[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 30 (Thursday, February 12, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S593-S606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to
Proceed--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 7147, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 7147) making further consolidated
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes for debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees, prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Americans' views on ICE are crystal
clear: The lawlessness, the violence, the chaos must end, and the only
real way to do it is through legislation.
Today, Senate Democrats will vote no because we will not support a
bill that fails to make any progress on reining in ICE and stopping the
violence. Americans are sick of their taxpayer dollars going to masked
Federal agents, warrantless searches, and violence--violence--in their
communities.
Democrats have been clear. We need legislation to truly halt ICE's
abuses. Otherwise, what Tom Homan says today could be reversed by
Donald Trump, on a whim, tomorrow. Without legislation, Donald Trump
could choose to put a rogue force in any city he wants and have them
operate without guardrails at all.
The proposals that Senate and House Democrats presented last week and
keep pushing for are very reasonable. We want ICE simply to follow the
same standards that law enforcement agencies across the country already
follow.
I ask every Republican Senator: Go home. Ask your police officer or
ask your sheriff what rules they must abide by.
They are very similar to the rules that we are asking ICE to obey,
but right now, ICE is a rogue force. Lawlessness prevails when ICE
arrives.
If Republicans want to claim our proposals are nonstarters, they
should ask the people back home what they think of masked agents,
warrantless searches, and using kids as bait to arrest their parents.
These are not actions of real law enforcement. This is thuggery.
The American people need to see meaningful change, and our Republican
colleagues must work with us to make that change happen. No more rogue
police forces roaming through our cities. Support this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum
call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 7147, a bill making further consolidated
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
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).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
[[Page S594]]
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
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
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
McConnell
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). On this vote, the yeas are 52,
and the nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Motion to Reconsider
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant bill 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 Executive 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, John Barrasso, John R. Curtis, Bill Hagerty,
Tim Sheehy, Thom Tillis, Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst, Jim
Banks, Markwayne Mullin, Tommy Tuberville, Steve
Daines, Josh Hawley, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jon
A. Husted, Pete Ricketts, Susan M. Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4553
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I rise today to pass this legislation by
unanimous consent and offer a 2-week continuing resolution so that we
can assure the DHS is fully funded while we continue to negotiate.
Two weeks ago, we agreed to extend funding while we talked and tried
to find a pathway forward. However, the timeline we knew was going to
be short. It took the Democrats until Saturday evening to actually
produce legislative text.
Within the next four days, we were able to exchange dialogue and text
again. You can take a look at what we have seen from the President and
his outreach, what you have seen from the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the deployment of body cameras across the country, and
what we have heard from Tom Homan today. We are working in good faith
to find a pathway forward.
What we are asking is, let us continue to do that. We are asking
today for the exact same thing that we had 2 weeks ago: Extend this
funding for 2 more weeks so that, as we talk, as we negotiate, TSA
agents don't miss a paycheck; so that FEMA workers who are helping to
get out disaster relief to people who have been ravaged across this
country, and particularly in the South, just in the last 2 weeks--we
lost over 60 individuals to the deadly winter storms. There are people
who need help, and the people who are working to provide that help for
them, they deserve a paycheck.
When we are looking at CBP and ICE continuing to do their work, look
at what is happening across the country. It is important that we stand
shoulder to shoulder with our law enforcement officers, allowing them
to make sure that they keep themselves safe and the communities at
large.
There are very important jobs that they have, like HSI agents that go
after child pornographers and drug traffickers, that make sure that
Americans are safe. HSI has done tremendous work and must continue to
be funded.
You look at the Secret Service. The list goes on and on and on. The
Secret Service continues to protect not only America's leaders, but it
makes sure that when we have events like the World Cup and the
Olympics, Americans and those that are living here are safe and secure.
It is clear that we are operating in good faith. We are working to
find a pathway forward, and the fact that people, these employees--
people who have stepped up to serve their country--are not going to
receive a paycheck, to me, is just totally, completely unacceptable.
Look, we don't have to go down another government shutdown pathway,
and that is exactly what this is. By not allowing us time to continue
these conversations and shutting the government down, real people will
pay the price. These same workers, these same agents who went without a
paycheck for 43 days because of the failure of the Democrats to come to
the table then--it is exactly what we are seeing now.
It is a choice. It is entirely up to Senate Democrats. We stand here
today to say: We are operating in good faith. We have continued to move
the ball forward. Let's keep talking. Let's keep working. Let's do a 2-
week extension. Don't let anyone miss a paycheck. Let's make sure that
we keep Americans safe, coast to coast.
I hope they will make the right choice, but that is entirely up to
them.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. And I further ask that
the Britt substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to,
and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and
passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think our
caucus was confused and frustrated by how long it took for our
Republican colleagues to come to the table and start discussions.
The minute that we passed a 2-week continuing resolution for the
Department of Homeland Security, we knew we were going to have to enter
into some hard discussions about how we can rein in ICE's lawlessness,
which is what the American people demand. And yet during the first week
of that 2-week continuing resolution, there was no clarity over whom we
were supposed to be negotiating with. Was it Senate Republicans? Was it
the White House?
And, in fact, it wasn't until last night, literally on the verge of
the shutdown, that we got our first offer of text from the White
House--far too late to be able to engage in any compromise before the
deadline.
So I wish we weren't here. I wish our Republican colleagues and the
White House had shown more seriousness from the start.
But Senate Democrats have been clear that we have all taken an oath--
an oath to uphold the law of the country--and this Department of
Homeland Security, this ICE, is out of control. They are tear-gassing
our children's schools. They are killing American citizens. They are
disappearing legal migrants.
I went down to Texas, a couple of weeks ago, and sat across a table
from two elementary school students who had been detained illegally for
6 weeks over Christmas, while their mother wasn't home. It was a choice
ICE made to traumatize and terrorize these children. Those children
were alive on the outside but dead on the inside.
So, yes, we believe we have a constitutional obligation to only fund
a Department of Homeland Security that is obeying the law, and this
Department of Homeland Security is not obeying the law.
So I am hopeful that these discussions will continue. But, frankly,
we
[[Page S595]]
had plenty of time to get a deal in the last 2 weeks, and the lack of
seriousness from the White House and from Republicans, not getting
language until last night, has put us in the position we are in today.
We want to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but only a
Department that is obeying the law, and for that reason, I would
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, look, I am going to say it one more time.
We wanted more time. Democrats asked for 2 weeks. Our concern was that
2 weeks wasn't long enough. It took the Democrats a week to articulate
what it is they wanted. They articulated it via press conference and
via tweet, not by conversation. Let's be clear--not by conversation.
Then it took them a number of more days, from Wednesday to Saturday,
to come up with legislative text. We then did the same thing, working
back and forward.
Look, you have seen advancements made from the administration. We saw
a big announcement made today by Tom Homan. There is no way that you
can't say we are working in good faith.
We want to continue this conversation, but yet you are penalizing a
TSA agent. A TSA agent is going to go without a paycheck. Why? So that
you can posture politically.
I am over it.
Everybody on that side of the aisle knows that ICE and CBP will
continue to be funded. They are going to continue to enforce the law
just as they should.
Who is going to pay the price? It is the TSA agent. It is the person
working at FEMA who already went 43 days without a paycheck, who is
trying to figure out how to make things work.
I have reports of TSA agents sleeping in their cars because they
can't afford gas, selling plasma to make their bills.
Guys, come on. We are asking to continue a conversation.
When the Biden-Harris failed border policy allowed millions to come
across our border unvetted, when there were American citizens who paid
the price in that moment--like Jocelyn Nungaray, who was 12 years old
and raped and left under a bridge; like Laken Riley, who fought for her
life for 17 minutes before her head, her skull was bashed in--and we
kept saying: We have got to do more to secure our border.
And our Democratic colleagues said: That takes legislation. It can't
be done.
Well, we know that is not true because all we needed was a new
President, who secured our border and helps to make our country safe.
Look, I believe we are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation
of laws, and the lawlessness has to stop. But even in the midst of all
of that, with fentanyl overdoses at an all-time high, we didn't shut
the Department down, not one time. And, today, Democrats are choosing
to shut the Department down.
We have exchanged text. That is what you do in a negotiation. You
work to find a pathway forward. There was an announcement today that
shows we are operating in good faith. I don't know why people who have
nothing to do with this are going to have to pay the price for us
continuing to work to find a pathway forward.
It would be different if we had thrown up our hands and said: Nah, we
are not going to send you anything back.
We want this to work. We believe in our laws. We believe in enforcing
them. And we believe in the men and women who do that.
And so this is an unfortunate day. It is a sad day. It is, certainly,
not one that had to happen.
I want to be very clear: All we are asking for is 2 weeks to continue
this conversation, to figure out how to make this work, and to do what
is right for all American citizens.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I just want to reiterate that we got the
language last night. We have been in a 2-week continuing resolution,
and last night, we got the first offer of legislation from the White
House.
We are not in charge. The Senate Democrats aren't in charge. We don't
run the House. We don't run the White House.
We waited for a week for there to be some process to be convened. We
got no signal as to what that negotiation would look like. So we
finally put our proposals--our text--on the table and didn't get an
offer back until last night.
My wish is for my Republican colleagues to be just as upset as they
are about what is going to happen next week at TSA or at FEMA as for
the children that are being traumatized right now in this country, who
are being thrown into what is called the ``Baby Jail,'' outside of San
Antonio; for the lives that are fundamentally changed by an immigration
policy that is out of control; to have concern for the American
citizens who have been killed simply exercising their First Amendment
rights; to care about the 4 million Americans who are losing their
insurance, as we speak, because this administration has chosen to put
money into a lawless immigration enforcement operation instead of
protecting people's healthcare.
That is what is happening in America today. Four million people are
losing their healthcare insurance. Twenty million people are having
their rates go through the roof because the priority is flooding
Minneapolis with ICE agents; chasing down kids at schoolbus stops, as
they were doing just 2 days ago in Minneapolis, instead of protecting
people's healthcare.
People are losing healthcare in this country so as to fund this
runaway Department of Homeland Security.
And so we all have outrage about what is happening in this country
today, and I don't know why it took the White House until last night to
send any semblance of specifics on what they were willing to work for.
We have an obligation, as Members of Congress, to fund a government
that obeys the law. This Department of Homeland Security is not obeying
the law. They are not. And I would argue that every Member of this
body, whether you were a Republican or a Democrat, in order to uphold
your oath of office, should not be funding an Agency that isn't
complying with the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.
So I do regret that we are at a moment in which we are not going to
be able to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but there is a
simple solution. If the Agency starts behaving lawfully, if they start
obeying the Constitution, then we can get back on the same page.
This is an exceptional moment in this country's history, and my hope
is that these negotiations move fast, expeditiously, and that perhaps,
as soon as we return--or if the majority leader would like to call us
back into session next week--we can get the Department back up and
operating. But that is only going to happen with reforms.
That is only going to happen with more serious engagement from the
White House than has happened thus far.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I think that these children do matter, and
I think the half a million unaccompanied kids that came across the
border during the Biden-Harris administration matter too--many of them
with phone numbers safety-pinned to them or written on their arm.
The Biden-Harris administration got rid of the DNA policy to make
sure that these kids were going to family members. These kids were
lost; many of them still are.
What we heard Tom Homan say today--today, the day we are voting to
say: Can we continue this conversation? Can a TSA officer still get a
paycheck while we talk?--is he said that there was a significant
drawdown there in Minnesota. He said: Operations were successful and
that 3,000 kids who had been lost had been found.
Now, I remember coming down here and talking about that. I remember
talking about these kids that had wandered across the border.
But we deserve better. America deserves better. These kids deserve
better. And this is really simple.
Are we negotiating in good faith? If it takes you over 8 days to get
us legislative text and we are able to turn that around in a couple of
days, you have an announcement like you have today, it
[[Page S596]]
is clear that we are. And so why you are making people pay the price,
like the TSA officer, to go without pay again is beyond me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3805
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, so DHS apparently is going to shut down.
Hopefully, we can get it back open. What is this all about? Obey the
law?
You know what. I have an idea for you if you want people to obey the
law in this country: Do away with sanctuary cities.
Senator Murphy is from Connecticut. It is 1 of 12 sanctuary States.
What does that mean? Local officials, State officials, refuse to work
with the Federal Government to turn people over to the Federal
Government as required by Federal law. So you want to obey the law in
Connecticut? Stop being a sanctuary State.
You want to fix immigration? Have policies that make sense.
You all act like, for 4 years, Biden wasn't President. Every
Democratic Senator aided and abetted the Biden administration with a
massive invasion of this country. You turned the other way. You never
said a word. You let Biden obliterate our border. You let him send
people into the interior on planes, trains, and automobiles. Only God
knows what happened, who is here. You sat by, and you did nothing.
And here is what I have learned about my friends on the Democratic
side: They are never going to agree to deport anybody because all their
proposals make it pretty much impossible to deport anybody.
Body cameras, that makes sense. If you want to find out how to make
ICE more professional, count me in.
But your proposal is to require a judicial warrant to deport
somebody. Can you imagine how many judges you would need if you got 15
million illegal people here, to go get a warrant from a judge? This is
not a criminal proceeding. This is an administrative proceeding. The
President, as the Commander in Chief, has the ability to detain and
deport people administratively. You don't need a Federal judge.
You are trying to create a mechanism so we will fail cleaning up your
mess. We got elected to clean up your mess.
We are going to hold ICE agents accountable if they went too far. Tom
Homan went to Minnesota to turn the heat down. Great.
Democratic politicians all over this country have been turning the
heat up. You are wedded to lousy, dangerous policies.
Senator Murphy, why don't you get Connecticut right with Federal law?
Here is what has happened: We got 12 sanctuary States, 200-plus
sanctuary communities, 25,000 people--ICE has requested a detainer,
ignored for 2 years. States have refused to work with ICE for 25,000
people that have a detainer at the Federal level.
Sanctuary city law is a magnet for future illegal immigration.
Sanctuary city policies are full of fraud like in Minneapolis. They
bring out the worst in the system, not the best, and it breaks down law
and order.
We have been talking for weeks about you wanting to fix things. You
are blocking a debate. I can't believe I am here. I thought we were
going to work together to try to find out how to reform ICE and also
address the bottom-line problem, which is sanctuary city law abuse.
That is the problem--not ICE, not Miller, not me, not Noem--policies
that have been in place that entice more illegal immigration.
Every Democratic Senator turned the other way during the 4 years of
Biden. You didn't do anything to bring reason to chaos.
How many of you spoke about Laken Riley? Talking about children being
abused, how many thousands of people have been raped and abused, stolen
and mistreated because of this invasion of illegal immigrants from
virtually all over the world with people from gangs, you name it. So
you never talk about the victims.
Just want to talk about TV in Minnesota. I am all for these ICE
agents being reviewed. I am all for making them more professional. But
I am not all for stopping the mandate that President Trump was given,
which is to deal with illegal immigration and the criminal elements
therein.
So I have legislation, S. 3805, and it says: If a State or local
official does not turn over to the Federal Government an illegal
immigrant who is facing criminal charges, been convicted or facing
criminal charges, then that State or local official can go to jail.
You have an obligation under Federal law to turn these people over.
Sanctuary States and cities--25,000 ICE detainers denied. Twenty-five
thousand people that should be deported have not been turned over to
the Federal Government because of these 12 States and these 200
sanctuary cities. Let's get to the root cause of the problem.
I am going to ask unanimous consent that we vote on S. 3805. That
would make it a crime for a State or local official not to turn over to
Federal authorities a criminal illegal immigrant, somebody who is
charged with a crime or convicted with a crime. And if you don't turn
them over, you would face punishment. That will stop illegal sanctuary
city policy. If people knew they would go to jail for breaking Federal
law, I think they would stop.
You have had weeks, and we are not even debating. You are never going
to change. If you want to have immigration policed, our Democratic
friends will never be there for you. They turned their back on you and
your family and allowed this Nation to be invaded by 10, 15, 20 million
people--who the hell knows.
We are trying to fix it. We are trying to fix it, and we are not
going to give up. And until you change the policies, you never stop
illegal immigration.
If there are 12 States that have sanctuary status, they will keep
coming. All they have to do is get to one of these States. It is
magnets for future illegal immigration. It breaks down law and order,
and it needs to stop.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 318, S. 3805; further, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I
understand that this is a very important subject for my passionate
colleague from South Carolina, but I also think there is a very
fundamental misunderstanding, at a minimum, about what sanctuary
policies are and what sanctuary policies are not.
Now, as I was listening to my colleague, he has tried to paint a
picture of sanctuary States or sanctuary cities as nothing but lawless,
and I get that it is maybe a favorite sound bite for rightwing media,
but the fact of the matter is it is not true.
Sanctuary policies do not mean that there are no laws or that the
Federal Government can no longer enforce Federal law in those
jurisdictions. What sanctuary policies are is simply an affirmation
that immigration enforcement is the job of the Federal Government and
that State and local authorities cannot be co-opted or forced into
performing inherently Federal responsibilities. It means that while
Federal Agencies carry out immigration enforcement, State and local law
enforcement will choose to focus their time, their energy, their
resources on public safety in the local communities.
So let me say that again as clearly as I can: Sanctuary policies do
not prevent ICE from going into any State or any city to arrest the
violent criminals that the administration says they are after when they
are being released from prison.
And, by the way, it is not like ICE does not know when someone is
arrested. In fact, the Federal Government is notified every single time
an individual is booked into a jail or prison. This means nothing is
preventing ICE from picking up individuals when they are released from
custody.
But instead of prioritizing picking up the dangerous, violent
criminals they talk so much about, what is ICE doing instead? They are
out roving streets in communities across the country and arresting
people based on the color of their skin or the language that they speak
or their perceived occupation.
There is a term for this, by the way. These are now known as the
Kavanaugh stops because of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh--and, by
extension, the majority of the Supreme Court--sanctioning this
practice. It is wrong.
[[Page S597]]
Now, I know my colleagues disagree with sanctuary policies as they
are--official, technical. He describes sanctuary policies as ``killing
this country.'' I have heard that a few times. And that by enacting
sanctuary policies, leaders in these States are somehow ``openly
defying federal law.''
Again, wrong. You can have your own opinion, but you can't own the
facts. Far from defying Federal law, courts have actually upheld
sanctuary laws and policies. I will reference just one. In a 1997
ruling in Printz v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives
requiring the States to address particular problems, nor
command the States' officers, or those of their political
subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory
program . . . such commands are fundamentally incompatible
with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
That sure doesn't sound like anyone is defying any Federal law to me.
And nobody is accusing Justice Scalia as having been a leftwing
radical.
And, yes, we do have more recent examples of courts rejecting the
Trump administration's attempts to strong-arm cities and States into
acting as Federal immigration agents.
Let me just say this: These policies that my Republican colleagues
are determined to attack are not the reason for the chaos that the
American people have been watching in horror unfold in the cities of
Los Angeles, in Chicago, in Minneapolis, and so many others. Sanctuary
policies aren't the reason why American cities and citizens are being
pepper-sprayed or tear-gassed, beaten, unlawfully detained, or even
shot in broad daylight like Renee Good and Alex Pretti. What is
endangering the American people's safety and security is an out-of-
control administration that has empowered a mass paramilitary force of
ICE and CBP agents to act with impunity, without accountability,
without oversight, and without consequences.
