IS GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1 TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PROVIDE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ELECTION OF FEDERAL LAWMAKERS, THAT'S ONLY FOR CONGRESS.
YOU LOOK AT THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, IT GIVES RESPONSIBILITIES TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES. NO CRAP, SHERLOCK.
THAT'S HOW WE DO EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING DELEGATED TO CONGRESS, ALL FEDERAL POWERS. WHEN THERE A FEDERAL GRANT OF AUTHORITY IN THE CONSTITUTION, WITH VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS, LIKE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF POWER GIVEN DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, NOT THROUGH THE CONGRESS, WHEN THE CONSTITUTION THROUGHOUT ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 AND THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE IN AICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 4, WHEN CONGRESS IS GRANTED A POWER, IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT WE MAKE THE LAW, BUT THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT LAW IS GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS WHA I DESCRIBED A MINUTE AGO, WHERE THE LAW MAKING POWER IS HANDED OVER TO AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY.
THAT IS DIFFERENT. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO PASS T RAINES ACT AFTER THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.
AS I KNOW THAT LEGISLATION, AS AM I. BECAUSE ANYTIME WE'RE MAKING NEW LAW, UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION, YOU HAVE TO PASS THROUGH THIS DUAL GAUNTLET OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 7. YOU CANNOT MAKE A FEDERAL LAW, MEANING YOU CANNOT MAKE A RULE ENFORCEABLE BY THE OVERPOWERING, BROODING OMNIPRESENCE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, UNLESS YOU SATISFY THE TWO-PART GAUNTLET -- BICAMERAL PASSAGE, HOUSE, SENATE, SAME TEXT, FOLLOWED BY PRESENTMENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SIGNATURE, VETO OR ACQUIESCENCE.
SO THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT. WE'RE NOT OUTSOURCING THE LAW MAKING POWER. WE'RE ADOPTING A SINGLE, VISIBLE, UNDERSTANDABLE, INTELLIGIBLE PRINCIPLE BASED LEGAL STANDARD, THEN HANDING OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR THE EXECUTION OF THAT STANDARD, WHICH WE'VE MADE WITH ABUNDANT CLARITY. THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND SAYS BUT IT GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO DO THIS,
NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY OR ANY BRANCH OF THE EXECUTIVE -- ANY PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. THIS IS JUST NONSENSE. I'VE NEVER HEARD SOMEBODY MAKE SUCH AN ARGUMENT.
BUT IT IS WRONG. WE DO HAVE THAT POWER. THAT POWER DOESN'T EVAPORATE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T IMPLEMENT IT. WHAT'S FUNNY HERE, IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR US TO EXECUTE IT. WHY? WE DON'T HAVE THE EXECUTIVE POWER. WE HAVE A NARROW PIECE OF EXECUTIVE POWER, EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO US ON OUR EXECUTIVE CALENDAR. WE HANDLE THE CONFIRMATION OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES AND WE HANDLE TREATY RATIFICATION. BUT THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE EXTENT OF OUR EXECUTIVE POWER.
IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR US TO MAKE A LAW AND THEN ALSO PUT OURSELVES IN CHARGE OF EXECUTING THAT SAME LAW. THAT WOULD PUT US IN THE POSITION OF THE LAWMAKERS IN OUR MOTHER COUNTRY WHO DON'T HAVE SEPARATION OF POWERS LIKE WE DO. THEY'RE BARBARIANS. THAT'S WHY WE LEFT THEM. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T FLY THE UNION JACK. IT'S WHY OUR DENTAL CARE HERE IS MUCH BETTER THAN THERE. WHY OUR FOOD DOESN'T SUCK, BECAUSE WE LEFT THEM A LONG TIME AGO BECAUSE WE GOT TIRED OF THEM AND THEIR HOITY-TOITY BUTCHERING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. WE ESPECIALLY GOT SICK AND TIRED OF THEIR LACK OF ADEQUATE SEPARATION OF POWERS. SO, THOSE GUYS ARE INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW. WE ARE NOT. WE CAN'T BE. SO NOT ONLY IS HE NOT MAKING A GOOD ARGUMENT,
HE'S MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ALL RIGHT. MASS PURGES. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, STILL ENGAGING IN HIS PAROXISM OF PARANOID FANTASY THEORIZES THAT SOMEHOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION -- AND I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE THE CHARACTERS, THE ANIMATED CHARACTERS RUNNING AROUND IN HIS MIND'S EYE AS HE IS SAYING THIS. WHO IS IT? LIKE STEVE BANNON AND CORY LOON DOUVGY? STEPHEN -- CORY LEWANDOWSKI? STEPHEN MILLER? THEY COME IN, SAY, WE CANCEL ALL OF YOUR VOTES, MASS PURGING. LET'S DO THIS JUST TO BE MEAN. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE. THAT IS NOT AT ALL
-- THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW A MASS PURGE OF U.S. CITIZEN LAWFUL VOTERS. IT'S NEVER, EVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
THERE WAS ONE INTERESTING POINT THAT THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND MADE SHORTLY AFTER MAKING THE ARGUMENT I JUST REFUTED, WHERE HE SAID THERE ARE ZERO DOLLARS APPROPRIATED FOR THEM UNDER THIS LEGISLATION. THAT'S TRUE.
