Senator Marshall: The SAVE Act Must Go to a Vote

Senator Marshall Joins The Joe Pags Show

Washington - U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), joined The Joe Pags Show to discuss the SAVE America Act, the future of the Senate filibuster, the U.S. military, and President Trump's goals for the Iran conflict.

Click HERE or on the image above for Senator Marshall's full interview.

On the Democrats' unwillingness to support election integrity and the SAVE America Act:

"Well, as you know, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to do most anything. And the question we should be asking is, why won't 10 Democrats come across the aisle and vote with us when 70% of Democrats think that you should have voter ID, that election integrity is a top priority as well? So we can talk about the filibuster in a second, but really, I think that we'd probably have 51 Republican votes in favor of the SAVE Act right now. I think there are a couple of no's for sure, unfortunately. So that means, unless we change the filibuster, we need some Democrats to come across the aisle."

On using the talking filibuster:

"So it's interesting, I said we have 51 votes that would vote yes on the SAVE Act, but I don't know that we have 51 Republicans that would vote to end the zombie filibuster, if that makes sense. And that's just the reality of it, I don't have any excuses for them, but they certainly are married [to the idea] that the filibuster protects the minority. And I would argue, look, until 1917, we did just fine without this zombie filibuster; it required a talking filibuster that you needed to stay on there. So I don't think I've got the votes to get this talking filibuster across the finish line."

"So, Joe, I agree with everything you said, and I'm willing to stand up there on the floor till hell freezes over. Look, I was on call every other day for 25 years, I worked 36-hour shifts in residency, I will stand up there and fight beside my good friend Mike Lee and the Steering Committee and all the folks that are really driving this battle, but I'm afraid the rest of my team is not willing to do that. And even if we did, I got to tell you, I think our chances of being successful are not real good, that there's so many parliamentary procedures that they could do to torpedo this. But I couldn't agree more. I'm not saying it's dead, but regardless, don't you think we should force the Democrats to vote no on the SAVE Act as it is? And each week we should vote on it, until their own party, their own constituencies, just beats them about the head and shoulders and say, 'Why are you voting against voter ID?'"

On removing the filibuster:

"Well, they should not. And I'm not trying to disagree with you, but I'll present the argument from the other side. The way I would look at this is the House is supposed to be the coffee and the Senate should be the saucer. The Senate should measure twice and cut once, that it would keep such reflex laws [from] being changed from two years to every two years. And this helps us every bit as much, I mean, I don't think people remember back how we used the same rule to protect us when Joe Biden had all three levers, but we did. So I think it is a challenge, I am willing though, I want to make it real clear, I know it's going to sound like I'm arguing against the SAVE Act. I would get rid of the filibuster for the SAVE Act. I would get rid of the filibuster for a lot of reasons, and this is one of them. But the reality is, I don't have 60 votes, I don't have 50 votes, of Republicans to get it across the finish line right now."

On Republican votes on the filibuster:

"Right, so of course I'm very willing to do that, and I want to take that vote. Does it put some people in a tough political situation? It does, and it will force us to maybe have Republican-on-Republican wars, I don't know if that's the best thing right now. If we start this debate on the talking filibuster, it really gives the ball to the Democrats in many ways, they'll be controlling the floor for hours and hours and hours. But I'm with you to say, 'Look, let's get a vote, let's be done with it.' I came here to take the tough votes, all right? I don't have to look at a poll or anything most of the time, I want to do the right thing and take the tough votes, so count me in. Do I think that's going to happen? I don't know. I think we will take a vote on the SAVE Act. Are we going to take a vote on the talking filibuster? I'm not going to guarantee that."

On the Democrat shutdown and funding for TSA and DHS:

"So Joe, the Democrats remain the party of defund the police and of open borders. That's really who they are - a zebra doesn't change their stripes, that's truly what they believe in, and I think we do have the moral high ground here. I think it's real important, though, to point out to your listeners that the Democrats have not been willing to sit down one time since the shutdown started. Schumer refuses to sit down and talk; their appropriators refuse to talk as well, so there's no negotiation even happening. So they like this political battle, I guess. You know, they're all running for president; every Democrat senator is now running for president, and they're trying to get as far left as they can be. It's just like even though they're a party that thinks they should support election integrity, what they're listening to is this loud vocal base of theirs that's telling them, 'Be as radical as you can be, create as much hell for Donald Trump as you can.' So that's their goal right now: more Trump Derangement Syndrome.

On Democrats opposing voter ID:

"Well, Joe, I think that they like this issue, that their radical base is telling them to fight, fight, fight, so they're going to continue to hold us hostage over this. If it's not logical, right, and it's not, then you can bet it's a political reason. They think that they're gaining favor, that they're going to get those absentee ballots out more often, if that makes sense. So to me, it's all politically driven, but again, I just hope that America sees this for what it is. The Democrats are the party of open borders, of defunding the police; this is the next chapter of it. I don't know what's going to break it. I think what will break it is when constituents from Democratic states, when they're standing in line for four to six hours, finally say, 'Hey, we've had enough of this, we need you to move.' We'll see."

On the Democrats becoming more radical:

"Well, I think that AOC showed up and the Democrat party moved further left - look at your mayor in New York. So Joe, I think it is politics, I think that their radical base has moved further and further to the left, they're the loud part of their party. And that impacts their ability to raise money as well, and then you have the national media piling on. If any Democrat gives Republicans any quarter, they're going to get thrashed tonight on national TV, and then you throw in the social media part of it as well. So really, what you have is the vocal minority of their party running that party right now. And you're right, Chuck Schumer has shifted further and further and further to the left, and really, he's running for his political life as he approaches a primary not too far from now.

On the cost of military conflict:

Yeah, so I think it's important. You know, my history is that my dad served, my brother served, I served, my son is serving. And I hate war, okay? I hate war. But I also realize that freedom is not free. And I support our troops 110%, I support President Trump's decision. I think that he's laid out a very clear vision that this war will be over with, and that's what I like about this one. When Desert Storm was starting, I was in the Army Reserve as a medical doctor, and I still don't know what our exact goals were, but the goals here very clear. It's to end Iranian missiles, their nukes, their navy, and make it so that they cannot fund or arm terrorists. So when we check all those boxes, I think then the President has to say, 'Okay, is it time to get out, or is there going to be some type of shift in their government leadership as well?' But that's not our main goal. And thank God that this war is going so well. So I'm standing beside our soldiers, I mourn the loss of the seven who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Joe, can I just tell you one more quick story why this is so important to me? The Big Red One, the 1st Infantry Division, calls Junction City, Kansas, home. Over 13,000 soldiers from that one division have made the ultimate sacrifice, and 631 have made the ultimate sacrifice since the Vietnam War. There's a monument outside the White House that enshrines the names of those soldiers who gave their lives. And through an act of Congress, it took me three years to get it done, to add those 631 names to that memorial. And just to sit down with Gold Star family, after Gold Star family, you know, reminds me of why I hate war. But I think it's justified now, I think that the benefits outweigh the risks. You know, I'm the doctor here, I want to know what the benefits are and what the risks are, right? I think that when President Trump was presented with this, you know, very unique situation, 'Look, we know where their supreme leader is, we know where 49 of their leaders are. Mr. President, are we a go or not?' They've been preparing for months, he had a go shot that he hoped would change history and make Americans safer for generations to come. So I support the President.

On the justification for a conflict in Iran:

"Yeah, Joe, I think you nailed it. You know, it's always what question should be asked right now. I might frame this almost a different way - for 47 years, Iran has declared war on America. I was in college when they took the hostages in Iran, I was a medical student when they killed 141 Marines, 170 attacks on American troops since 2023, all right? I guess the question I would ask: why did America keep turning the other cheek? Why didn't we have a commander in chief that said, 'Enough. Enough of this, we are going to end this once and for all.' So that's the context, this has been a shadow war for 47 years, and America finally had a commander in chief who said, 'Enough.' And thank God for this military, we have just an overwhelming power that we have, God has given us this military for a special reason, Joe. And I think we need to judiciously use it, of course, but I certainly hope that we make, for generations to come, Americans free and safer."

###

Contact: