[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 10, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S543-S547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE RELATING TO ``INTERIM GUIDANCE SIMPLIFYING APPLICATION OF THE
CORPORATE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX TO PARTNERSHIPS''--Motion to Proceed
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate will vote very soon on a
resolution I put forward to overturn a new Trump administration policy
regarding corporate taxes and partnerships. When you start using a
whole bunch of Washington lingo about the corporate alternative minimum
tax and income allocated across partnerships, people go to sleep in a
hurry, so I am going to explain it as simply as I can.
The Trump administration treats the U.S. Treasury Department like
Make-A-Wish for corporations and private equity. Any giveaway or
special treatment an ultrawealthy corporate executive can dream of, the
Treasury Secretary and his crew are there to move Heaven and Earth to
make it happen.
With respect to the resolution we are voting on today, the question
is whether the most profitable corporations and private equity giants
in America--those with profits north of $1 billion in a single year--
ought to pay a minimum tax--a minimum tax--of 15 percent. Now, keep in
mind that 15 percent is roughly the tax rate you pay if you are a
middle-income household--a nurse, a firefighter, or a couple of
schoolteachers.
Democrats say those hugely profitable firms ought to pay a 15-percent
minimum rate. The Trump administration and Senate Republicans say no.
And since Republicans have unified control of government, the big
corporations can get exactly what they want in America.
The Trump administration tore a giant hole in the minimum tax with a
new policy change, a change that amounts to a $10.3 billion corporate
handout--and that is according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Now, it has been the case for decades that these huge corporations
play financial games to conceal their profits from the IRS. That is how
they winnow down their tax rates to single digits--maybe even zero. The
same goes for the private equity giants. They report to their
shareholders and investors that profits are booming. Everybody
celebrates. Share prices and executive comp go up. It is party time in
the C-suite.
Then the financial chicanery and trickery begins. They fudge the
math, and when it comes time to report earnings to the IRS, suddenly
these corporations and private equity firms are out there hollering
about poverty. Forget that they told the shareholders they were
swimming in cash; suddenly, they claim they owe little to nothing in
taxes.
This kind of tax rate gamesmanship is why Democrats created the
corporate alternative minimum tax in 2022. The minimum tax has only
been in place for a few years, but already corporations and the private
equity crowd are trying to rip it to pieces, and clearly the Trump
administration is helping.
The $10.3 billion handout never got any debate here on the floor of
the Senate. It didn't even come from any legislation. The
administration created it out of thin air. It is a hidden piece inside
part of Federal rulemaking with a very deceptive bureaucratic name. It
is IRS Notice 2025-28. And the topic is so bland, if you don't have a
background in tax policy, you might not even catch on to what it is all
about.
The notice rewrites the rules that govern how corporations and
private equity firms count income from the partnerships they own. They
get to pick from six different methods--six--for counting their cash,
adding a whole lot of complexity to a part of the Tax Code that is
already like root canal work just reading it. Essentially, these firms
get to play a game of ``choose your own tax rate.'' I repeat: They can
play a game of ``choose your own tax rate.''
The Trump policy encourages these giants to set up and abuse
partnerships--layer after layer of redtape solely for the purpose of
dodging taxes. It has nothing to do with creating jobs or launching new
product lines or areas of investment; it is just a matter of moving
money around on paper until you are able to make sure your taxes just
go poof. These big, profitable corporations and private equity firms
got a great deal from the Trump administration last year.
This debate is about a simple change in policy from the Treasury
Department that handed them $10.3 billion. If you ask me, they have
already gotten enough from the people in charge. The Trump
administration and Republicans gave them $1 trillion in new tax breaks
in the budget megabill they passed in July. Somehow, that wasn't
enough.
The Trump administration junked an effort to crack down on another
partisanship abuse, something known as basis shifting. That is when
businesses dodge taxes by moving assets around from one operation to
another. Again, this provides no value to our economy; it is just a big
tax game. The Trump administration doesn't have any problem with that,
so they put the green light to the tax games and said: OK, everybody,
there is not going to be a crackdown.