If we truly want to talk about public safety, then we need to be
talking about reining in an out-of-control Department of Homeland
Security, not scapegoating States and cities that choose to prioritize
their local resources for their local public safety.
So, for the sake of the American people's safety and well-being, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my good friend Senator Padilla.
No. 1, we are going to have an election in November. Senator Padilla
says that sanctuary policies are not part of the problem. I think they
are. I think the American people believe that, when 12 States refuse to
cooperate with the Federal Government when it comes to enforcing
Federal law, they become sanctuary States and cities, and it entices
more illegal immigration.
Do you know why we are not voting on my amendment? It is because most
people don't agree with him, and they are afraid to vote. The only
reason we are not voting on my amendment is that you would have to go
back and tell the country why you voted against stopping sanctuary city
policy, which is one of the biggest magnets of illegal immigration that
leads to massive fraud and the breakdown of law and order.
The parties are in two different places. Democrats and Senator
Padilla believe that sanctuary policies are no problem. The
Republicans, including me and President Trump, believe we will never
have orderly immigration until you get to the root cause of the
problem. You have got 12 very liberal States and 200 cities that refuse
to work with the Federal Government to turn over people who are subject
to deportation.
I have an amendment that is being blocked that would make it a crime
for a State or a Federal official who has custody of an illegal
immigrant who is facing criminal charges or who has been convicted of
criminal charges not to turn him over to the Federal Government to be
handled and deported. They don't want that vote. You are never going to
stop sanctuary cities until you make the people in charge of the State
and the city pay a price for ignoring Federal law.
To the American people, you are not wrong to believe sanctuary city
policy is bad for your country. Democrats are wrong to support it and
want to continue it.
So what do we hear on the floor today? Not only is it that they don't
believe it is a problem but that they wish to continue it.
This is why I want a vote. We are going to have a vote on this. You
want to continue these policies. You don't think they are a problem. I
want to end them. Let's have a vote, a debate and a vote. You bring up
any amendment you want to bring up about making ICE better, defund it.
Whatever you want to bring up I will vote on, but you are denying me a
vote today on the root cause of the problem because you have absolutely
no interest in recognizing it to be the root cause of the problem.
As a matter of fact, the Senator said I am wrong to believe that
sanctuary policy is bad for our country.
No. You are wrong. You are wrong to have turned your back on the 15
million, 10 million, 20 million coming into our country for 4 years.
You are wrong to sit by and watch these States obliterate the law.
There are 25,000 people that local governments and State governments
refuse to turn over to ICE who are eligible to be turned over, and
there are 8 million people in these illegal sanctuary States and
cities.
This is a debate worthy of the U.S. Senate and of a great nation.
Is Senator Padilla right that sanctuary policies are not bad for the
country and that they should continue or am I right that we should
reform ICE but that we also should end the biggest magnet to illegal
immigration out there, I think, which are 12 States that violate,
routinely, Federal law?
There are 12 States wherein, if an illegal believes you can get
there, you are never going to leave the country. If we don't fix this
problem, we will never fix illegal immigration. In the Gang of 8 bill,
we actually fixed this problem.
So what have I learned?
I have learned that I can't get a vote on an amendment that would
require State and local officials to obey the law or go to jail
themselves when it comes to criminal illegal aliens.
My amendment says, if you have got a criminal in your custody and you
don't turn the criminal over to the Federal Government, as you are
supposed to, you could go to jail. They should go to jail. We can't
have that vote. We can't have that debate.
This is a phenomenal day for the U.S. Senate. We have got the Senator
from California overtly saying: We have no desire to change sanctuary
policy. We think it is OK. Then we have got me and all of us on this
side saying that you need to end this; that this will continue.
I am sad and disappointed we didn't have a bunch of votes today. Why
aren't we voting? Because they blocked it. Why aren't we defunding DHS?
Because they don't want to talk and fix the problem.
So here is the deal: No matter what--no matter how this ends--I am
going to stay on this until I can't stay on it anymore. I want a simple
vote as a U.S. Senator to have a debate as to whether or not sanctuary
city policy, State policy, is bad for America or good for America. I
think it is terrible for America.
For those engaging in sanctuary city practices, you are hurting the
other 38 States. You are creating chaos for your country, and you
should be held accountable.
One last thought: There was a clerk of the court in Kentucky who was
a very religious woman. She did not want to recognize a gay marriage in
Kentucky. She issued marriage licenses. The Supreme Court ruled that
gay marriage was the law of the land. She refused. I said she needed to
do her job. She went to jail for 5 days, and she should have because
you can't let your personal opinion take over your government function.
You can't just obey the laws you like.
It is the same thing here--and every liberal clapped when I did that.
It is the same thing here. If you have got a Governor or a mayor who
will not turn over a criminal illegal immigrant, as required by Federal
law, they should go to jail.
I want a vote. I want a debate. I am not going to let this go. The
battle lines have been drawn.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
SAVE America Act
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, elections are the bedrock of our American
[[Page S598]]
democracy, and despite what the President and his big circle of
election-denying, conspiracy theorists would have Americans believe,
the truth is that our elections are, indeed, free; that our elections
are, indeed, fair; and that our elections are, indeed, secure.
That is why the revamped, new-and-made-worse SAVE Act, which was
passed by the House last night and is designed to compel States to give
over to Donald Trump their voter rolls, is not just a solution in
search of a problem; it is also a very bad solution at that.
This bill is built on a myth that is rooted in the Big Lie of
election denial that has poisoned our democracy for years, which is
that supposed noncitizen voter fraud occurs with any meaningful
frequency. It is the same Big Lie that is still being perpetrated by
Kurt Olsen, who is the President's ``Stop the Steal'' lawyer now
working in the White House and on President Trump's decision to send
the Director of National Intelligence to Fulton County, GA, last month,
to seize paper ballots from the 2020 election--ballots that have
already been counted at least three times in three different ways and
that have all reached the same election outcome.
The fact of the matter is that audit after audit and investigation
after investigation in red States and in blue States have all reached
the same conclusion, which is that voting by noncitizens--which, by the
way, is already a felony--is so exceedingly rare that it is
statistically almost nonexistent, which tells us something very
important, though. It means our current laws are working; so we don't
need new documentation requirements like passports and birth
certificates.
By the way, 21 million Americans cannot readily access these
documents. We shouldn't be risking the disenfranchisement of 69 million
American women who have changed their names from what is printed on
their birth certificates, most of whom made that change when they got
married, and we don't need to force approximately 60 million Americans
who live in rural communities to drive up to hundreds of miles to prove
their eligibility in person. That is not election security. That is
actually voter suppression.
It is important for the American people to understand that this
Republican effort to jam the SAVE Act through--as they call it--isn't
happening in isolation. There is a bigger picture here. This bill is
part of a broader effort by Trump and his Republican enablers to lay
the groundwork for the rigging of upcoming elections, including the
midterms this November. Now, November might seem like a long way off,
but the midterms have already begun. Primary ballots have been mailed
out in many jurisdictions, and the first round of early voting begins
today in some jurisdictions.
It is pretty clear which way the political winds are blowing. The
American people are rightly frustrated by Donald Trump's failed
economic policies that are raising costs for working families, and the
American people are increasingly outraged by the cruel, violent mass
deportation campaign unfolding in communities across the country, which
has already cost two innocent American citizens their lives.
It seems to me that the SAVE Act is really only intended to save
Republicans and Trump from facing the consequences of their failed
policies, but rather than change their policies, Republicans would
rather change the election rules.
How many times have we heard the President openly question our
election system and why the Federal Government shouldn't run elections?
At one point, he said:
[I]f you think about it, the state is an agent for the
federal government in elections. I don't know why the federal
government doesn't do `em anyway.
Well, let me answer that question for the President. It is really
simple.
It is because the Constitution says otherwise. The Constitution
clearly entrusts elections to the States and to Congress, not to the
President.
But those efforts to interfere are underway and ongoing. We have seen
the Department of Justice sue 24 States that happen to be led by
Democrats. They are targeting their voter rolls in addition to the
intimidation and strong-arm tactics.
We also know that Donald Trump says he regrets not issuing an
Executive order in his first term that directs the military to
illegally seize voting machines. He is not shy about this, folks. He
thinks he has the Department of Homeland Security now more willing to
carry out such illegal actions this time around. So, yes, the threat is
real.
Or consider his former White House adviser who has called on the
President to deploy ICE to intimidate U.S. citizens who will be trying
to vote this November. So let's be absolutely clear: That is already
illegal. Armed Federal agents at polling locations is voter
intimidation and has no place in our democracy. Think about that. Think
about that. Using Federal force to intimidate voters at the polls? It
is hard to imagine anything more un-American.
So that is why, today, colleagues, I am announcing a new amendment to
the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that is still being
negotiated and deliberated. It is an amendment to explicitly bar any
Federal funds from being used to deploy Federal law enforcement or
military personnel to polling places or election offices for the
purpose of voter intimidation or election interference.
It is amazing we would have to say that. It is amazing that we would
have to think about addressing that, but that is what the President
wants. Now don't put it past him to try. It is time to send the
administration a clear message that the United States of America's
elections will be decided by the voters, not by force.
Colleagues, we as a Congress have a responsibility to act to protect
the elections entrusted by the Constitution to us and to the States
before it is too late.
We have a responsibility to reject this SAVE Act, to keep Federal law
enforcement away from polling locations, and to make clear once and for
all that elections and our sacred right to the ballot box belongs to
the people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recognize the Senator from Florida.
Tribute to Duane Brewton
Mrs. MOODY. As the newest, most junior Member from the great State--
the free State of Florida, I rise today--as well as the proud
granddaughter of a World War II Army veteran--and I rise today to
congratulate Mr. Duane Brewton of Cantonment, FL, on the extraordinary
occasion of his 109th birthday celebrated on February 5, 2026.
