[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 163 (Friday, October 3, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6938-S6940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc:
Calendar No. 77, S. 180; Calendar No. 79, S. 419; Calendar No. 80, S.
539; Calendar No. 82, S. 1316; Calendar No. 83, S. 1563; further, that
the committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 1563 be agreed to,
the committee-reported amendment to S. 1316 be agreed to, the
committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 539 be withdrawn, and the
Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk to S. 539 be agreed to;
finally, that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a
third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
I rise to request unanimous consent here on the bills that were just
mentioned, to call up and pass this year's Police Week bills. These are
bipartisan bills. These are common sense. Most importantly,
particularly in light of recent events--and you can turn on the
television right now and see what I am talking about--they would give
this Chamber the chance to demonstrate its commitment to the men and
women who wear the badge and to the laws they serve to protect.
This is not a time to mince words or blur lines; this is a time to
speak clearly with full moral force.
In cities across the country, our law enforcement officers are beset
from below and above. From below, on our streets, they face an
emboldened criminal element and a resurgence of organized political
violence. From above, in the halls of power, they face a political
class which seems hell-bent on undermining and attacking them at every
turn.
We have watched this unfold for years now. The press has smeared and
defamed our police officers, seeking to incite hatred and violence
against them. Fringe academic ideas about defunding police and
shuttering prisons have moved from the classroom, to the courtroom, to
the legislature, and then to codified laws. Riots. Lawsuits. Slashed
budgets. Malicious lies blared through the largest megaphones in our
country.
Time and time again, the system has sided with the criminal over the
cop, the looter over the law. The result of this system could be seen
in unprecedented waves of violence that ravaged our cities in the wake
of the George Floyd riots in 2020. It can still be seen today on the
streets of cities overtaken by antifa. These are not rhetorical or
theoretical concerns; we watched it happen in real time.
It is not the product of social conditions or inequity or systematic
this or that; it is the inevitable result of a civilization that has
lost its moral nerve, a civilization that is too wracked by guilt to
punish its criminals, to enforce its laws, or to confront its enemies--
even when those enemies are beating police officers and firebombing
Federal buildings right before our eyes.
When a government loses the ability or the will to defend its own
cities, its own institutions, its own people, then it ceases to be a
government worthy of its name.
The path back to justice is simple. It requires laws like the ones we
are going to consider here today.
It requires protecting the people who protect us, like the bill to
equip first
[[Page S6939]]
responders with protective gear against fentanyl exposure, keeping them
safe from the very poisons they are trying to fight.
It requires ensuring that our police officers are healthy in body and
in spirit, like the bill to reauthorize critical mental health services
for cops and their families. Every single year, more police officers
die by suicide than die in the line of duty. This is profoundly a
policy failure and one that is on us to fix.
It requires hunting down the predators who seek to prey upon our kids
from the darkest recesses of the internet, like the bill to reauthorize
and modernize the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. This
bill funds and enhances our ability to catch and convict the very worst
kinds of criminals--those who target and abuse children.
It requires building strong police departments with officers who know
the neighborhoods and the people they protect, like our bill to send
local recruits to police academies if they agree to serve in the
precincts in their own communities.
It requires wisdom and experience, like the bill to give State and
local agencies the ability to rehire retired officers in civilian law
enforcement roles.
If you stand on the side of justice and our first responders, these
votes should be simple and easy.
With that, I would ask to move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. BOOKER. To the esteemed Presiding Officer, I am going to reserve
the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. I am really grateful that this is one of the areas where
we have a lot of bipartisan support because this body I would say
unanimously believes that we have to do more to help local law
enforcement.
I see it in my State. We have real challenges--challenges with
recruitment, challenges with officers who are in incredibly stressful
situations for their mental health, and even empowering officers to be
able to do their job, which is a job that everyone wants our officers
to do.
I say this all the time: If you polled my city, which is a majority
minority city, a majority African-American city, and asked them ``Hey,
do you want more police, less police, or the same amount of police?''
undeniably, they would want more law enforcement.
When I talk to the law enforcement officers in not just my city but
up and down the State, they want more resources. That is why I have
multiple bills to actually fund our police departments around our
country and specifically in New Jersey to empower them on everything
from closing out murder investigations all the way to mental health.
In fact, the legislation that is being brought forward--it is right,
it is bipartisan legislation. I am the cosponsor of some of the bills
we have right now on the floor. We should be united in this body, all
100 of us, to stand up for public safety and to fund our police, get
them the resources and the equipment they need to do their job.
Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. President Trump,
through an arbitrary Executive order, has told this body: Your
intentions will not be followed.
The legislation that is being proposed today--the President has
already said that those DOJ grants will not go to certain States--
Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey--that they are not eligible
for these grant programs. That is not a bipartisan way of going about
it. That is singling out certain States over other States. That is
actually defunding the police departments in certain States for other
States when you say that these States that have gotten many of these
grants in years past can no longer get them. None of us in this body
should support that. All of us in this body should join together and
say: When Congress passes a grant program, the President of the United
States cannot arbitrarily decide which States receive those grants and
which States don't.
I feel a driving sense of urgency that we must support our police
officers. They are facing greater and newer challenges in this country.
I feel a deep urgency to support mental health issues in particular
because I lost one of my dear childhood friends, who died by suicide in
uniform.
I want to make a simple adjustment to this legislation--very simple.
What it would do is basically say that when this body has approved
these grant programs, the President can't undermine the
Founders' intention that we hold the purse strings, that the President
can't undermine that and these grants have to go out as Congress
intended them.
That is all I am asking from my colleague across the aisle, and it is
all I am asking from this body, is that we, together, say: We need to
get resources for police officers in all of our country. We shouldn't
be picking out some departments and not others.
This is just simply making sure that this is a bipartisan effort to
fund local police officers.
So I ask my colleagues to pass these bills as I amend them so that we
can refocus on the urgent work of reopening the government and then
providing all law enforcement agencies with the resources they need,
ensuring every law enforcement agency has a fair opportunity to secure
funding to support their work, to support the men and women, to support
their sacred and noble duties. We should work in a bipartisan way.
So I ask that the consent be modified such that my amendments to S.
180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also
be agreed to, with all the other provisions that my colleague is asking
for remaining intact, so that we can fund all of police and stop our
President's attempt to defund police departments in blue States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. Reserving the right to object, let's be clear about what
this provision does from my friend from New Jersey. It is attempting to
throw a lifeline to these sanctuary cities that are openly defying the
law. In order to receive Federal grant dollars, you can't withhold
information from Federal law enforcement. That is what they are doing.
That is what it means to be a sanctuary city.
What you are saying is, we are not going to work with ICE or any
other Federal Agencies because we want to protect illegal immigrants in
our cities.
That is what is happening. That is deeply unpopular with the American
people. And that is why the President is taking this action to try to
get these cities to come along and be part of the program with the rest
of the country to say: We are all going to work together to keep our
communities safe.
This provision is a direct attempt to undermine the Trump
administration's attempt to do that and their renewed enforcement of
our immigration laws.
I know some people got used to the last 4 years, where 20 million
people came here illegally and Federal law enforcement was handcuffed
by the Biden administration to actually enforce our immigration laws--
so much so that the rhetoric that had been exhibited at that time now
has carried over, and you see fire bombings, and you see attacks on ICE
officials, attempts to dox them, to destroy their families and their
reputations and their finances, because they have been led to believe
by many with the loudest microphones that somehow everyone is entitled
to be here for as long as they want, that Federal laws don't matter,
that borders are arbitrary lines on a map and we are all global
citizens.
The white papers from the sixties and the seventies found their way
into the highest offices in government in the Biden administration.
These Ivy League grads who wrote these white papers or read these white
papers or were indoctrinated by these white papers were suddenly in
charge. Well, there is a new sheriff in town who actually believes in
law and order.
So I would hope that city leaders who defy our Federal laws shouldn't
be entitled to Federal tax dollars. Federal grant dollars are not
entitlements. They are not unconditional welfare for far-left
activists. If you want Federal funds, you have to comply with Federal
law.
Sanctuary cities are in open defiance of Federal law. They actively
prohibit their officials from cooperating with
[[Page S6940]]
Federal immigration officers. They release violent offenders, suppress
gang databases, and do everything in their power to prevent the men and
women in law enforcement from enforcing our laws. That is what they are
doing in sanctuary cities right now.