That was worth $100 billion to these same corporations and private
equity giants.
Today, I ask my colleagues: When is enough actually enough?
Millions and millions of families in Oregon and across the country
struggle to get by, buried under the rising cost of living. Federal
deficits shoot through the roof. The job market looks shaky. Young
people tell us there is not any opportunity for them to get ahead. It
is a slap in the face to all those Americans every time the Trump
administration gives another handout to huge corporations and the
ultrawealthy. They believe the system is rigged, and they are right. It
is rigged because the Trump administration, as I said at the outset,
treats the U.S. Treasury like Make-A-Wish for big corporations and
private equity. The ultrawealthy and the megadonors get what they want;
everybody else gets short shrift.
So the resolution I brought before the Senate today is better. This
isn't about the Federal Government clobbering big corporations with big
taxes. We are talking about a minimum contribution--a 15-percent tax
rate that a lot of people wouldn't even consider to be actually a fair
share for these big corporations. The biggest, most profitable
corporations and private equity firms don't need a special carve-out.
They don't need any more Trump giveaways.
So, today, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Let's
block this latest handout to the megacorporations and private equity
giants that really do not need it.
I yield and now move to proceed to Calendar No. 297, S.J. Res. 95.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 297, S.J. Res. 95,
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the
Internal Revenue Service relating to ``Interim Guidance
Simplifying Application of the Corporate Alternative Minimum
Tax to Partnerships''.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
[[Page S544]]
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--51
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--2
McConnell
Smith
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Delaware.
Trump Administration
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, yesterday, the People's Republic of China
sentenced Jimmy Lai to 20 years in a Chinese prison.
His crime? Freedom. He was an outspoken, pro-democracy journalist,
and he was jailed for his reporting on government.
At 78 years old, Jimmy Lai will likely die in jail. This is a tragedy
for freedom in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China--and one
that reminds us that the work of liberty, the work of freedom, the
sacrifice and the struggle required to maintain it are not cheap.
Our Nation was built on a yearning for the kind of freedom from
government repression and overreach that Jimmy Lai stood up against.
And our democracy rests on a lot of different foundations, but at the
core of all of it is a restraint on government power.
A democracy rooted in free speech, freedom of worship, freedom of
assembly, and a chance to have and hold our own ideas, to pursue our
own dreams and our own lives, has also built strong bonds with allies
around the world--bonds that have helped keep us safe and made us
prosperous for decades.
We have had dark chapters in our history, certainly: the McCarthy
era, the Red Scare, periods when we were not as committed to free
speech as we might be. But, historically, we have not persecuted and
jailed those journalists who dared challenge the government.
And so I chose to speak today partly because of the event of Jimmy
Lai being sentenced and partly because of a growing concern that we are
at risk of wasting, of watching slip from our grasp, that most precious
inheritance that our Nation has earned: a hard-won, hard-fought legacy
of millions who stepped forward and served on behalf of our Nation at
home and abroad in defense of democracy--millions who have said: I will
risk it all so that my children and the children of others I don't know
and will never know may live free.
From the very first shots at Lexington and Concord to the fields of
Gettysburg and Vicksburg, to the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, to
the sands of Southwest Asia and Afghanistan and Iraq, across the
centuries, Americans have fought and served in defense not of an
ethnicity, not of a religion, not of a language but of an idea--an idea
that out of many, we could be one; that out of an incredible array of
backgrounds, of languages, of faiths, of ethnicities, we could forge in
the modern world the first real democracy since ancient times.
I have an ancestor who served at Antietam and Chattanooga and
Gettysburg, who signed up as a young lieutenant and served through the
whole duration of the Civil War with the New York 60th Infantry. And on
a bipartisan visit by a group of Senators to that Gettysburg
battlefield, I was challenged to think anew about what it meant that
50,000 Americans were the casualties of that pivotal conflict on the
fields at Gettysburg.