Mr. Brewton is Florida's oldest living World War II veteran and among
the oldest surviving veterans of the Second World War in the United
States. He is a proud member of what history rightly calls the
``Greatest Generation''--ordinary Americans who answered the call, did
extraordinary things, and helped save the world.
They did not do it for recognition. They did not ask for praise. They
simply did their duty. Honoring their service while they are still with
us is both a privilege and a responsibility.
When his country called, Duane Brewton answered. He served from 1944
to 1945 as a private in the U.S. Army during the Second World War. He
was stationed in Vire, France, where he was wounded in the line of duty
and later returned home.
For his sacrifice, he was awarded the Purple Heart, a lasting
testament to his courage, humility, and devotion to freedom. The world
owes a debt to Mr. Brewton and to his generation that can never be
repaid.
Born and raised in Pensacola, FL, Mr. Brewton returned home after the
war. He raised a family and devoted his life to faith, service, and
community.
A devout Christian, he lived his values daily and by example. His
daughters recall that throughout their childhood, their father rose
every single morning at 4 a.m. to study the Bible and pray, an enduring
memory that shaped their lives and reflected the quiet strength of his
character.
That faith extended far beyond his home. Mr. Brewton was a founder of
the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, a church that continues
to serve his community today.
Through his life, he set a shining example--before his children, his
family, all who knew him, and to us--of what it means to honor God and
country.
May we all strive to live with the same humility, discipline, and
integrity that he has shown for more than a century--109 years, to be
exact.
[[Page S599]]
In recent years, Mr. Brewton has resided in an assisted living
community where he is deeply loved by residents and staff alike. I am
told that they are all watching today.
On his 109th birthday, it was marked by a joyful celebration of
family, friends, and community members gathering in great numbers.
Surrounded by his two daughters and loved ones, the occasion was
fittingly warm and celebratory--centered, as it should be, on a man
whose life had meant so much to so many.
Florida is the proud home to more than 1.4 million veterans. Florida
is also home to the second largest number of living World War II
veterans, a distinction we hold with deep gratitude and respect.
We honor their service, we cherish their presence and recognize our
responsibility to preserve their stories and sacrifices.
Mr. Brewton embodies the very best of Florida and, indeed, the very
best of America: faith, family, humility, duty, and service. His life
stands as a living reminder of the generation that answered the call,
endured unimaginable hardship, and secured liberty for generations that
they would never meet.
On behalf of the people of Florida and a grateful nation, I
congratulate Mr. Duane Brewton on his 109th birthday, thank him for his
extraordinary service, and wish him another joyous year surrounded by
faith, family, and the enduring appreciation of a nation forever
indebted to him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recognize the Senator from Tennessee.
Arctic Frost Investigation
Mrs. BLACKBURN. We have had quite a feisty afternoon here on the
floor, and I am so pleased that my colleagues have called out some of
the actions that we have witnessed from the other side.
It is beyond me that they would want illegal aliens to vote in U.S.
elections--beyond me. But maybe they don't want to preserve ``one
person, one vote.'' Maybe that is not important to them. It is
important to 80 percent of the American people.
And, you know, they are not wanting to fund DHS, and they are saying:
Oh, it is over ICE. ICE is funded. Their money is going to continue.
But what they are doing, they are defunding FEMA. They are defunding
TSA. So if your flights don't go next week, blame the Democrats.
And this week we had a hearing in Judiciary Committee that looked at
another inappropriate use of the Federal Government's inappropriate
policies. And this week I chaired the first in a series of hearings at
Judiciary Committee that will address Arctic Frost and the Arctic Frost
investigation that targeted President Trump, elected Members of
Congress, including me, and hundreds--hundreds--of conservative groups
and individuals.
Now, the subcommittee I chair is on Privacy, Technology, and the Law.
And we called before us the general counsels--legal representatives
from Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile--the three wireless carriers that
received unlawful subpoena requests from Jack Smith to access our phone
records.
Now, what we know--because of whistleblowers--these are people that
work over at DOJ. They are whistleblowers. They saw what was happening,
and they said: This is wrong.
So we know what Mr. Smith was up to. What he and Merrick Garland and
Joe Biden did was to weaponize the U.S. Federal Government to target
President Donald Trump and his allies.
Just days after President Trump announced his 2024 campaign,
President Biden named Jack Smith as special counsel. And with the
approval of the Biden Justice Department, he issued 197 subpoenas to
over 430 conservative organizations and individuals. Among them were
more than a dozen sitting Members of Congress, including me and my
Judiciary Committee colleagues Senators Graham, Lee, Cruz, and Hawley.
Now, the question would be: What does this set of individuals have in
common? What we know is this: We are all Republicans; we all support
President Trump; and each of us had valid questions about the 2020
election.
So here is Jack Smith, who was probably inappropriately appointed as
special counsel. We never took a vote. He didn't have a statute that
allowed him to be the special counsel. But he goes to great lengths to
make certain that we could never find out about this deep invasion of
our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. So he went
to an Obama appointee, Judge James Boasberg, who signed nondisclosure
orders--or you may call them a gag order. They did this to ensure that
the subpoenas were going to be kept secret from us.
Now, the basis for the gag orders was this: that notifying the
Members of Congress being spied on could possibly result in destruction
of evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, serious jeopardy to
the investigation. I am reading that from the gag order. Imagine that.
We also know that Jack Smith's corrupt team of prosecutors consulted
with the Biden DOJ Public Integrity Section about the subpoenas. They
were informed--get this: The Public Integrity Section actually informed
Jack Smith and his group that there was litigation risk for doing this.
Oh, my goodness. That would be a violation of the speech or debate
clause that covers Members of Congress while they are doing their job--
a constitutional defense.
Now, the speech or debate clause gives us broad constitutional
protection from executive branch interference. This is what you call
keeping the executive branch from running over the people's elected
representatives. But the Biden DOJ--they were out for Donald Trump.
They wanted to block him from ever being President. They wanted to go
get him six ways from Sunday. They were after him. So they decided:
Well, there is a risk, but if you put a gag order on it, they are never
going to find out. So let's go ahead. Let's roll the dice, and let's go
for it. Let's abuse their right to privacy. Let's infringe on the
speech or debate clause. Let's get in and tear up the Stored
Communications Act. All because they wanted to go after Donald Trump.
Well, thank God we have whistleblowers, and these whistleblowers over
at DOJ came to Chairman Grassley. He started working on this. And, you
know what, we did find out. We learned that Verizon and T-Mobile
complied with the subpoena request--no questions asked, no concern for
constitutional rights; they just rolled over without a fight.
During yesterday's hearing, we got to ask them: Why did you comply
with these secret, unlawful subpoenas? Did getting a gag order on it
not raise a red flag to you? Why did you do this?
The answer was not satisfactory. The representative for Verizon said
they were aware of the speech or debate clause--good for them--but they
had no system in place to flag subpoena requests for sitting Members of
Congress. But, oh, they say they have learned a lesson. As he put it,
``Our processes could have been better suited to meet what was a new
and unique set of circumstances.''
Well, you know what, we are turning 250 years old. I don't think the
Constitution is exactly new. I don't think the speech or debate clause
is exactly new. I think their response was actually an understatement.
Verizon utterly failed in its responsibility. So did T-Mobile. In
fact, the company was under a specific contract that required it to
notify the Senate Sergeant at Arms about subpoenas related to Senators.
I think Verizon forgot that.
Yet not a single person at Verizon or any of the carriers lost their
job because of this. I went down the road: Has anyone been fired? The
answer was no and no and no, not a single person.
There has to be accountability. If they can trample on the
constitutional rights of sitting Members of Congress and the President
of the United States, they can do it to every U.S. citizen. We cannot
let this stand.
Arctic Frost marked the worst weaponization of government in American
history--worse than Watergate--and I am determined to make certain that
Jack Smith is held accountable and that no American citizen--no one--
ever is going to face the weaponization of the U.S. Government against
them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
SAVE America Act
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the SAVE
[[Page S600]]
America Act. I have heard a lot of hysteria, hyperbole, and, sadly,
falsehoods about this bill, which have created a good deal of
confusion. Frankly, a lot of the issues have become muddled. I think we
have lost sight of what we are really debating in this Chamber. So
today I would like to dispel a few myths about the SAVE America Act and
address the legitimate questions raised or voiced by some of my
colleagues, but first I want to make sure we all understand how
important this issue really is.
I consider myself uniquely qualified when I say that every vote
matters. In 2022, I lost my first statewide election in Pennsylvania by
950 votes. That is 14 votes per county. I won my second election in
2024 by 15,000 votes--of over 7 million cast. These incredibly narrow
races, each of which had electoral issues of their own, show just how
important it is that our elections run smoothly, fairly, and that only
legitimate votes are counted. And right now, we cannot--we must not--
pretend that all elections in America meet this important standard.
Just last year--just last year--in my home State of Pennsylvania,
Chester County officials mistakenly omitted 7,000 third-party votes
from the voter rolls. Registered voters were turned away at the polls,
and an unknown number of unverified voters cast regular ballots.
Every single time Americans hear about election problems like those
in Chester County, they rightly question the integrity of our electoral
process.
It should come as no surprise to us that according to a recent
Scripps and Ipsos poll, more than half of Americans--more than half--
are concerned about noncitizens voting and more than half fear
electoral fraud.
The bottom line is we cannot stand in this Chamber and claim there is
not a problem. There is a problem, and the people who put us here
agree.
Colleagues, we have a duty to root out the source of this distrust
and restore the integrity of our democratic process.
As we celebrate America's 250th anniversary, we must not put to
chance what John Adams called ``the primary right by which all other
rights are protected.'' That is why I support Senator Lee's SAVE
America Act. This bill will not fix every issue with our elections, but
it does three critical things.
First, it prevents noncitizens from voting by requiring people to
show proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show a
government-issued photo ID when casting a ballot.
Second, it directs the States to remove noncitizens from their voter
rolls by mandating regular reviews of those lists and giving States the
abilities and the tools to accomplish this critical task.
Finally, it improves accountability by strengthening the enforcement
of the current law and imposing penalties on election officials who
violate the law by registering noncitizens to vote.
Now, the requirements for voter ID and proof of citizenship in
particular have been twisted and misrepresented. Let me set the record
straight. Federal law mandates that only U.S. citizens may vote.
However, under the Supreme Court's interpretation, voters are not
required to show proof of citizenship. The risk is clear.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, over 10 million
illegal immigrants entered our country during the last administration
and a total of at least 22 million noncitizens reside in the United
States. In 19 States, noncitizens can obtain a driver's license, and in
some cases, that driver's license automatically registers them to vote.
This is an unacceptable vulnerability in our election integrity. For
that reason, it is now incumbent on Congress to close the loophole. We
must secure the fundamental principle that voting is a right reserved
only for American citizens.
The SAVE America Act also requires voters to show a government ID
when casting a ballot. Now, I have heard some claim this is too high a
barrier. Let's be serious. We ask Americans to show an ID to buy a
beer, to board a plane, to donate blood, to apply for benefits, to even
get married, but when it comes to electing leaders who decide the
direction of our country, write our laws, and command our Armed Forces,
no ID is required. That is absolutely absurd.
Now, many on the left look at our electoral system and say: There is
nothing to see here, no issue, no problem. But that is what they said
about wide-open borders. That is what they said about censoring
conservatives online. That is what they said about the botched
Afghanistan withdrawal. That is what they said about President Biden's
cognitive decline. They were wrong on all those things, and they are
wrong on this, too, and they are out of step with the country.
Americans of all political persuasions have supported tighter
election laws for decades. In 2005, former President Jimmy Carter, a
Democrat, joined former Secretary of State Jim Baker, a Republican, to
form a Commission on election integrity. They identified voter ID laws
as the single most important reform that was needed--20 years ago.
A vast majority of the American people agree. As we see here on a
poll from the Pew Research Center, 95 percent of Republicans and 71
percent of Democrats polled all support voter ID. My friends, if an 80-
20 issue such as this cannot get 60 votes in this 100-person Chamber,
something is amiss.
Now, some of my colleagues have raised concerns regarding voter
suppression. They warn that many U.S. citizens do not have a hard copy
proving their citizenship. The SAVE America Act directly addresses this
concern. It puts in place alternate documentation options, State
verification processes, and other protections that will ensure citizens
are not disenfranchised.
I also hear some of my colleagues voice fears of Federal overreach.
As a conservative, I believe that the less government interference in
people's lives, the better. But the SAVE America Act does not
federalize our elections. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution
makes clear that while States determine the time, place, and manner of
Federal elections, the Congress ``may at any time by Law make or alter
such Regulations''; that is, we in the Congress, in this body, have the
constitutional authority to set certain rules of the road nationwide.
The SAVE America Act merely creates a mechanism to verify that State
elections comply with existing law.
Now, there are other electoral reforms that are also necessary and
critical, including Senator Hagerty's proposed Equal Representation
Act, which I am proud to cosponsor.
It ensures that the census does not count noncitizens when
determining congressional seats and electoral college votes.
Frankly, I worry. I worry that some on the left oppose the SAVE
America Act simply because they want to cheat by allowing noncitizens
to vote.
But, at the same time, and as always, for my Democratic colleagues in
this body--in the Senate--who oppose this bill, I trust that they are
acting in good faith. But I do ask them--I do ask them and all who
oppose the SAVE America Act, regardless of party--to consider the
extraordinary stakes.
We have the opportunity in this Congress to remove deep
vulnerabilities in our elections and to restore America's trust in this
core function of our Republic. I can think of few things more important
than that, and for that reason, I implore my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to join me in supporting the SAVE America Act.
And if not--and if not--I respectfully challenge you to explain to
the clear majority of your constituents why you believe our elections
are not in desperate need of repair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I actually want to thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania for bringing up what I think is a very important subject.
I am proud, as you are, coming from a State that had voter ID.
Senator McCormick, you wouldn't necessarily know this, but we passed
the first voter ID when I was speaker. I heard all of these arguments,
and they fall on deaf ears.
As a matter of fact, if you take a look at the Help America Vote Act
and other things, we can make it easy to vote. But we have to make it
hard to cheat.
Most people in America don't realize that we estimate about 20 to 25
million people are illegally present in this country. And you should
keep in mind that in each of the five last Presidential elections, the
margin of victory
[[Page S601]]
at the height was 9 million and at the low point was 2 million.
So when we say that illegally present people who are able to vote can
actually change the outcome of elections, it is not theoretical. It is
proven by the math.
So I appreciate your comments.
Federal Reserve
Mr. President, I am here to talk about a different subject. It sort
of relates to the commentary that Senator Blackburn spoke about but
only with a little bit different twist.
You see, I think that prosecuting--vindictive prosecution--is wrong,
period. Whether the administration is a Democrat or a Republican,
vindictive prosecution is wrong, period.
What we are on the brink of with respect to the Chair of the Federal
Reserve is the pot calling the kettle black. We can't come here and
talk appropriately about the Arctic Frost investigation, we can't talk
about the various prosecutions under the Obama era and the Biden era as
being bad if we actually condone what I believe, in many cases, are the
same sorts of behavior today.
I am a Republican. I voted for President Trump. I support the vast
majority of what President Trump is doing. But I think we have a trend
here that makes us no better than the people that some of my colleagues
are coming down to the floor and criticizing.
At some point, one of the two parties has to stand on principle and
end this cycle or it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse.
Let me give you an example of where I think it is getting bad.
On a Sunday night, about a month or so ago, I saw a report that the
Chair of the Fed Board Jerome Powell was being investigated by the DOJ.
We all know the President's frustration with Chair Powell. I have got
some frustration with him too. I am an armchair quarterback. There are
certain things I didn't like him doing, but I never thought of him as a
criminal.
But I find out, on a Sunday night, that we have somebody in the
bowels of the DC District of the U.S. attorney--an assistant U.S.
attorney--who has decided to pursue an investigation and seek an
indictment of prosecution against 2 minutes of testimony in the Banking
hearing that I attended. I not only attended that Banking hearing, but
several of my colleagues did too.
Mr. President, as a matter of fact, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the comments from seven of my colleagues on the
Banking Committee.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senate Banking Committee Republican Member Statements on Powell DOJ
Inquiry
Senator Tim Scott:
``I found him to be inept at doing his job, but ineptness
or being incompetent is not a criminal act . . . I do not
believe that he committed a crime during the hearing.''
--Interview with Fox Business, 2/4/26
Senator Mike Crapo:
``I'd like to see this resolved as quickly as possible,''
adding that it's important for the Fed to remain ``free of
political influence.''
--MS Now article, 1/12/26
Senator John Kennedy:
``We need this like we need a hole in the head,'' quipped
Senator John Kennedy, also on the banking committee.''
--Reuters article, 1/12/26
``Kennedy said he'd be ``stunned'' if Powell had done
anything wrong and predicted litigation between the Fed and
the administration will raise interest rates.''
--Semafor article, 1/12/26
Senator Cynthia Lummis:
``Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of Powell's more strident
critics usually, on Monday said the Justice Department's use
of a criminal statute looked like a ``heavy lift'' and that
she did not see any criminal intent.''
--Reuters article, 1/12/26
Senator Kevin Cramer:
``I do not believe however, he is a criminal. I hope this
criminal investigation can be put to rest quickly along with
the remainder of Jerome Powell's term. We need to restore
confidence in the Fed.''
--NOTUS article, 1/12/26
Senator Dave McCormick:
``I believe strongly in an independent Federal Reserve,''
he said. ``I also agree with President Trump that Chairman
Powell has been slow to cut interest rates. I think the
Federal Reserve renovation may well have wasted taxpayer
dollars, but the proper place to fix this is through
Congressional oversight. I do not think Chairman Powell is
guilty of criminal activity.''
--NOTUS article, 1/12/26
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, what this document does, and the reason I
thought it was important to put it in the Record, is we have got--let's
see--one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, including me, who have
said that we don't think a crime was committed. We are on the Banking
Committee. We are the majority of the Republicans on the Banking
Committee.
I am an old man. So I like watching ``Forensic Files.'' I don't know
if young people watch it, but I have been watching it for like 20 or 30
years. I can imagine this being the opening of a ``Forensic File.''
Normally, it is about a perpetrator, and something bad happened. The
prosecutor is going after them because they have the eyewitnesses.
Well, this ``Forensic File'' opens like this: All of the witnesses at
the scene of the crime said no crime was committed, right down the
line. In fact, they have even submitted printed evidence. Yet the
prosecutor thinks otherwise.
I don't think that would be a very interesting ``Forensic Files''
because what it says is no crime got committed.
Now, can we talk about whether or not there was an overrun in the
building? There may have been. But I don't know if everybody is paying
attention, but that happens a lot in government. If we are going to
actually accuse someone of criminal behavior because of a project
overrun in Federal Government, we had better start budgeting a lot more
for prisons because that is the norm here.
I hate it because I came from a world where you lost your job if you
went over budget and over time. But that is just a part of the way this
place works.
Two minutes of testimony, seven members in the Banking Committee,
present on that day, saying that they do not believe there was criminal
intent sends a very clear message to a young U.S. attorney with a dream
in the DC District: Why don't you come talk to people who were at the
alleged scene of the crime?
We said we do not believe there was any criminal intent--2 minutes.
Mr. President, as a matter of fact, the other thing, if I could ask
unanimous consent to have another two pages printed in the Record,
which are some of the allegations that were being quoted from a press
report that are patently wrong.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hearing Excerpt
Senator Rounds:
Would you take a few minutes, please, and explain what's
going on with the value of that building and why the costs
seem to be so exorbitant?
Chair Powell:
I would just point out that there's no VIP dining room,
there's no new marble. We took down the old marble and are
putting it back up. We will have to use new marble where some
of the old marble broke, but there are no special elevators.
They are old elevators that have been there. There are no new
water features. There are no beehives and there are no roof
terrace gardens. All of the sort of inflammatory things that
the media carried are either not in the current plan or are
simply inaccurate.
Hearing Topics (June 25, 2025)
Powell Written Responses (July 14, 2025)
VIP Elevator
There is no VIP elevator. The original elevators are being
rehabilitated, including an elevator that services historic
conference rooms that are also used for mealtime meetings.
There are no elevators where access is limited to governors.
Water Features
The Board's initial design included new water features for
1951 Constitution Avenue, but they have been eliminated.
Fountains that were original to the Eccles Building are being
restored.
Rooftop Garden Terrace
The term ``garden terrace'' in the 2021 submission refers
to the ground-level front lawn, which serves as the roof of
the parking structure beneath. Vegetated (green) roofs are
commonly used for stormwater management, building efficiency,
and roof longevity. Green roofs are found on other federal
government buildings, including the Department of Justice and
the Department of the Interior.
Marble
The buildings were originally constructed with marble
facades and stonework. The project has salvaged the original
exterior marble to be reinstalled and will use new domestic
marble where the original was damaged or where needed to
comply with historic preservation guidelines.
VIP Dining Rooms
No new VIP dining rooms are being constructed as part of
the project. The Eccles
[[Page S602]]
Building contains multi-purpose rooms used for mealtime
meetings, which are being renovated and preserved.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, this is a case where we had members on the
committee responding to news reports that were proven wrong.
Folks, I thought this was probably going to end this way, and it is
one of the reasons why I decided to invite myself to a tour when the
President went to this building to take a look at it.
I was there with the President. He was very kind, shook my hand, and
welcomed me to participate in this tour.
I saw nothing there. I saw a few things--frustration. You know, you
have got the historic commission and everybody else controlling the
state of the project. But I certainly didn't see any criminal activity.
I certainly didn't see any of these alleged rooftop garden terraces,
water features, VIP elevators, special marble. They had to take it down
and put it back up. Building in DC is complicated.
So almost all of the allegations were disproven. And yet we still
have a prosecutor that is trying to pursue a criminal prosecution of
the Chair of the Federal Reserve.
The night that it was announced, I made the statement that I will
take this allegation seriously. But I am concerned that it comes from
someone without consultation with Big DOJ. I don't think Pam Bondi or
any of the senior people in the DOJ knew anything about it. Without
consultation with the White House, they decided to pursue this
investigation.
So they put me in an untenable position. If I am quiet on that Sunday
night and don't say something, Monday morning, we may wake up to a very
different market. If, all of a sudden, the Federal Reserve, that since
its creation has been considered independent and separate from many
Presidents who have been angry with them--Democrats and Republicans
alike--I felt like, if I didn't put my foot down and say, ``No one is
going to fill that seat until this investigation is done,'' that we
could have literally had headlines across all financial markets that
the United States no longer has an independent Federal Reserve.
Unless you track it as closely as I have, in my current role as
Senator and in my past role as a partner at Pricewaterhouse, tracking
financial or banking institutions, you may not be able to appreciate
this. But, folks, this is real. The Federal Reserve is the gold
standard for central banks, and its independence is critically
important. It is critically important for us continuing to have the
gold standard for the economy, the gold standard for the rule of law.
We cannot allow some junior U.S. attorney--assistant U.S. attorney--
in some jurisdiction here, all of a sudden, to play with fire. They
didn't know what they were doing. They didn't look through the second-
and third-order effects, and, quite honestly, they exposed the
President in the process.
I find myself in a position where I want to reaffirm what I said very
directly on that Sunday night before the markets opened on Monday
morning: I will not allow any Board member for the Federal Reserve to
go through the Banking Committee for a Chair or for replacement of
expired terms until this matter is settled. I have no problem with us
having an investigation, like we should with so many other areas of the
government.
I would like to have oversight of the East Wing construction to make
sure that that stays on target and doesn't go over budget. I would like
to have oversight into the Qatari 747 as the new Air Force One--kind of
``Air Force lite'' because you can't take it out of the United States.
All of those are taxpayer dollars being spent, and we should have
visibility into that.
So count me in for doing an investigation for the comments on that
day. The 2 minutes of testimony, that is the only reason I am on the
floor today and refusing to allow a Fed Board member to be confirmed,
because I feel that strongly. As a matter of fact, it may take us to a
new low in terms of a vindictive prosecution. And if you think Arctic
Frost was bad, if you think some of the other investigations in the
Obama era were bad, ladies and gentlemen, we are setting a new low that
could make that look like child's play.
For that reason, until the investigation is resolved, I cannot and I
will not vote to support anyone on the Federal Reserve in my remaining
tenure in the U.S. Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Department of Homeland Security
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last month, I came to the floor after
the tragic killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and talked about what
had happened in my State.
Renee Good left behind three kids, including a 6-year-old. When she
was shot and killed by an ICE agent, her final words to the officer who
shot her were, ``I am not mad at you.''
Alex Pretti was a VA intensive care nurse and guardian angel who did
one of the most selfless jobs one could think of, caring for our
veterans, often in their final hours.
Last Saturday, I met with the workers who were on the shift that,
only 2 weeks before, was that same shift of workers that were on when
they found out that their coworker Alex had been killed.
His last words were to a woman who had been pushed down by Border
Patrol, and his last words were, ``Are you OK?''
His fellow workers at the VA recounted to me what a kindhearted
person he was, how every patient felt like they were the only patient.
Other family members of patients had remarked about that too.
The coworkers told me how he was the kind of guy who would fill in on
the shifts when someone had a family emergency or just needed time off,
and he would fill in for them on their shift, including that Saturday
morning shift.
Both Renee and Alex should be alive today, and as we honor their
memories, I am on the floor again today following the administration's
announcement of its plan to finally end Operation Metro Surge and drawn
down the thousands of federalized agents that aren't just in
Minneapolis or St. Paul--that, actually, I don't think people quite
understand. They are all over our State. They are in the suburbs. They
are in small towns.
The number of calls that we get--my office is handling hundreds and
hundreds of cases right now, but the cases of just someone who is in
the store and gets stopped because they are someone of color or the
videos of two White friends with one Latino friend, and it is the
Latino they would go up to and say, ``Are you legal?'' And the Latino
says, ``Yes, I am,'' and they still throw them in the car, maybe
because they could get a bounty. The number of people that were stopped
multiple times, the Somali police officers who are off duty that were
taken out of their car.
The stories go on and on. You can't have 3,000 ICE agents in a metro
area. And, again, they also went rural in a big, big way, but in a
metro area, where they outnumber the number of sworn police officers in
our 10 biggest police departments, which includes Minneapolis and St.
Paul, they were triple the number of sworn police officers in
Minneapolis and St. Paul.
But for more than 2 months, Minnesotans stood together. They stared
down ICE, and they never blinked. They marched--and I was there, 50,000
strong in 10 below zero weather--peacefully. And what I will never
forget is 50,000 people marching peacefully, filling up the entire
streets of Minneapolis peacefully, and then less than 12 hours, 24
hours later, 6 Border Patrol guys shot a guy with a cell phone in his
hand in the back. They couldn't handle that.
So ICE is withdrawing from Minnesota. It is good. We are glad they
are leaving our State, let me be clear. And when I talked to Director
Homan about 10 days ago, he said this was the timetable, and they must
follow through. He said they would first push out the Border Patrol
agents and send them home. And they did that in the number of a couple
hundred. And now they are bringing home the remaining Metro Surge ICE
agents to get to the original footprint.
But ICE withdrawing from Minnesota is just the beginning. We need
accountability for the lives lost and the extraordinary abuse of power
in the hands of these agents.
And we, of course, must see a complete overhaul of the Agency. And I
do not know how anyone can justify $75 billion extra dollars for this
Agency, making them bigger than the FBI,
[[Page S603]]
when that money could still--the remaining money--go to local law
enforcement. It could go to help people pay for their healthcare
premiums.
For months, ICE has made my State less safe. It is not just a
horrific shooting; we have also seen repeated violations of the
constitutional rights of the people of Minnesota. I do say to our
colleagues, if you believe in the First Amendment, in the right to
assemble, then show it. If you believe in the Second Amendment and that
Alex Pretti had a right to be a lawful gun owner--and it was the Border
Patrol agents that took his gun out of his holster, all he was holding
was a cell phone--then show it.
If you believe in the Fourth Amendment and the right against search
and seizure and that you can't have armed agents ramming through an
elder Hmong man's door, pulling him out in his underwear and throwing
him in a car, only to find out, after they drove him around for an
hour, that they had the wrong guy and that, in fact, the guy they were
going after had been in prison for years and that this Hmong man had
done nothing wrong and was the son of a beloved nurse that treated
American soldiers in Vietnam.
Those are the stories that people are never going to forget in my
State: a fourth grader from Columbia Heights and her mom detained by
ICE on the way to school; the little 5-year-old, little Liam, standing
there scared in his blue hat with floppy ears and his Spider-Man
backpack.
Those two kids, the fourth grader and Liam sent to Texas, and the
judge--they sent him to Texas without even waiting to see what the
court said. And then the court said: No, can't do that. And then they
had to bring him back from Texas in his little blue hat with the little
floppy ears.
This administration also sent a 2-year-old to Texas. My staff and
many other local lawmakers worked through the night on that case--came
back from Texas.
It should never have come to this. A court case was pending, and they
put a 2-year-old on a plane when her mom was waiting for her in
Minnesota.
These are just a few of the stories. As our local police have
repeatedly made clear in the cities and in the suburbs and in the rural
areas, ICE's actions have not made us safer. They have made us so much
less safe. They have taken taxpayer money--at some estimates, $18
million a week--and spent it on hotel rooms that should have been used
for families visiting from Wisconsin and Iowa and Canada that like to
go to the Mall of America in the middle of the winter.
Those hotel rooms should have been used by people in Greater
Minnesota that want to come in and go ice fishing or enjoy skiing in
our State. But instead we had 3,000 ICE agents in Bloomington, MN,
alone, our biggest suburb--1,000 ICE agents in their hotel rooms. Think
of how much money that is and all the overtime for the police officers
that could have been following up on child cases and could have been
helping on burglary cases and could have been helping citizens with the
trust that they have built over the years.
And that trust, so much on the line now, but kept intact because of
how those local police officers throughout our State and local sheriff
deputies have handled this travesty. This goes way beyond welcoming
help for violent offenders, which we would, or a fraud investigation--
way beyond all of that.
In fact, the opposite has happened because some highly experienced
prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, who have been
there through Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys and Democratic-
appointed U.S. attorneys, who lead and have led the cases on fraud, the
important cases to go after the stealing of taxpayer money, and brought
80-some cases already and won major convictions in court, those
prosecutors who are so well-respected in our State were asked to
investigate Renee Good's wife after she was gunned down. And they said:
No, we will not do that, and they stepped down.
It reminded me of the decorated war veteran in New York in their U.S.
Attorney's Office when asked to dismiss a case that had been rightfully
brought against then-Mayor Eric Adams. That prosecutor, who had clerked
for conservative Justices, a member of the Federalist Society, he said
in a letter to the Justice Department:
You may find a fool or a coward to file your motion, but it
will never be me.
That is what those assistant U.S. attorneys, including the former
acting head of the U.S. Attorney's Office that had been installed by
the Trump administration on my recommendation who did an incredible job
through the horrific assassination of former Speaker Melissa Hortman
and her husband and also was there at the side for the families when
those little children were gunned down through stained glass windows at
Annunciation Church--those are the people that they messed with and
asked them to do something they felt were unethical, and as a result,
all of the prosecutors that were heading up the righteous fraud
investigations and prosecutions are no longer in that office.
So you tell me how these actions have made our State more safe. It is
the opposite: School attendance down; families living in fear; people
staying home; restaurants and businesses feeling the impact; Operation
Metro Surge costing our Minnesota economy an estimated $80 million per
week, all for the shock and awe, where such a small percentage of the
people that they apprehended were involved in violent crime.
At its peak, one study showed that the surge cost Federal, State, and
local governments at least $18 million every single week. The fact is,
Operation Metro Surge put our State at the center of America's
heartbreak, but it also put us at the center of America's courage and
America's hope.
Every day across our State, people did extraordinary things. Ordinary
people did extraordinary things. They drove other kids to school. They
brought food to their neighbors. They showed up for small businesses.
Teachers and other school leaders stood up and protected their
students, organized food drives and computer drives.
Attorneys across our State at private law firms took ICE to court to
enforce people's constitutional rights. And judges appointed by
Presidents of both parties, including our conservative chief judge of
the Federal District Court of Minnesota issued opinions, and strongly
worded opinions, demanding that people come into court unless their
orders were followed.
Today, the administration's top border official Tom Homan announced
the end of Operation Surge and the drawdown of the 3,000 ICE agents--
again, triple the amount of sworn police officers in the combined
cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul--leaving only what he has called ``a
small footprint.''
He has been straightforward with me since he arrived on the ground in
Minnesota, straightforward with our chiefs, and we appreciate that. But
we must be vigilant in making sure there is a real and thorough
drawdown. We need transparent, objective investigations and justice for
Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the many others who had their rights
violated by this administration.
There must--must--be new leadership at the Department of Homeland
Security, and Kristi Noem must resign. That is what you do with $75
billion? You put bounties on legal citizens? You break out windows of
people with disabilities who are born in this country and drag them to
a detention center? That is what you do with $75 billion of taxpayer
money?
You take Hmong elders and throw them out of their house in their
underwear with their Crocs on their feet in below-zero weather and
throw them into a car? You stop off-duty police officers just because
they are not White? That is what you do with $75 billion? So that is
why she must step down.
And there must be major reforms to immigration enforcement, including
a complete overhaul of this Agency. Americans want Federal agents to
abide by the same code of conduct as local law enforcement and be held
accountable when they don't. Americans want transparency. Federal
agents shouldn't be masked. They should be required to use body
cameras. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
We must end roving patrols. Federal agents should not enter private
property without a judicial warrant. We must end the bounty system that
incentivizes arrest without cause and has taken down numerous people,
multiple people, hundreds of people in our
[[Page S604]]
State that were legal, born in our State, have passports. They wouldn't
even listen to them when they told them as they threw them into a car.
We must protect sensitive locations, and the racial profiling must end.
Today, a number of our colleagues, including myself, voted against
continuing to fund ICE. Budget shows our values. That extra $75
billion, as I explained, triples the Agency's funding, giving it more
money than the FBI. That was wrong.
That money could have gone to local enforcement, Affordable Care Act
tax credits for 3 years, and $75 billion would have paid for everyone
in the country to get their tax credit extended to help them pay for
their premiums under the Affordable Care Act.
An occupying force was in our State. They tried to sow chaos and
fear, but Minnesota didn't take the bait. As Bruce Springsteen sings in
his new song ``The Streets of Minneapolis'':
Against smoke and rubber bullets
In the dawn's early light
Citizens stood for justice
Their voices ringin' through the night.
We have shown the world how to protect democracy and take care of our
neighbors, and we are going to continue to stand up for accountability,
for justice, for change.
And when people ask me: What can we do? Well, you do that. You
continue to stand up.
When people outside our State say: What can we do to help Minnesota?
Well, now, with ICE agents leaving--maybe you want to wait until the
weather warms up just a little--you can come and visit our great State.
You can fill up those hotel rooms that were taken over by ICE agents
and go visit incredible places in our State, where Prince got his
start.
You can go to First Avenue. You can go to the Mall of America. You
can go up north or down south in Minnesota and see the incredible bike
trails and beautiful places and Lake Superior, the most superior lake
of them all.
So that is what we want you to do. We want you to come to our State
and visit. We want you to invest in our State. We want you to start
businesses in our State. We want you to send your kids to school in our
State. We want people to come and work in our State because we have
shown the country and the world what we are all about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I want to set the stage for where we are
at this moment, what just happened. Republicans voted to move forward
on a bipartisan appropriations bill to fund the Department of Homeland
Security, which includes, among other things, ICE funding, TSA funding,
FEMA funding, and the Democrats voted no.
Now, that is not all. Right about now, there is a bus leaving. There
is a bus leaving the Capitol grounds and headed for an airport.
Democrats are on that bus who just voted to defund the paycheck of the
TSA agent making $40,000 a year, to hop on a plane, funded by your tax
dollars, to go to Munich, to go to Europe, and badmouth American
foreign policy. They will be sipping wine with the global elites,
telling them: Don't listen to President Trump. That is not who we are.
I have got news for you: The American people have weighed in, and
they did in November of 2024, and this new direction of foreign policy
is the ascendant view.
But outside of the foreign policy debate, just how offensive is it
that they voted to defund DHS and are going to fly transatlantic on the
taxpayer dime and trash talk America.
That won't get reported probably many places. The corrupt media
covers for the Democrats day in and day out around here. That is one of
the things I have learned in my 3 years in the Senate. The hypocrisy is
insane. That is where they are headed.
In a broader sense, where are we? For my Republican colleagues, I
hope you appreciate what this is, this moment, because this isn't some
isolated incident. This is a 10-year struggle for commonsense Americans
who have pushed back against a radical open borders policy that has
been pushed by the Democrats.
President Trump won in 2016 on a few issues, but the electrical cord
that began when he came down the escalator, that continues to this day,
is taking on illegal immigration and the forgotten men and women of
this country whose jobs were initially displaced when the failed
policies of the politicians of this town sent their jobs overseas--the
towns that I grew up in--and then when they were looking for new jobs,
their wages were suppressed, and their jobs went to illegal immigrants.
The Democrats have never understood that. They have never understood
that Americans were upset about that.
Then for the 4 years previous to this, Joe Biden's term, Joe Biden
let in 15 million--million--people. One million is a lot of people.
Five million is a lot of people. Fifteen million people came into this
country illegally. We don't know who most of them are. We don't even
know where they are. What we do know is that literally tens of
thousands of them are murderers; hundreds of thousands of them are
violent criminals.
The left has tried to destroy this country through this open borders
policy because we are all citizens of the world. Borders are just
arbitrary lines on a map. That is where the modern Democrat Party is.
They don't actually believe that America, as a sovereign country,
should be able to tell people who can come and who has to leave.
So that is what this whole thing is about. It isn't about Minnesota
or some recent event; this is about the Democrats failing to accept the
verdict from the American people--that they sent President Trump back
into the Oval Office to fix mass migration, to take on mass migration
with mass deportations.
Regardless of the antics that happened here today on their ``no''
vote and flying with the globalists in Europe, it will not change that
agenda. It is happening whether you like it or not.
Thank God we front-loaded in the Working Families Tax Cut money for
deportations and tens of billions for detention centers. Two hundred
thousand Americans have applied to be ICE agents because they love this
great country, and they don't want it destroyed.
This is another hissy fit along the way by the Democrats who refuse
to accept the political reality that they lost on this issue. So as far
as I am concerned, we can spend the next year debating this on this
floor. This is a home game for Republicans. But what you are doing to
the American people, what you are doing to FEMA, what you are doing to
the people who rely on their communities to be rebuilt, the TSA agents
that go to work every day, the Coast Guard, is shameful.
Joe Biden opened up our border. It is literally unprecedented in
American history that a President would say: We are not going to
enforce our immigration laws. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama deported
millions of people.
This is an effort by the Democrats--this debate--to kneecap
immigration enforcement, to kneecap ICE. They lost the issue on the
front end of the election. Now they want to make it so hard for ICE to
do their jobs that deportations come to a halt. That is the truth, and
anybody in this town who tells you otherwise is just spinning.
They don't want people deported because they are importing a voter
base that they think will give them power. They are not even hiding
behind this anymore. They have lost the argument with American
citizens, and they think that if they flood this country with illegal
immigrants--and by the way, you shouldn't have to prove you are an
American citizen to vote. That is their position. You shouldn't have to
show photo ID, which is broadly supported even among Democrat voters.
Why? Why would they do that? Even though their voters don't want that,
even though their voters want photo ID to be established when you vote,
why would they be opposed to that? Because they want people who
shouldn't be able to vote--illegal immigrants or fraudsters--to vote
for them. That is the truth.
So we have now the most secure border in the history of our country,
and we are trying to execute on the immigration laws that we have on
the books that have been voted for by Republicans and Democrats alike,
and Presidents of both parties have enforced those laws.
This is about the 21-point plan. If you think it is such a good idea,
put that 21-point plan on the floor, and let's
[[Page S605]]
vote on it. They won't do it because they will lose. They know what it
does. It ties up ICE's ability--which, by the way, they already have to
abide by due process. There are already warrants. They know all this.
They want to confuse the issue--mostly because they believe in open
borders but also because this Trump derangement syndrome is really a
hard thing to kick, a really difficult thing for them to kick.
We heard people being talked about here on the Senate floor. I want
to mention a few names that no Democrat will ever utter: Laken Riley,
Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, Kayla Hamilton. These are American
daughters, American sisters who were murdered by illegal aliens.
By the way, Laken Riley's murderer wasn't a previously convicted
violent criminal. So if that is your test of who should be deported, it
didn't help Laken Riley's family.
My priority--and the reason why I have been on this floor so many
times about this issue--my priority is for Americans. Our immigration
laws are put in place for one reason: to benefit America and Americans.
The rhetoric that has come from the left on this and my Democrat
colleagues--we talk about, why was Minnesota a flashpoint? It is the
sanctuary city status, the nine sanctuary jurisdictions in this
country. In them, ICE agents are 590 times more likely to be assaulted.
Since January of last year, there has been a 1,347-percent increase in
assaults against ICE officers, a 3,200-percent increase in vehicular
attacks. And don't tell me Tim Walz doesn't have something to do with
that, and don't tell me that Mayor Frey doesn't have something to do
with that, with the rhetoric. Even Senators on this floor, you know,
called it Trump's secret police and the gestapo and Nazis. Knock it
off. I hope you know better, but some people are actually listening to
you. You have created conditions where confrontations are more likely.
There are deportations happening all over this country, in red States
and blue States alike. You don't see what you see in sanctuary
jurisdictions because they are cooperating.
Let's be clear what sanctuary status really means to the American
people, OK? Local authorities will not tell ICE agents when illegal
alien rapists are being let out of prison. That is what it means
practically. They hate Donald Trump so much and they believe in open
borders so much or they want new voters in this country for them so
much, they crave for power so much that they are willing to let an
illegal immigrant rapist back out on the streets.
A murderer. A burglar. Nope, we are not telling you. And oh, by the
way, we are not going to send 9-1-1 to help you if you have a problem.
This is insane.
So to my Republican colleagues, let's put all of those issues in
front of the American people. I am not afraid of this debate at all.
Bring it on.
What is sad is that the Democrats continue to play the Ole game here.
They negotiate a deal, and then they hold it up. We saw this with the
longest government shutdown in American history just a couple months
ago, and now here we are again with DHS funding. Meanwhile, they are
sipping wine and eating caviar in Europe. I went to Munich last year.
It is also worth pointing out, by the way, that 2 years ago almost to
the day, we were here. Those of us who thought that ``bipartisan
immigration plan'' was terrible--and it was, which is why it fell
apart; it made illegal immigration easier--we had to hold the floor all
weekend long--in a bipartisan affair, by the way--to get Ukraine
funding done in time for Chuck Schumer to deliver $60 billion to
Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference.
What I have learned in 3 years here is that the Munich Security
Conference for Democrats is like the Super Bowl. This draw to
commiserate with fellow Wilsonians is a powerful drug. I don't know why
in the world Democrats get to vote no on this and fly to Munich.
If the American people had any idea what went on in this town, they
would be way more upset than they are right now. They expect us to come
up here and to work on their behalf, for Americans, for the American
people, for Laken Riley's family, for Kayla Hamilton, who was autistic,
who was raped and murdered in her apartment for the $3 that she had on
her so an illegal immigrant could go to Target with his buddy and spend
the 3 bucks.
Why don't we hear about those stories? Because it is not convenient
to the narrative.
That is what we are fighting against and who we are fighting for--
that is who I am fighting for--and if it were up to me, we would be on
this floor every single day fighting for Kayla Hamilton, fighting for
Laken Riley, and for the countless other daughters of this country who
have been raped and murdered by illegal immigrants.
Todd Lyons, earlier today, testified--OK, just to tell you how sick
this is--that in Colorado, ICE wanted to perform an operation in
Colorado to deport illegal alien Tren de Aragua gang members from an
apartment complex. So they tried to work with the local authorities in
that sanctuary State. Guess what happened. Protesters were there, but
the illegal immigrant gang members were all gone. They had been tipped
off.
I actually can't believe this is happening in my country. I can't
believe somebody's instinct with this crazy, suicidal empathy would be
to protect an illegal immigrant gang member who could very easily and
has--there are some dangerous people--murdered a family member and
terrorized a community. They would rather tip them off than to have
them deported. These are the facts.
So what should we do?
Here is what I think: I think it is actually an opportunity for us to
strengthen our immigration laws. The Democrats want to kneecap ICE. I
have submitted the Protect America Act for debate. It would do four
things:
One, it would end sanctuary city status for good.
Two, it would increase penalties for illegal entry and illegal
reentry. A lot of these crimes are being committed by people who have
been deported and they come back. That has happened.
By the way, if you come here illegally, I think you ought to have
jail time. As a former prosecutor as the attorney general of Missouri,
I can tell you that people responded to incentives. They knew when we
had a partnership with Federal prosecutors in St. Louis that, if they
were being busted for a Federal crime, they were going to jail. If it
were a State crime and if Kim Gardner--the Soros-funded prosecutor in
St. Louis at the time--were handling the case, they literally would
laugh in the back seat of the cop car because they knew they would be
out later that day.
No more catch and release. If we are serious about it, no more catch-
and-release. It is over.
Three, if you assault an ICE officer, we are increasing those
penalties too. Protest all you want--for God's sake, this is America,
and we have different points of view--but you don't get to interfere in
the operations of Federal law enforcement. Even if you really believe
you are wearing the white hat, you don't get to do that.
Fourth, as for this NGO network that has been created and that is
fomenting this vitriol and the operations that are putting ICE officers
and citizens at risk, they need to lose their nonprofit status.
So, if we are serious about the problem, that is what we will do. But
I will tell you what we are not going to do: We are not succumbing no
matter how long it takes--if it is one day. Let's just say my Democrat
friends come back from Munich and they feel really good about
themselves because a bunch of European elites has told them all the
things they want to hear and vice versa. We are not coming back here
and going to make it harder for ICE to do their jobs. We are not doing
it. I will do everything in my power--and I know a lot of other folks
on my side of the aisle will do it too--to prevent that from ever
happening because the American people saw what a disaster it was to
have Democrats in charge of this country. We had a secure border. Joe
Biden literally unsecured that border on day one, and we had 15 million
people come here illegally.
We are not going back. The American people saw that. They voted for
President Trump. He was very clear about it. This wasn't a footnote in
his campaign. This was a central theme. You may not like it, but that
is what our Republic is about.
For all the talk of saving democracy and sticking up for democracy I
hear from the other side, it is all nonsense.
[[Page S606]]
If they actually believed that, they would respect the fact that the
American people voted for this, that they voted for deportations. I
know that in the ``woke'' left world, that is a dirty word. It is not
where I come from, not in Missouri. People believe in common sense.
They don't think you should get to break the law like that and get away
with it.
So I don't know when--you know, I guess we will be back here in a
week or something, but the reality is not going to change no matter how
much Chuck Schumer tries to villainize ICE agents. No matter how many
times I hear my colleagues from the other side try to stir up people,
it will not change this very basic reality: We have front-loaded money
for deportations, and those deportations will continue, and there is
nothing you can do about it.
Now, if you want to make a proposal to stop that, put it on the
floor. You will lose, but I want them to know and also my colleagues
that I am 100-percent committed to this. It is central to the idea of
being a sovereign country. No sane country in the history of the world
would do this. By the way, in speaking of heading over to Europe, ask
them how mass migration is working out for them. They have done it, and
it isn't working.
So, if you have got any advice coming back from that side of the
Atlantic, I am not really interested on this topic or on censorship.
Maybe you can deliver the message that they ought to step up for their
own defense of their own continent in a more meaningful way. Now, that
might not make you popular over there, but that is the message that I
delivered when I went over last year.
But as it relates to illegal immigration, the deportations will
continue, and I hope the American people understand that the people who
just voted to defund ICE are sipping champagne in Europe, bad-mouthing
the United States of America's foreign policy. That is who they are.
That is the reality.
This debate will continue. But as far as I am concerned, Republicans,
we should be playing offense here. Let's strengthen our immigration
laws. Let's treat this as seriously of a problem for our country as it
really is.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from Missouri.
____________________