NOW, IF THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND IS SUGGESTING THAT WE COULD MAKE THE BILL BETTER BY ADDING AN APPROPRIATION,
WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S NECESSARY. THE REASON I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY IS WE ALREADY HAVE SEVERAL LEGAL REGIMES, SEVERAL STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS THROUGH WHICH THERE ARE FEDERAL DOLLARS ALREADY ALLOCATED TO THE STATES FOR THEIR ROLE IN CARRYING OUT THESE RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER LAWS LIKE THE NVRA AND UNDER LAWS LIKE THE HELP AMERICA VOTER ACT.
IF THOSE ARE INADEQUATE, WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY ARE, BUT IF THEY ARE LET'S HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. BY THE WAY, BEFORE WE GET TO OUR NEXT FLAWED ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND,
I'VE GOT TO GET BACK TO THE FEDERALISM ARGUMENT. I LEFT OUT A KEY POINT. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS ABOUT AS INTO FEDERALISM AS THEY ARE INTO KOSHER DELIS IN TEHRAN, IN ADDITION TO THAT THEY THEMSELVES PUSHED A BILL IRONICALLY CALLED THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT IN THE 117TH CONGRESS. REMEMBER, THIS WAS THAT LOVELY TIME IN BETWEEN JANUARY 3, 2021,
UNTIL EXACTLY NOON ON JANUARY 3, 2023, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS HELD THE MAJORITIES IN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND ALSO HELD THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY PUSHED THIS BILL CALLED THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT, WHICH PURPORTED TO BE DRAWING ITS AUTHORITY FROM ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1.
NOW, NOT NOT ONLY WERE THERE LOTS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH BRANCH AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO BE EMPOWERED UNDER THAT, THUS, EVISCERATING HIS OWN ARGUMENT, BUT NOT ONE OF THEM EXPRESSED A SINGLE RESERVATION ABOUT THAT.
IN FACT, EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT HERE AT THE TIME WAS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. NOT ONE OF THEM EVER, EVER SUGGESTED THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. WHY? BECAUSE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1 IS A THING. IRONICALLY -- WE DON'T NEED TO GO TOO DEEP INTO THIS, BUT THEY ACTUALLY PUSHED THE ENVELOPE OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4, CLAUSE 1 SO FAR THAT IT COULDN'T BE UP HE WOD AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THEY STOMPED ON IT THAT WENT FAR BEYOND THE REALM OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
IT WOULD HAVE
RENDERED EVERY VOTING JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES
A PRECLEARANCE JURISDICTION,
WHETHER YOU HAD EVER HAD A HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OR NOT, IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE YOUR VOTING PRECINCTS,
YOUR LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MAPS,
WHATEVER IT WAS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO AND SEEK A MOTHER-MAY-I FROM A POLITICAL APPOINTEE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
IT'S WILDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY WOULD HAVE CHANGED ALL KINDS OF THINGS, VOTER REGISTRATION DEADLINES. IT STRIPPED THE STATE LEGISLATURES OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY DERIVED POWER TO DRAW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. SO FOR THEM TO ARGUE FEDERALISM HERE,
GIVE ME THE BIGGEST BREAK.
THIS MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. HE MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS BILL, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, IS NOT ABOUT ELECTION SECURITY BUT DISENFRANCHISEMENT. IT'S REALLY CHEAP.
IT'S A REALLY LOW ARGUMENT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SINGLE WORD, NOT A SINGLE SYLLABLE, NOT A SINGLE LETTER IN THE BILL THAT CAN JUSTIFY THAT. I KNOW THAT MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND, HE MUST NOT MEAN THAT I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE THAT SPEECH FOR HIM OR WHO TOLD HIM HE HAD TO SAY THAT OR WHETHER HE DID IT HIMSELF.
LOOK, WE'RE ALL ENTITLED TO A MULLIGAN ONCE IN A WHILE, AND I WILL GIVE HIM ONE HERE, BUT THAT'S A DOOZY. T
HERE'S LITERALLY NO TRUTH TO IT. THAT'S THE HARD PART ABOUT ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE ZERO TRUTH TO IT.