President Lincoln, months after, spoke in dedicating the cemetery at
Gettysburg. At that point, it was ``four score and seven years ago.''
Today, it would be 12 score and 10 years ago because we, this year,
celebrate 250 years since the founding of our Republic through the
Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia.
I have often asked myself: If I served in this body, in this Chamber,
if I served in the Senate of the United States in the 1840s and 1850s
and 1860, would I have seen what was coming? If I had been a member of
this body in the thirties, would I have seen what was coming?
And, in recent days, I have been chilled when watching a parade in
Beijing where Xi Jinping, the dictator of the PRC, assembled the
leaders of North Korea, Iran, India, and other allies of theirs to
watch a parade of state-of-the-art weaponry. It reminded me of similar
moments in the late 1930s, when the fascist states of Germany and Italy
teamed up with the imperialist state of Japan to form the Axis and to
plunge the world into chaos.
I have often asked myself: Would I have seen and known what was
around the bend, what was happening next?
Well, to know the future, you need to know the past, and I have
reflected a lot, recently, on the words spoken by President Lincoln in
commemorating the sacrifice of those who served at Gettysburg. He said
that it was an active question, that the point of the conflict was to
answer whether a nation ``conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal'' could ``long endure.''
That was a question we have had to fight for, we have had to struggle
for, and that is right before us today.
It goes back to the Framers in our founding. Federalist 51 is where
Madison wrote:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
And so they came up with a structure, the separation of powers.
Our Constitution has often been remarked upon as the greatest piece
of political architecture in human history because it kept the power of
the executive and the judiciary and the legislative branches separate
so that each might check the ambition of the other--all of this in
pursuit of the restraint of power.
Yet, as I have watched in the last year the remarks and the actions
of our President and Vice President, they are chillingly rhyming with
those of dictators like President Xi and President Putin of the PRC and
Russia--the growing and steady use of unrestrained state power to
punish the President's perceived enemies. And I am wrestling with a
growing sense of gloom, of concern, of alarm that a similar story will
play out in our Nation today as it is in other countries around the
world.
In barely more than a year, we have seen journalists covering
protests arrested. We have seen masked and unaccountable government
agents murder American citizens and then senior members of the
administration lying about who they were and what they were doing. We
have seen the administration sue media organizations and reporters--not
just a few: Washington Post, ABC, BBC, New York Times, Des Moines
Register--sue media outlets to cow them into compliance; using the
power of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications
Commission--the FTC to investigate media matters, violating their First
Amendment rights in an effort to bankrupt them, and using FCC broadcast
licenses to dictate who gets to be on late-night TV based on whether
the President thinks they are funny or not; steady pressure applied on
an incredible range of fronts and with a dizzying change in tempo and
focus so that we are distracted. This week, it is Jimmy Kimmel. This
week, it is Venezuela. This week, it is the FTC. This week, it is going
after Harvard.
Our President declared war on law firms: revoked security clearances,
threatened their viability by taking away their capacity to walk into
Federal buildings, ending Federal contracts. Why? Because if you can
control who a law firm is willing to represent, you can suppress
dissent.
Some of our Nation's most reputable and accomplished firms--Perkins
Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale--investigated, denied access, sued for
representing the President's opponent in the 2016 election, for
representing a major philanthropist, George Soros, for representing
those who would advocate on behalf of trans children, for representing
Robert Mueller. The point here was to make it clear: If you pick a
lawyer the state doesn't like, your rights are in jeopardy.
[[Page S545]]
Sound familiar?
The administration has gone after some of our Nation's best known,
longest established universities, among our very oldest--Harvard, Penn,
Duke, Brown, Columbia--revoking funding, conducting investigations,
shutting down partnerships, depleting their endowments, coercing
compliance.
Even major businesses have been dragged before the White House and
pushed to comply with the administration's agenda--from Apple, to
Exxon, to Nvidia--summoned to the White House, pressured to avoid
disfavor or bad regulatory decisions; suing a globally known company
like Nike for choosing to have a diversity program.
Where is the alarm and the concern from the Chamber of Commerce, the
Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, those
who have stood up in the past against Federal overreach by previous
administrations?
Executive branch Agencies and regulators of independent agencies post
that their reviews and approvals will depend on companies' conduct and
whether they align with the administration's agenda. This undermines
the very foundations of rule of law that undermine capitalism itself.
Something that has alarmed me more than any development in recent
days: criminalization of the dissenters and disfavored, including
Members of this body--Senators who are veterans, who have served in our
intelligence services or as an astronaut and a pilot in combat--for
recording a video reminding members of our military that they can
refuse an illegal order; Members of the Senate and House investigated
for seditious behavior, which our President claims is punishable by
death.
Many of my colleagues have said: Pay no attention to what the
President says; pay attention to what he does.
I will say: I am paying attention to what he is doing because, in
addition to a steady stream of late-night rants on social media, we
have seen actions--actions--by Federal Agencies: investigations,
prosecutions, persecution, labeling protesters as domestic terrorists,
reclassifying dissent as something punishable by law.
In an event just last week, our President spoke at the Prayer
Breakfast and said, ``I don't know how a person of faith can vote for a
Democrat'' and then said jokingly, ``[I]f you do say something bad
about Trump . . . I will have your tax-exempt status . . . revoked.''
Who does that? Who threatens faith leaders from across our Nation with
revoking their tax-exempt status?
I was in Europe with a bipartisan delegation from this body just 2
weeks ago visiting our trusted, loyal NATO ally Denmark, as they were
alarmed about the rising tide of threats from our President to extract
the territory of Greenland from their nation.
This coming weekend and week, I will travel to the annual Munich
Security Conference, which my friend and late colleague Senator John
McCain helped build up into a critical gathering of the North Atlantic
community, of NATO allies, of Ministers of Defense, heads of state,
parliamentarians from all over the world, principally focused on the
alliances rooted in values that have kept us safe, prosperous, and
free. And I know what I will hear from our allies--that they are
gravely concerned that the values that connect us are slipping away.
Last year, I had the blessing, the honor, of meeting again with Yulia
Navalny, whose husband, an advocate for democracy in Russia, died in a
Russian prison. Yulia will once again speak with us as a delegation
about the cost of freedom.
What gave me hope last year at this conference was a panel I
participated in with three legislators from three other countries--
young women serving in the legislative bodies of Ghana, of Burma, and
of Poland--fighting for democracy in their countries, not because they
look to the United States as the perfect example but because they know
the profound human hunger for freedom--the legislator from Burma now
serving in exile; the legislators from Ghana and from Poland having
worked hard to resist corruption, oppression, state power, looking,
yes, to America's example but, frankly, charting their own course
because they know that the future for their children and their families
and their nations lies on a better path when liberty and justice for
all is at the core of their cause and their purpose.
As I travel to Munich again, I will be joining a bipartisan group
under the name ``Codel McCain'' because even after he has passed, we
continue to honor our former colleague, who spent so much of his time
in a prison in Vietnam, knowing that at any day, he could raise his
hand and be released but refusing to dishonor the code under which he
served.
Senator McCain said in one of his last speeches that the current
President seems to be trading away the ideals that have held together
our Nation ``for the sake of some half-baked spurious nationalism
cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve
problems.''
Well, we can't let that happen for all of those like Senator McCain
and Senator Kerry and Senator Carper, veterans of that war. And now we
are joined by veterans of our most recent wars. For all of those who
have served at home and abroad--first responders, law enforcement,
teachers, community leaders, doctors--all those who put their heart and
time and effort into making America the democracy worthy of the regard
of the world, we need to be clear that the hour is late, that the skies
are darkening, that the steady advance of the grip of state power
should alarm all of us.
Lincoln concluded his remarks at Gettysburg saying:
We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died
in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth
of freedom.
We have to do that again today: Call out the alarm, call out these
actions, renew our commitment to the ideals that have made our Nation
great, refuse to give up on our alliances rooted in values and ask the
world not to give up on us, and keep fighting back against those who
would strip us of our liberties and our freedoms.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Appropriations
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the recent
progress made by the U.S. Senate. We have officially passed 11 of the
12 government funding bills, and I am hopeful that my Democrat
colleagues will come to a reasonable agreement so that we can get the
Homeland Security funding bill over the finish line soon.
It is essential that we get this bill passed for FEMA funding, for
our TSA agents, for our Coast Guard officers, and for our Nation's
cyber security. That is all part of this bill. In fact, I think it is
about 80, 85 percent of this bill. But first and foremost, funding the
Federal Government is Congress' most basic responsibility, and it is
also the most important. When Congress fails to do that job, the
consequences reach beyond Washington. The harmful impacts include
delayed services, uncertainties for families and businesses, and eroded
trust in government.
Our recent progress stands in sharp contrast to where we were just a
few years ago. This body had not passed a single government funding
bill in this Chamber before August, and that was since 2018. And that
failure was not accidental. Under the previous Democrat majority
leader, Senator Schumer, the Senate was repeatedly blocked from holding
full votes on appropriations bills. That approach was unacceptable to
many Members on both sides of the aisle.
It was not until just over a year ago when we elected Senator John
Thune as majority leader that this body recommitted itself to doing the
work. Under Leader Thune's leadership, the Senate is once again
advancing funding bills through what we call regular order.
We are restoring transparency. We are restoring accountability, and
we are restoring deliberation to the appropriations process. I am
grateful to Leader Thune for bringing these bills to the floor, and I
look forward to continuing our work to pass the remaining measure and
responsibly fund our government.
In addition to keeping the government open, passing funding bills, it
is an opportunity to bring back Nebraska tax dollars that we send to
Washington every single year. To do this, my team works really closely
with localities back home. We make sure to get their
[[Page S546]]
input on how their Federal tax money is spent.
In the funding bills that we passed thus far, I am proud to have
secured millions of dollars in critical investments for the State of
Nebraska. One of my top priorities was securing critical funds for
Offutt Air Force Base in the Defense appropriations bill. In total, we
obtained $83 million for the United States Strategic Command, the 55th
Wing, and the 557th Weather Wing--all of those are based at Offutt.
These funds are going to strengthen national security, and they are
going to enhance Nebraska's role in that.
In the agriculture and rural development funding bill, I secured $16
million for the USDA's Agricultural Research facility at the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. This investment will support research that
benefits Nebraska producers and strengthens American agriculture.
In the Commerce-Justice-Science funding bill, I secured over $7
million for radio communications and equipment upgrades for Nebraska
law enforcement. Nearly a dozen counties reached out to my office
asking for help replacing outdated systems and gear. With these
upgrades, officers will be able to communicate, and they will be able
to respond faster. And this will improve safety for both our first
responders and also the communities that they serve.
I also worked to secure $8.8 million in the Interior and Environment
funding bill. These funds are going to be used to upgrade aging water
treatment plants and sewer systems in McCook, Greeley, Farwell,
Gothenburg, Genoa, Shelby, Valparaiso that were beginning to require
really costly repairs--taxpayer dollars going home.
These projects are going to help secure safe drinking water and
sustainable infrastructure for residents across these counties.
And after the EPA deemed the Santee Sioux Nation's water source ``not
consumable,'' I secured $8.25 million to deliver safe drinking water to
that Tribe. This is a necessity that no community should be without.
Finally, in the Energy and Water Development bill, we had $14.6
million so that we can restore irrigation tunnels on the Gering-Fort
Laramie Canal. This need was identified after a catastrophic tunnel
collapse that left 55,000 acres of farmland without reliable
irrigation. Now this investment will protect regional economic
stability and reduce financial pressure on local ag producers.
These projects, they reflect what I believe Federal funding should
do: listen, work with localities so that we can invest in practical
needs that improve daily lives. It is imperative that elected officials
continue to have influence over this process. We really cannot leave
these decisions to unelected bureaucrats in Washington who don't know
where McCook, NE, is, who don't know the issues facing the Santee Sioux
Nation, who don't understand where Greeley is, where Gothenburg is--and
some, probably, where Omaha or Lincoln are.
Just as important in bringing Federal tax dollars back home, it is
providing that tax relief to Nebraska taxpayers. Many of these projects
would otherwise fall on our local property taxes, which are considered
very high in the State of Nebraska. It will shift the burden onto
families, farmers, and small businesses. So when we can fund these
priorities with Federal dollars that Nebraskans have already sent to
Washington, it provides a major boost for our communities, and it is
also a shining example of responsible government.
I am proud of the significant progress that this body has made under
Senator Thune's leadership. We are finally restoring regular order,
transparency, and accountability to the government funding process.
This is a win for Nebraskans, and it is a win for all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, in the last several weeks, we have
witnessed some terrible tragedies in Minnesota that involved law
enforcement operations and the loss of life. We should all continue to
pray for the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
As a former Governor, I know that when there is an officer-involved
shooting, there is always an investigation to determine whether the
shooting was justified, and there will, indeed, be multiple
investigations into these shootings.
I also know that as a former Governor and having had the State patrol
of Nebraska report to me, that our law enforcement officers are
dedicated professionals, women and men who put their lives on the line
to keep us safe, and they will do a great job for us in investigating
what could be done better.
The Department of Homeland Security should take this opportunity to
review its policies and procedures because of this investigation to
determine if there are areas to improve upon.
One of the areas I think they will define is that there could be
better cooperation with the local law enforcement. However, this is not
the fault of ICE or Customs and Border Protection; this is the fault of
the mayor who is not allowing his administration to work with ICE, for
example, to apprehend criminal illegal aliens who are in their jails
and forcing them to go out on the streets to apprehend these folks. And
they are not providing the sort of crowd control that would allow
protestors to exercise their rights and keep them safe and stop them
from interfering with law enforcement operations.
So the Democrats are holding up the Department of Homeland Security
bill. Ironically, because of the continuing resolution that we passed,
we are funding ICE with more money than we would have otherwise if we
just passed the regular Homeland Security bill because Republicans are
working on fiscal restraint.
Also ironically, they actually can't get at the Agency they are mad
at. ICE is fully funded for the next 3 years because of the
reconciliation bill we passed last year. So Democrats really can't
impact the funding of the Agency that they are unhappy with.
Now, they have various demands that they have with regard to this,
and again, some of these demands are already addressed in the Homeland
Security bill. For example, they want body cameras. There is actually
funding for body cameras in the Homeland Security bill if the Democrats
would join us in passing it.
There is also funding for deescalation procedures. Presumably,
Democrats would want that. There is also funding for an inspector
general. Presumably, Democrats would think that was a good idea. All of
these things that are in the Homeland Security bill, the Democrats
would just work with Republicans to pass it, but they are not doing so.
They have some demands, like better cooperation with local law
enforcement. Well, that is something that we would like too. We would
like to see it in sanctuary cities that are blocking our Federal law
enforcement officers from apprehending illegal immigrant criminals who
are in their jails.
Work with us to be able to allow us to do that. That would be great--
I am sure the ICE members are saying to themselves. So that cooperation
would be wonderful. In fact, that is the key. I see it in my home
State, that our local law enforcement, our county sheriffs, they don't
do ICE's job for them, but they do cooperate to be able to get criminal
illegal aliens into the custody of ICE and also provide security to
make sure that law enforcement is not interfered with and that
protesters can have their ability to exercise their rights in a safe
way.
One of the other demands that they have is for no masks. And again,
talking to local law enforcement in Nebraska and my own experience with
Nebraska State Patrol, I know that typically our law enforcement
officers wear a badge, a name, but in special operations, that is not
always the case, that we see that masks are necessary to protect the
identities of our law enforcement officers.
Far-left radical people are using face recognition software or use
that to identify law enforcement officials and then dox them. That is a
risk. In fact, we have seen it in Nebraska. I was talking to one of my
county sheriffs about one of his deputies who was doxed; his name and
address, his children's names were published on the internet and even
going so far as to
[[Page S547]]
publish his parents' names and addresses in different city. This is
just pure intimidation.
I know that when we have drug interdiction programs, we want our
officers to wear masks because, again, the cartels want to intimidate
our law enforcement officers into not doing their jobs. This is
something we have to be worried about.
If the left continues to villainize our law enforcement officers who
are there to keep us safe, it will make the job less attractive. It
will be hard for us to track the right kind of people we want to be
able to fill those positions in law enforcement. It is absolutely
appropriate in certain circumstances to wear a mask.
In fact, in some operations, it is a safety issue. If we are having
our law enforcement officers, for example, go into a residence where
they know there is a criminal and they are using, say, an ordinance to
do that, the mask actually helps protect them. So there are times and
circumstances where that is appropriate.
Certainly, protecting our law enforcement officers from malicious
actors who want to intimidate them is important. It is a time to make
sure we are keeping our law enforcement officers safe and making sure
we continue to have people--brave women and men--who want to step up
and do that job.
One of the other things that our Democrat colleagues want is to end
administrative warrants. A little history: Administrative warrants were
originally passed in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, so
they have been around for nearly 75 years. Getting away from that would
bring our law enforcement operations with regard to illegal immigrants
in this country to a halt. This is an important way that we actually
get to deport the people who are here illegally.
So that is a nonstarter. We can't slow down the system. Yet we just
saw under the Biden administration an open border policy and 10.5
million illegal entry attempts into the United States.
The President has now brought those down 95 percent and, since April
2025, has stopped releasing illegal immigrants into our country. That
is progress. But I believe the President was hired to address the issue
Joe Biden created. So we need to give the right tools to our law
enforcement officers to be successful.
I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with
the White House and Senate Republicans to come up with a reasonable
compromise based on common ground and to make sure that we are funding
Homeland Security.
That funding runs out Friday at midnight, and if Democrats allow this
to happen, it won't impact ICE operations, but what it will do is
interrupt FEMA. We just had a major winter storm on the east coast and
parts of the South. FEMA will be interrupted if Department of Homeland
Security is not getting funded.
Our TSA agents who help make sure we get around the country safely
through our airports, they will stop getting paid. That could
potentially lead to slowdowns at airports. The Coast Guard will stop
getting paid. Our heroes who keep us safe on our oceans and rescue us
when we need it, these are all the things Democrats will be putting at
risk if they don't fund Homeland Security. And, of course, any
continuing resolution will just mean that the Democrats are funding ICE
to a greater degree than they would otherwise.
So, again, I encourage my Senate Democratic colleagues to work with
the White House and Senate Republicans on a reasonable compromise. And
one more thing, if we cannot fund Homeland Security, I urge my Senate
Democrats to not go on all the codels they are supposed to be going on
starting on Friday.
We need to stay here and get it fixed. We need to get Homeland
Security funded.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill making further
consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Chuck Grassley, Markwayne Mullin, John
Barrasso, Tim Sheehy, Katie Boyd Britt, Ted Cruz, Jon
Husted, James Lankford, Jim Banks, Mike Rounds, Pete
Ricketts, Susan M. Collins, Shelley Moore Capito, Bill
Cassidy, Kevin Cramer, Tommy Tuberville.
____________________