Every one of the Police Week bills that I have offered for unanimous
consent--and my friend from New Jersey is indeed a cosponsor--are very,
very bipartisan. I can't actually believe we are in a place where we
are going to be holding up that kind of bipartisan legislation when you
see the violence against law enforcement officers in our country every
single day. This is a lifeline to them, the help they need not just to
do their jobs but to be able to seek the services so they can be
healthy, physically and mentally.
So let's be clear about what is happening. My friend has, you know, a
few moments here to reconsider this. These are common sense. If there
is anything from last November we can take away, it is that the
American people voted for a return to common sense.
With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Yeah, I just--again, I have so much respect for my
colleague that I want to respond to some of the things he said,
because, again, I just want to affirm that he is right on the urgency
to help our police officers. He is right that States should abide by
Federal law that passes from this body. But what we have now is a
President who, in his first term, didn't ever try something like this,
which is undermining the will of Congress. This is really
unprecedented. It has never happened--Republican President, Democratic
President--including Donald Trump's first term, where he suddenly said:
I am going to turn off the spigot of support to local law enforcement
agencies because I don't agree with your policies.
I think that is a threat to the independence of our branch of
government. I think that is in so many ways violative of our shared
values on both sides of the aisle. But let me go further than that.
What the President is doing is saying: Not only am I going to stop
funding from going to the State of New Jersey, I am going to go to red
counties in New Jersey, red counties in California.
I actually went out and talked to people. Republican legislators in
States, Republican police officers, a Republican union leader told me
this as well: This is ridiculous. This is insane that we would hold
grants back from the entire State. He said: I don't agree with
Democrats' policies, but we are out here putting our lives on the line,
and Republicans in Congress want to stop resources coming to our police
departments.
One of the union leaders said to me: My guys are out there
sacrificing their lives, and we can't get help that both sides of the
aisle agree on?
So, yes, my colleague and I disagree on domestic immigration
policies. One thing he and I don't agree on--because I was the mayor of
a city that basically said: In order to keep my city safe, we are going
to cooperate with the police department. It was an overbroad
generalization that was made on the Senate floor that we are not
supporting ICE and immigration activities. I know this up and down the
State of New Jersey. Not only do we support them, but we detailed
officers with Federal immigration enforcement. I did it when I was
mayor.
You want to talk about cooperation. Anybody who knows local
government from the FBI to the ATF to ICE, all over New Jersey, we are
cooperating with Federal authorities. What we have simply said is we
are responsible for local law enforcement. We are not going to do
things that create such fear in our communities that immigrant
communities are afraid to come to local police to report crimes. And
that somehow--not in Trump's first term--but somehow in this term of
office, that is a bridge too far.
Let me tell you right now, the way immigration is being pursued in
our neighborhoods, where masked agents are coming out of unmarked cars
or going to court appearances and schools and hospitals--my local
police officers are telling me how much more dangerous this
administration is making communities because people who are the victims
of crime now are afraid to go to local police officers and report those
crimes.
Again, this is not coming from politicians in New Jersey. This is
coming from law enforcement officers that have said that we have
created such a climate of fear in our country that just solving crimes
is getting harder and harder because people are afraid to come to the
police.
So, yes, we have policies that say there are certain things we won't
do to maintain a community of trust within our communities.
I understand there is a lot of rhetoric. I could turn on shock news
and all of that, but when you talk to the law enforcement officers in
many of the most Republican parts of my community, they are outraged
about what is happening right now.
Again, we can debate policy on immigration, but, to me, for a Senator
to allow a President to undermine the power of the purse relegated by
the Constitution to this body is outrageous. It has never been done
before, not in Trump's first term, not by Bush, not by Reagan, not by
Clinton, not by Obama. We are in new territory here in our country
where we see a President encroaching upon our powers. I can't be
complicit in that.
Everybody in this body--I would never question any of my colleagues
on either side of the aisle. We all want our local police departments
to not only be able to do their job, we all want to have more equipment
and resources. That is why these bills are bipartisan. How can we allow
bipartisan bills passed out of the Senate to then be stopped, in a
partisan way, by a President who is then going to choose red States and
hurt blue States, even though my State has millions of Republicans who
deserve to have their communities safe as well?
I am standing today just to say, let's use common sense and help our
police officers together; get the resources desperately needed out to
our communities now and not let this fall victim to something that
wasn't even an issue in Donald Trump's first term.
So I object. I object. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
____________________