WHEN THEY HAVE AS LITTLE TRUTH TO IT AS THAT ARGUMENT, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO REFUTE IT. YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT UP IN ORDER TO KNOCK IT DOWN, AND THAT'S HARD TOO. THE NEXT POINT THAT I NEEDED TO REFUTE WAS REALLY IMPORTANT, AND THIS IS WHERE I'M REMINDED OF THE LIMITATIONS OF MY OWN HANDWRITING. I CAN'T READ THAT. SO I'M GOING TO STEP FORWARD TO THE NEXT ARGUMENT. IN EACH INSTANCE, BOTH THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND AND THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND, THIS BEING RHODE ISLAND DAY WITH THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, THEY BOTH KEPT RELYING BACK ON THE FACT THAT IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL. YEAH, IT IS. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR A NONCITIZEN TO VOTE, BUT THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IS NOT THAT IT'S SELF-IMPLEMENTING OR SELF-REVEALING. SOME THINGS ARE, SOME THINGS ARE NOT.
THIS REMINDS ME OF AN ARGUMENT THAT I HAD TO REFUTE EITHER YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE. SOMEBODY SAID -- THEY COMPARED IT TO LAWS GOVERNING THE RUNNING OF A STOP SIGN. ONE OF OUR DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES SAID THE OTHER DAY, IN A WAY THAT REMINDED ME OF WHAT THE TWO SENATORS FROM RHODE ISLAND ARGUED TODAY, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LAW PROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM RUNNING A STOP SIGN AT AN INTERSECTION AND THEN SAY, WE NOW NEED ANOTHER LAW PROHIBITING THE RUNNING OF A STOP SIGN IN A STOP-SIGN-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION.
THEY MISSED THE WHOLE POINT ALTOGETHER. THE WAY THAT YOU COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT FAIR, ANALOGOUS HERE IS TO SAY IF YOU HAD A LAW PROHIBITING THE RUNNING OF A STOP SIGN, THEN YOU HAD ANOTHER LAW OR MAYBE THE SAME LAW WAS INTERPRETED ODDLY BY SOME CREATIVELY THINKING JUDGES, IS PROHIBITING THE POLICE FROM MONITORING OR WATCHING INTERSECTIONS GUARDED BY A STOP SIGN. THEN, YES, THAT, THAT WOULD BE A FAIR ANALOGY. AND, YES, THEN WE WOULD NEED ANOTHER LAW SAWING, NO, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE COPS TO WATCH THAT INTERSECTION. ANOTHER ANALOGY HERE THAT I THINK IS HELPFUL, IT JUST DEALS WITH ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO PROVE WHO YOU ARE.
THIS IS JUST REALLY FOOLISH TO THINK FOR EVEN A SECOND THAT IT'S ENOUGH TO SAY IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL. BACK TO OUR POINT EARLIER, OH, I KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE IT, SAVE WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.
WHENEVER YOU HAVE A SYSTEM OF LAWS IN PLACE THAT ARE BEING BROKEN, THERE IS A GRAVE RISK THAT BY NOT ENFORCING THOSE LAWS, YOU WILL CHEAPEN THE RULE OF LAW ITSELF, NOT JUST THE LAW THAT'S BEING BROKEN BUT THE DYNAMIC IN WHICH WE, AS CITIZENS IN A FREE REPUBLIC, CHOOSE VOLUNTARILY, MOST OF US, MERCIFULLY, TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. WE TRY KEEP THE LAW. THINGS WORK BETTER WHEN THEY DO. AND WHEN PEOPLE BREAK THE LAW, THERE ARE GENERALLY CONSEQUENCES. WHEN YOU LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE LAW IS DISREGARDED AND CAST ASIDE, BAD THINGS HAPPEN, BUT IT GETS INFINITELY WORSE, INFINITELY WORSE WHENEVER AND WHEREVER YOU NOT ONLY SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST DISREGARD IT BUT YOU PUT
LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS IN PLACE SO IT CAN BE DETECTED
WHERE IT'S HAPPENING. HERE, IT'S NOT JUST ANY LAW,
BUT IT'S THE LAW TO DETERMINE WHO'S GOING TO MAKE OUR OTHER LAWS.
THIS IS UPSTREAM FROM EVERYTHING ELSE.
IT IMPACTS THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS GOVERNMENT.
IT'S WHAT'S STANDING BETWEEN US AND UNTOLD AMOUNTS OF NOT JUST ELECTION FRAUD
BUT FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
AND SO WE CAN'T PRETEND THAT THIS IS ACADEMIC,
THAT THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS CONCERN, AND I WILL NOT INDULGE FOR ANOTHER MINUTE THIS ABSURD SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WANTING TO JUST GO IN AND DISENFRANCHISE AN ENTIRE GENDER OR ENTIRE RACE OR AN ENTIRE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OR SET OF PARTY AFFILIATIONS. NOTHING IN THIS LAW WOULD AUTHORIZE THAT. THERE WOULD BE HELL TO PAY IF ANYBODY TRIED FOR IT, AND IT'S ABSURD TO SUGGEST IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT ABSURDITY IS THE ABSURDITY THAT DISPOSE -- GOES ALONG WITH SAYING OUR ELECTIONS WILL BE FAIR AND FREE OF FRAUD WHEN WE'VE HAD 30 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS, ABOUT 15 MILLION OF WHOM ENTERED THE COUNTRY UNLAWFULLY JUST IN FOUR OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS, UNDER THE OPEN BORDER POLICIES OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, WHERE WE'VE GOT A LAW THAT ALLOWS ANYONE, EVEN A NONCITIZEN, TO APPLY IN MOST STATES, THE OVERWHELMINGLY MAJORITY OF STATES, JUST BY GOING INTO A DMV, CHECKING A BOX SAYING I WANT TO REGISTER TO VOTE, SIGNING THEIR NAME SAYING DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, I'M A CITIZEN AND OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO VOTE. WHEN WE TELL OUR OWN FELLOW CITIZENS THAT NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THAT LAW, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT AND PROSECUTE AND PUNISH VIOLATIONS OF THAT LAW, HEAVEN HELP US ALL. SO, NO, THIS IS NOT ABOUT A PARTY OR A PART OF A COUNTRY OR THIS OR THAT SUBGROUP OR DEMOGRAPHIC. THIS IS ABOUT ONE THING. IT'S ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. SO, YES, IT'S ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. SO LET'S ACT LIKE IT. LET'S ALLOW FOR THE LAW TO BE ENFORCED. I
F WE DID THE SAME THING WITH THE DRUG LAWS -- IT'S ALMOST LIKE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TAKE DRUGS IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY, BUT THIS IS EVEN WORSE THAN IF YOU LET OUR DRUG LAWS BE UNENFORCED BECAUSE THIS ONE DETERMINES WHO MAKES THE LAWS.
THIS ONE DETERMINES THE LEGITIMACY OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
THIS WILL, IN EFFECT, DISENFRANCHISE AMERICANS WHO WILL HAVE THEIR VOTES DILUTED OR CANCELED OUT IF WE ALLOW PERSONS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS TO VOTE IN THERE. WE CAN GET THIS DONE, AND WE WILL GET THIS DONE. I WAS HERE YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT, AND I WILL BE HERE EVERY DAY UNTIL THIS IS PASSED. I WILL NOT STOP, AND I KNOW THE PRESIDING OFFICER WON'T STOP EITHER. WE'RE GOING TO STAY ON THIS LEGISLATION. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DEBATE. WE WILL DEBATE IN THE RAIN ON A TRAIN IN A BOX WITH A FOX, ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE, WE WILL DEBATE THIS THING. WE WILL MAKE THEM SPEAK UNTIL THEY ARE TIRED. WE WILL MAKE THEM SPEAK UNTIL EVERY ONE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS, FRIVOLOUS OR LEGITIMATE -- I HAVE YET TO HEAR ANY OF THE LATTER,
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAPPEN -- UNTIL THEY ARE EXHAUSTED.
AT SOME POINT, WE'LL STOP MAKING ARGUMENTS ROOTED IN SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE'RE EXHAUSTED AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND AND SPEAK ABOUT THE BILL.
SOONER OR LATER, YOU STOP BEING ABLE TO SEPARATE FACT FROM FICTION FROM SCIENCE FICTION AND PARANOID FANTASY.
AT THAT POINT, WE CAN START TO LOOK AT WHERE THE REAL POINTS ARE. IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS TO MAKE TO THIS THING, LET'S MAKE THEM. LET'S DO WHAT'S POSSIBLE.
LET'S GET IT DONE AND NOT GET.
WE HAVE MILES TO GO BEFORE WE WILL NOT SLEEP. WE WILL NOT SLEEP UNTIL THIS IS DONE. THANK YOU
CSPAN
SENATE HEARING ON
SAVE AMERICA ACT
SUNDAY 12:00
Use subtitles when
D Senators get way off topic
and then
have something engaging
to do
and
glance up.
Thank You, Father,
for Jesus Christ the Messiah.
Lord of All.
Amen.
♔ Lord Jesus Saves †
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment